[Now live] New Patch - Warp Prism buff - Page 47

On June 25 2013 05:53 aldochillbro wrote:
^ why did shrewms post get warned? that's the funniest shit i've seen on this forum.

On June 24 2013 20:47 Cereb wrote:


I agree wholeheartedly with the first point of this post. People are ridiculously irrational when it comes to balance patches as if it actually mattered for their own play. I mean, I would mind it if I was actually trying to make money on this game, but I am not. I'm just trying to be the best that I can with the tools that I have. Now some of the tools change but that doesn't change my goal of being as good as possible with the tools I am given. Even if you want to discuss balance, you could just do it in a careless and objective matter as if it only actually affects the pro players, which is true.

I wonder if it could help if Blizzard (or rather SC2ranks actually) would make a ladder for each race just like Company of Heroes. This way, you could measure your progress in relation to your own race, and therefore balance changes wouldn't have any impact on the ladder rank of your own race. I'm not saying it would solve the problem but it could help, and it would be kind of cool and fun to see.

However, I would just like to add that there is nothing in your post that suggests that you are any less biased than the very people you complain about. The use of several words in CAPS and the harsh wording against the other posters whose opinion differ from yours doesn't exactly reek of objectivity and open-mindedness, in my humble opinion.

On June 24 2013 13:02 Plansix wrote:
If I have learned anything from this thread it is that balance is not something to be discussed. It is to be viewed from afar and judged. But discussion on the subject just degrades down into unreasonable madness.

On June 25 2013 19:16 BronzeKnee wrote:


It can be discussed, but only by people who are able to not bring their own personal bias in. Too many people use balance discussion to further their own goals (ie win more games) rather than to work at balancing the game. You see it in this thread. Any kind of real balance discussion requires incredibly strict moderation as any claims have to have significant evidence, and guidelines or rules for the discussion need to be laid out. Otherwise you end up with what we have here, or even worse, what happens on the Blizzard forums.

Thankfully, we have things like Aligulac and other statistics. These shows us potential balance problems in matchups (that are otherwise denied by people with a personal bias) and provide evidence for discussion. But then you have the people who question or belittle statistics (again because they have a personal bias), and you spend more time discussing the validity of statistics... pretty much every thread that shares statistics related to balance ends up in that realm on this forum.

You're probably right in the end... it can't be done on a public forum.

On June 25 2013 19:58 scypio wrote:


Watching and playing Starcraft 2 is a personal experience. It is up to the person playing or watching the game to point out the things that are important to him/her. And balance changes affect this experience.

People can (and will) point fingers at other things than the aligulac stats. It is perfectly reasonable.

"Statistically balanced" is not - and will never be - the only or ultimate argument. Deal with it.

On June 25 2013 21:43 Mura19 wrote:
Buff is so minor , that just so ridicoulous,,, Zerg got +40 pop more than Protoss early game and got like 70 drones and Blizzard only buff the warprism? Are you serious Blizzard??

On June 25 2013 22:11 syno wrote:

Can't really tell if you're trolling or not.

If not, come on, be a little bit thankful atleast.
And if Z has +40 supply more than you in the early game, you're doing something wrong.

On June 25 2013 22:53 Mura19 wrote:
I mean in Proleague when zerg got around 180 pop, Protoss got like 140 or 150 pop max in standard game...

On June 25 2013 22:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:


It took the immediate post for someone to argue against math.

Good job TL, keep it classy.

On June 26 2013 00:08 scypio wrote:


If you want a balanced game then play coinflip - it is perfectly balanced. If you want more you have to also consider other factors. Starcraft is not pure math.

On June 26 2013 00:21 Big J wrote:


Well, I agree with you, but still balance is first and formost winrates. Sure, if the best player in the world happens to play and keeps on dominating and noother Zerg can reproduce his results we probably just have to consider him to be better.
If however every Zerg in Code S has 60% winrate vs Terran for some months, then we probably have a balance problem and shouldn't discard that as "winrates mean nothing, every Zerg these days is simply a v beast. Look, some Terran somewhere won a tournament against Zergs."

Statistically balanced is very simply the by far best indicator for balance we have. Things like "composition XY is unbeatable for race Z at timing T" is not, because 99% of those issues simply can be prevented by playing a certain way.

On June 26 2013 00:08 scypio wrote:


If you want a balanced game then play coinflip - it is perfectly balanced. If you want more you have to also consider other factors. Starcraft is not pure math.

On June 26 2013 01:02 willstertben wrote:


but coin flip isn't balanced.
it's like 51/49 towards the side which was up when the coin was thrown. look it up.

On June 25 2013 23:59 Big J wrote:


that's true, but that doesn't mean anything. Supply is not generally a good measure for the state of a match. And what you bring up is the perfect example, why this is not a good measure.
Why?

Zealot cost: 100/0/2 --> 50/0 per supply
Sentry cost: 50/100/2 --> 25/50 per supply
Stalker cost: 125/50/2 --> 62.5/25 per supply

versus


Zergling cost: 25/0/0.5 --> 50/0 per supply
Roach cost: 75/25/2 --> 37.5/12.5 per supply
Queen cost: 150/0/2 --> 75/0 per supply

In words: A standard stalker/sentry/tech heavy Protoss has much less supply on the field for the same money than a standard slowteching zerg that relies on zergling/roach/queen. If the Protoss invests into techunits like phoenix, immortal, colossus, void ray this relation gets even more onesided. However that does not mean that a Protoss army is weaker per se. E.g 1stalker beats 1roach, so the 2Protoss supply are better than the 2Zerg supply in that case.

However, if a zerg invests into upgrades/Hive or swarm hosts or mutas early in the midgame (like at 8-10mins), the supplies will usually be much closer. Because then the zerg also relies on units with a higher cost/supply ratio.

Similar effects are also true in PvT (like those 3base maxed MMM+SCV timings against a 160 supply Protoss with heavytech reliance - Colossi and Templar and Upgrades), TvZ (a 3CC opening usually leads to a 10-20 supply lead around 11-12mins for the Terran due to the cheap marine/mine/hellion combo compared to the expensive baneling/mutalisks) and TvT biomech vs mech (Marine Marauder has a higher cost/supply relation than Tankheavy play).