EPTTalking Balance with David Kim - Page 65
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
dacimvrl
Vatican City State582 Posts
| ||
ooozer
Germany231 Posts
On May 01 2012 10:37 KungFuGhost wrote: To determine balance by going off of tournament wins and win ratios assumes that there is equal skill levels in each race, which quite frankly, is a far reach assumption. If all the best players play Terran, until they nerf them down so lesser players in other races have same ratio, is hardly balance, which is why starcraft 2 is very imbalanced atm. Yes, terran player are just better. We got it. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
Yeah I don't his is a valid argument either. If the Terran players *are* truly better, it doesn't matter, as most people would rather see 50% win ratio anyways across MU's *generally*. If it's a single player anomaly, that's a different story, but if there's multiple players dominating a race, then it should probably be "fixed" even if some "true" imbalance doesn't exist. | ||
|
zmansman17
United States2567 Posts
Given this disparity on an anecdotal level (my own), it may not have much significance. However, coupled with many other Rank 1-8 Master Terrans who also fail to win passed 20 in-game minutes, and have tracked a similar rate of failure on sc2gears, I'm guessing that this data exists within the released win rates per MU at least on our level, if not elsewhere. A few explanations of the win rates: Many of the weaker Terran players have left the race entirely and switched to Protoss or Zerg. The evidence of this is in the proportion of Terran players to their Zerg and Protoss counterparts in the GM and Master leagues within NA and EU. Terran players have dropped to 1/4 of the race selections. (In KR, the Korean Terrans are on another level, and yet their representation is only equal). Note that it is a possibility that the win rate of the remaining Terrans never changed, but the overall win rate of Terran simply increased from the reduction of the weaker Terran players. Thus, this is one explanation of relatively even win rates TvP. An alternative explanation of these win rates is that Terrans are opting for more All-in or Semi all-in mid game timings. Most good Terran players recognize that our Win % peters out as the game goes on, and so we go for timings when we have the greatest chance to win. A more thorough discussion on balance would occur when Win % of Races were determined per unit of time (0-3 minutes, 3-6 minutes, etc.) and also by League and Server. I feel that Terran has been pigeonholed into the Terran that we have today. All races should be able to perform relatively evenly at all points in the game, and the winner should be determined by the criterion of his skill, not overwhelmingly by the strength of a race at a certain point in time. If Blizzard finds that Terran has a disproportionate win rate from the 6-9 minute mark, but also a disproportionate loss ratio passed 20 minutes, then there should be adjustments made to weaken Terran at the 6-9 minute mark and strengthen Terran's late game options. I'll take another Rax/add-on timing nerf (given all of the implications) if it means Ravens get faster movement and HSM speed and something is done with BCs. | ||
|
Rumpus
United States136 Posts
On May 01 2012 12:15 zmansman17 wrote: Rank 1 master Terran here and I'm astounded DK would not address Late game TvP. I've kept track of my win % on sc2gears and passed 20 in-game minutes -- I have only won a single TvP this entire season. Given this disparity on an anecdotal level (my own), it may not have much significance. However, coupled with many other Rank 1-8 Master Terrans who also fail to win passed 20 in-game minutes, and have tracked a similar rate of failure on sc2gears, I'm guessing that this data exists within the released win rates per MU at least on our level, if not elsewhere. A few explanations of the win rates: Many of the weaker Terran players have left the race entirely and switched to Protoss or Zerg. The evidence of this is in the proportion of Terran players to their Zerg and Protoss counterparts in the GM and Master leagues within NA and EU. Terran players have dropped to 1/4 of the race selections. (In KR, the Korean Terrans are on another level, and yet their representation is only equal). Note that it is a possibility that the win rate of the remaining Terrans never changed, but the overall win rate of Terran simply increased from the reduction of the weaker Terran players. Thus, this is one explanation of relatively even win rates TvP. An alternative explanation of these win rates is that Terrans are opting for more All-in or Semi all-in mid game timings. Most good Terran players recognize that our Win % peters out as the game goes on, and so we go for timings when we have the greatest chance to win. A more thorough discussion on balance would occur when Win % of Races were determined per unit of time (0-3 minutes, 3-6 minutes, etc.) and also by League and Server. I feel that Terran has been pigeonholed into the Terran that we have today. All races should be able to perform relatively evenly at all points in the game, and the winner should be determined by the criterion of his skill, not overwhelmingly by the strength of a race at a certain point in time. If Blizzard finds that Terran has a disproportionate win rate from the 6-9 minute mark, but also a disproportionate loss ratio passed 20 minutes, then there should be adjustments made to weaken Terran at the 6-9 minute mark and strengthen Terran's late game options. I'll take another Rax/add-on timing nerf (given all of the implications) if it means Ravens get faster movement and HSM speed and something is done with BCs. Blizz gutted Terran because it is far easier to ruin a complete race than fix two completely fucked races. =/ | ||
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
| ||
|
JIJI_
United States123 Posts
| ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
On May 01 2012 12:21 Rumpus wrote: Blizz gutted Terran because it is far easier to ruin a complete race than fix two completely fucked races. =/ On the money. A game with 3 equally broken races is balanced. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 01 2012 07:34 keglu wrote: He didnt ever drop them he just run them up the ramp after first lost engagement. After that he had increasing eco advantage so even without cost effective engagmenets was able to win a game. You know, you can add hellions to bio comp if you want to rely on runbys to win a game He did drop. On May 01 2012 14:50 Zombo Joe wrote: On the money. A game with 3 equally broken races is balanced. Hahaha, in which way is Terran complete and the other races not? | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On May 01 2012 14:50 Zombo Joe wrote: On the money. A game with 3 equally broken races is balanced. Really depends on your definition of balance if each race super units in the late game counter each other races units . It is quite balance in my opinion . In the end no one can actually win unless the other player put's in more effort to ensure he doesn't lose his deathball composition and tries to minimized the damage and win with that composition. | ||
|
AlexanderDebois
Kyrgyzstan38 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:17 jdsowa wrote: The reason why a lot of T have trouble with lategame P is because their minds are stuck with this "bio"/"mech" dichotomy, as if both paths are perfectly viable through the lategame. Ask yourselves seriously, why should a relatively low-gas MMM build be viable against expensive gas-heavy T2 and T3 late game Toss deathball? There is no bio equivalent to the thor or the tank. There is no bio AOE option aside from EMP. If T started thinking more in terms of "OK, he has heavy tanky T2 and T3, I need heavy, tanky, AOE T2 and T3" then everyone would be better off. Protoss players truly need to stop advocating that terran transition into factory play later on in the game when they have no experience from the terran side of things. You don't seem to understand that factory units do not share upgrades with bio or air and, in addition, have no synergy with bio as mech must stand its ground versus toss while bio has to kite. If you mix these two different tactics all your expensive units are shredded while the bio contributes almost nothing (assuming you kite back) on the otherhand your bio will be quickly annihilated if you stand your ground and the more expensive units left without support to be overrun by the gateway horde. Mech is barely viable--some argue not viable at all--assuming you go full factory tech with ups etc the units are absolute trash when you add them into bio. The only semi viable transition for terran is bcs but that is impossible to reach on every map besides shakuras. | ||
|
Sm0ker
Romania27 Posts
How can people see balance issues in those statistics? And mostly terran is underplayed?  Race distribution on GOM Code A T14(34%) P15(38%) Z11(28%) Code S T15(47%) P10(31%) Z7(22%) | ||
|
hangene92
Canada258 Posts
| ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On May 01 2012 17:30 Sm0ker wrote: wow the Korean league is so precise lol. 50% w/L ratio on an entire server is something. How can people see balance issues in those statistics? And mostly terran is underplayed? Race distribution on GOM Code A T14(34%) P15(38%) Z11(28%) Code S T15(47%) P10(31%) Z7(22%) It is generally accepted that Koreans don't care for "good macro games" as much as foreigners do. Explaining a lot of what many people here have said about Terran late-game. When people refer to race distribution, I believe they are talking about ladder, not the highest calibre players (Code S and Code A) | ||
|
Yoduh
United States216 Posts
"hey guys, I play X race and have trouble with Y race against Z unit, what do i do?" community responds "scout better and/or play better, don't let them mass up that unit and counter it". typical SC2 balance thread: "hey guys, I play T race and have trouble with P race against HT unit, what do i do?" community responds "OMG P IS SO OVERPOWERED, T NEEDS BUFFS, DAVID KIM IS INCOMPETENT, STATISTICS ARE A LIE!!!" | ||
|
NexCa
Germany954 Posts
On May 01 2012 20:13 Yoduh wrote: typical SC2 strategy thread: "hey guys, I play X race and have trouble with Y race against Z unit, what do i do?" community responds "scout better and/or play better, don't let them mass up that unit and counter it". typical SC2 balance thread: "hey guys, I play T race and have trouble with P race against HT unit, what do i do?" community responds "OMG P IS SO OVERPOWERED, T NEEDS BUFFS, DAVID KIM IS INCOMPETENT, STATISTICS ARE A LIE!!!" good point actually, i think that the game itself is really good balanced at the moment (even tho i think Zerg is OP at the moment *insert trollface*) | ||
|
dacimvrl
Vatican City State582 Posts
the race YOU play | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3703 Posts
| ||
|
CuLane
United States160 Posts
On May 01 2012 12:15 zmansman17 wrote: Rank 1 master Terran here and I'm astounded DK would not address Late game TvP. I've kept track of my win % on sc2gears and passed 20 in-game minutes -- I have only won a single TvP this entire season. Given this disparity on an anecdotal level (my own), it may not have much significance. However, coupled with many other Rank 1-8 Master Terrans who also fail to win passed 20 in-game minutes, and have tracked a similar rate of failure on sc2gears, I'm guessing that this data exists within the released win rates per MU at least on our level, if not elsewhere. ... So you have roughly a 50% win-loss ratio as Terran v. Protoss, or the world does anyway, and your overall W/L approaches 50% because of the MMR... and you lose all but 1 after 20 minutes. I follow that this must be frustrating, however, it seems that protoss must therefore lose an astounding amount in the first 20 minutes which to me seems at least as frustrating, possibly more so. I understand your frustration with late-game protoss, it is rough, yet any balance discussion should be more inclusive than "buff my army." You should be advocating buffs to Protoss early game as well as Terran late game. | ||
| ||
