Call to Action #2: November 30 Balance Testing - Page 26

On December 01 2012 05:48 Salteador Neo wrote:


Yep that's a big factor too.

Infestors being OP is part of the game being solved so fast IMO. I mean just look at the evolution of the game in the last year, after all early to mid game strategies got nerfed to the ground. Every protoss attack is an allin, even when on 3 bases. We see valuable ghost, thor, raven or BC play in 1/10 games at most. The most innovative thing by zerg I've seen was Leenock stutter stepping hydras against Infested Terrans xD

In BW we had surprising shit and new strats even after 10+ years in it.

On December 01 2012 05:35 TrippSC2 wrote:

I'm sure they have access to the numbers you're talking about. You can only take educated guesses about their meaning, but that's all. A mathematician can't tell you what the numbers mean, only present the numbers.

On November 30 2012 21:57 Rabiator wrote:

Yes ... its testing the patience of the community with that inept bunch of devs. IF they wanted to do real tests they should start with REAL changes like nerfing the range for Infestor abilities to 6-7 or increasing the range of the Seeker Missile trigger to 9 or lowering the energy required to 100 ... but not with this bunch of shit.

On December 01 2012 05:52 Hider wrote:


I think the game was going to be "solved" anyway. BW took longer time to solve as there were no replay sharing for a long time, competitive RTS was new etc.

I agree that if the game was better designed viewers would probably be a couple of thousands higher, but some people still lose interest over time, it's unavoidable with the current business model of Sc2.

On December 01 2012 06:16 s3rp wrote:
Would anybody explain why Eggs have double the HP of IT's in the first place? You can spam so many of them anyway why do they need more HP then IT's themselves ?.

On December 01 2012 06:18 Hider wrote:


so they don't die quickly... doh....

On December 01 2012 06:17 LuckoftheIrish wrote:
There are a lot of people who won't be satisfied unless the Infestor is removed from the game.

On December 01 2012 05:50 Hider wrote:


Well I think Blizzard should look at several metrics.

Then could of course design a high-level tournament win rate metric and weight it according to the signifcance of the results and for how important they believe it is.

But logically, why would there by any signifcant difference between top-top level and GM results on the ladder? (I know there is one argument which states that people play different on the ladder than tournament but that is not really relevant here as it probably is the similar for all three races).
Sure there are also players who are bad at tournamaents/good at ladder, but again, on average we expect this to even out.

In the end, I just think GM results on the ladder is a more important metric than high level tournament play which suffers from low sample sizes and could be biased due to many korean terrans being invited and few korean toss's/korean zerg's (over a large sample size this would probably be evened out as well, but this just leads to very volatile).

So I guess we can't just look at this tournmanet metric quantiatively. We have to combine it with a qualitive analysis which Blizzard also do, but this is a very difficult task for a small team, and honestly I don't think they are doing a particular good job (though they aren't awfull either - the game is still somewhat balanced, but due to design flaws of the game it makes it difficult to balance the infestor etc.).

Also, I dont agree that it's completely irrelevant that the game is balanced at master level/diamond level etc. Sure top level play should have highest priority, but balance matters for the playing experience and if players are unsatifised they could stop watching the game --> killing esports etc.