|
David should elucidate how the win percentages are counted, exactly. Without this knowledge it's really hard to judge the data.
|
Really interesting to see ladder statistics posted like this, I'm not sure if we've seen anything like this in a very long time. Of course, the ladder being ladder, it shouldn't be possible for any race to get a significant winrate advantage in any of the lower leagues since players who win too much will just get promoted. Player skill in the lower leagues is a hard thing to quanity, I guess.
As for potential changes: How would Protoss players feel about reverting the Oracle to pre-last patch? I've heard a few Protoss players comment that at present, Oracles mess up PvP as well. If Protoss needs a buff to compensate, couldn't you give Oracles higher speed later in the game, via an upgrade?
|
What?
That statistic's are completly wrong.. They dosnt make sence IN any way.. They should explain how diffrent those stats are compared to the REAL winrate..
I often check my fellow terran's winrate after i play them ( master/diamond) and i rarely see anyone whit over 50% winrate vs zergs.. and over 51% winrate for terrans? so the winrate have gone UP after the widow mine nerf? thats the dumbest thing ive read all day.
I think the balance team and DK should really really READ this short memo also
ITS 3 TIMES as hard to play terran than protoss. Last season i actually met a protoss whit 36 apm. yes you read right. 36. i had 200+ and the game lastet for 30 minutes. apm and eapm does not mean everything BUT HOW CAN anyone that is 4 x slower than the other player have any chance of actually winning? in progames everyone have 200+ apm..
I barely se protoss whit over 120+ apm in master league.. Those who actually have near my own apm are actually good and do use warp prism harass and other stuff. its totaly okay to lose to a good player.
also if you are in late game and have terran army against toss army, WHAT does the toss have to do actually? NOT gettin in a super concave and just storm as soon they see marines. i do rarely se mulitple unit hotkeys from protoss.. Terran have to target the colosus, snipe/emp templars, target archon aswell. would be nice to drop 3 places at once to.. and the most important part, we have to KITE, SPREAD UNITS. thats really really hard when time warp do NOT let you move out before storms are all over you. ..
IF you are way way better than the protoss, yeah you will win cause youre macro and micro are superior. if the skill are equal in everything. the toss will win EVERY TIME.
Also. i spend my minerals alle the time, i rarely have over 1k minerals.. and after a fight, EVEN if i win a fight against zerg or protoss, they can resupply so damn fast its not even funny. tvz= equal trade, and you can make what? 10 marines, 1 marduer 2 viking, at the same time? while zerg ban actually make the whole army again whitin the same time frame?
Protoss can warp in ANYwhere on the map, so as terran you actually have to have TOTALT map control in order to not be harassed.. i always have turret + bunker now at my fourth/fifth.
ONE more thing that have to be looked at. WHY is the winrate close to 50% according to blizzard?
My thought is that MANY terrans change race or quit due to frustration. which let ONLY the best terrans remain, those who are superior in skill, those who win50%.. Its a reason its so few terrans in master and grandmaster. cause its god damn hard to play and you have to use 5 x time to train on it than the other races... THats why you se korean terrans doin well, while non korean terrans are actually freewin in any big tournaments.
NON KOREAN GSL PLAYERS? protoss and zergs. naniwa beats jaedong, diamaga beats flash? scarlett beats korean terrans?
do you ever se empirehappy, lucifron win roro, sos or any top korean player? NO YOU DO NOT.
and to my fellow terrans, Dont give up! the game will hopefully get balanced in LOTV
EDIT: Would also like to add that terran have to actually prepare for ANY all in by protoss, which is hard to scout when a stalker or 2 pokes you and marines are useless against a stalker who just micro's: ebay against oracel? turret against dt? MANY bunkers against blink all in. IMORTAL bust, not eeven 5-6 bunkers are enough. 4gate, 2gate blink. etc etc.. but the worst part if. IF YOU actually are so good and HOLD this all ins, you are stil behind cause losing scv, units etc while protoss can probe up and have free nexus canon deffence.. so counter attack do not work as well:/
|
they might want to let blinding cloud hit air units. most air units take no micro at all, with banshee being the notable exception. would be cool if they had to move out of the clouds.
|
Terran players seriously overrate the difficulty of playing their own "master race". Sorry, but SjoW and Avilo are doing worse with Protoss than Minigun is with Terran. Not saying Protoss is the harder race, I think Terrran is harder overall but get down off your high horse will you?
Edit: MicroLife just posted the most retarded post I have ever seen. So congrats on that. Name one protoss other than Naniwa that beats Koreans. And Naniwa has beaten Koreans since 2011. Dimaga beat Flash with off-beat strats and Scarlett has the mechanics of Koreans. Jesus.
|
On January 10 2014 18:01 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 14:56 dcemuser wrote:On January 10 2014 14:37 aZealot wrote:On January 10 2014 14:24 stuchiu wrote:On January 10 2014 14:15 Roman666 wrote:On January 10 2014 14:06 stuchiu wrote:On January 10 2014 13:25 Plansix wrote:On January 10 2014 13:22 itsjustatank wrote:On January 10 2014 13:20 Plansix wrote:On January 10 2014 13:16 itsjustatank wrote:
[quote]
Here's the thing though: all they do is present win-rates, and they already break down the win-rates by tier. Ignoring or weighting data based on their stated filters in this context is only done assuming you want to shape the data to your advantage. That assumes that your goal is to mislead the people you are presenting the data to, which David and Blizzard have almost no reason to do. In fact, they have numerous reasons to provide us with the most accurate information possible. Unless you believe that DKim is trying to mislead us and sell us on the idea that the game is balance when he knows that one race is over powers. I question all use of statistics, and it leads me to question people's motives when I sense bad methodology. I don't make the assumption that all data and interpretations of data presented to me are kosher, precisely because I know how easy it is to shape any data set to say whatever it is I want it to say and phrase it in such a way that few people will question it. Ok, but I am going to ask you the same question, why would they do that? You don't just imply that their data is incorrectly gathered, but they do so with purpose with the intent to mislead. Do you really think they want an imbalanced game? I don't really see any good reason for them to "cook the numbers" to make the game appear balanced. I don't think they would purposely mislead anyone. But it's easy to mislead yourself into just looking at the numbers. There was a reason BL/infestor wasn't touched for the last 6-8 months of WoL and it was because the numbers were balanced. It's easy to mislead yourself into thinking winrates are the problem rather than the design or function of the matchups. There are just too few people with too much information and too many objectives to comprehensively cover all paths and solutions to everything the want. From what I've seen in the last few years they want: 1) A balanced game across all levels of play (to attract more casual players. I can understand the sentiment, but you won't be attracting casuals to play more through ladder imho.) 2) They want it to be fun and dynamic. 3) They want to increase the skill cap. 4) They want less deathball matchups. 5) They want Zerg to be "Zergy" 6) The bunker must be changed. 7) They want to all races to have multiple options per matchup. But a lot of those objectives are contradictory. They felt Protoss was too weak early so they gave them photon cannon. That helped balance but increased the amount of deathball matchups and fun and dynamic gameplay (Nothing is more deflating than watching a TvP about to ramp up in speed to only be stopped cold by a photon cannon.) They want the game to be more fun and dynamic so they increase the speed of mutas, medivacs and oracles. But at the same time it decreases tension and awe of the game. Mass drops are now a standard play capable of being done by every solid Terran instead of a hard earned specialty way to play that was only done by MMA and Gumiho. Mutas became faster and gained regen increasing the "Multitasking" of Zerg players but in the end all it really did was let weaker players play like Soulkey/DRG/Leenook at the end of WoL without the extreme control, intuition and practice as it was much more forgiving. They wanted to give Protoss more options in the early game against both Zerg and Terran so they gave them the MSC, cheaper dts and an oracle. While Zerg can still play a variety of opening builds, Terran has been pigeonholed into going reaper cc every game unless they want to just randomly gamble on a cc or double proxy rax compared to Protoss' 4-5 solid openings that all transition well into mid-late (And this doesn't include obscure builds like First's double forge robo immortal build.) Which is why I assume they read all of the balance threads on here and other places. Even if they never release how they are reaching those numbers, even being critical of the methodology is still an important point to bring up so that both spectators and the dev.team don't take the numbers as the only truth. I doubt very much that they will ever comprehensively tell us how they came to these numbers and honestly they shouldn't. It only opens them to more criticism and takes away from actual balance discussion but its always important to not take these numbers at face value either. But what would be the point of releasing these numbers? To back their point, to have the unsinkable argument when some one would question their thinking? Without saying how they came up with these numbers, it even more sinkable argument, because everyone can question it. Seriously, what they were thinking? They just wanted something concrete to show why they think Protoss isn't as much of a problem as the community is making it out to be? Maybe they just wanted to show some of their reasoning and keep us as informed as they can without violating company policy? Who knows. In any case, I am glad that they keep their methods in-house and do not publicise. Nor should they (especially to a community as over-represented in armchair experts as SC2). It's a pity he felt he had to share it, even if partially. A more blatant fuck you to the community would have been a lot better. I'm sure it would have been a lot more cathartic for him too. Slow and steady as she goes from Blizzard suits me just fine. I would honestly much rather have some radical change, but I know that Blizzard can't and won't do that until the expansion (if they do it at all). If there were to be radical change, a new expansion is the place to put it. Although the degree of that radicality is another issue. For example, new units is a radical change but may not be radical enough for some. Radical for the sake of it may destroy the scene entirely if it destroys the basics of the game that people have become used to over the last 4 years. For example, for the same of argument, a change to resources or resource collection that means basic build timings have to be re-thought. The game would have to be re-learned, for everyone, from scratch. This would not be good for anybody. Therefore, I think for LOTV, we are likely to see another expansion like HOTS. New units and some tweaks to unit behaviours. These types of changes make the most logical sense for everybody (including Blizzard). And, speaking for myself, assuming I am still playing this game when that time comes, I would be fine with this level of radical change. Show nested quote +I think the two most valuable insights people can give Blizzard right now are:
A) Short term - what small changes can be made to make the game more fun to play and/or more fun to watch?
If people have opinions of this kind (and plenty of us do) this is fine. The problem is that one person's idea for improvement is another person's idea for destroying the game. Nor should we expect Blizzard to take on board this feedback and necessarily do anything with it. Nor should we expect them to test all of these ideas. Do we seriously expect them to put resources into endlessly chasing their own tails especially when a lot of people are certain that they have the idea that will improve the game, no question. Consider the case where small change X is made in the test environment. It appears to have a positive effect (based on whatever the metric of "positive effect" is decided to be). But this is no guarantee this will be the case when that change is made in a live environment (this is because, for one, the effect of say 10 testers in the space of a week is not as effective as the effect of 10,000 real users in the space of 3 months). What if small change Y comes up and is tested but has negative effects (based on whatever the metric of "negative effect" is decided to be). However, if X were not in the game, then Y might actually be positive. How is it decided and who decides between X and Y? Sure, let's keep Blizzard informed of our ideas. We show we love this infuriating, crazy, lovely game when we do so. But, let's not pretend to any more than that or think less of Blizzard when our ideas are met with silence. Show nested quote +
B) Long term - what radical changes can be made to overhaul game systems, map attributes, race mechanics, or entire units to make the game more fun to play and/or more fun to watch?
As I have said above, my take on this is dependent on the degree of radicality of changes. I'd be against changes that lead to substantial re-learning of the game. Therefore, removal of units is out as is fundamental alteration of race mechanics (such as forcefields, floating buildings, spawn larvae etc). I believe the positive effects of these changes are largely unknown (and in the many cases usually imagined). I prefer a known state, whatever its shortcomings, to an imagined utopia. This leaves map attributes as this is an area where the existing tools of SC2 can be realised in new or different ways. Will different maps lead to a better or different meta? I don't know. But, I think it an area still largely unexplored and one which does not condemn users to have to re-learn the game. Are there limits with maps? Probably, given such things as forcefields and Zerg production. But, as long as we do not expect SC nirvana from maps it is an area worth looking at further and in more depth. I'd have no trouble with a greater variety of maps on ladder and in tournament play - even if they are imba for my race (as long as there is a good distribution of these maps between races). I want to see more different maps in 2014. Show nested quote +
There are lots of good topics about point B (though they're scattered across the last four years - maybe making a big "large changes that could improve SC2 list with all the big featured blogs/threads from TL would be cool), but there isn't a lot of feedback about point A.
That's why I guess I felt frustrated earlier in the thread with the detour to statistics; the majority of the informed SC2 community doesn't actually think there is a statistical balance problem with win rates. That isn't the game's issue -remotely-. The problem is keeping everything interesting, fresh, and evolving over a long period of time. If SC2 (and its final expansion) are able to engage users and players, then that's what will give SC2 a legacy like Brood War. If it can't do that, it will eventually fail a couple of years after LotV.
I don't know who the majority of the SC2 community are, nor do I know if they are informed or not (about what?). It's too easy to throw around words like "community". Keeping things fresh and interesting and evolving is up to the players (not Blizzard). However, what is fresh to one person is imba to another. I am not sure what you want or expect when you say this. It's almost as meaningless, to me, as complaints that the game is "stagnant" and "stale". The history of WOL and HOTS shows a ebb and flow in strategy and play, and the top players are getting better and better. If we want more then perhaps it says more about us and our expectations than about Blizzard or the game itself. SC2 may or not live up to BW. Personally, I don't care. I don't give two shits about BW or its legacy. I've had a lot of fun with this game over the last four years. My only regret is that I did not play enough. If, after LOTV, the game dies in 2 - 3 years then so be it. I've spent a lot of money on worse games. If that is how it goes, I'll thank Blizzard for a really good game and go on my way. Show nested quote +
SC2 doesn't have to beat MOBAs, and it doesn't even need perfect balance (Brood War's balance certainly wasn't perfect - not in win rates or unit potential). It just needs to keep people interested, and the fans will keep the game alive.
I agree that perfect balance is not required. But, some approximation of balance over a sufficient length of time is required because losing over something imba is not fun. The problem is, of course, what is imba or not. I like Blizzard's current approach to balance (as opposed to WOL where they were too itchy with the trigger finger on their nerf gun) even if I don't like their tendency to interpose what they think is cool or desirable (e.g. Oracles and Roaches) over that of the players'. Sure, the constraint on Terrans' openings is a concern in TvP. But, that has to be balanced against the flowering of P openings (and gameplay) in all HOTS match-ups. The game is better for a stronger and better Protoss race. Should this constraint for Terran be remedied as far as can be without losing too many gains made in other areas? Absolutely. What that solution may be, I don't know. Some form of nerf to the Overcharge is likely, but what and to what extent is the question. Whatever it is, I am happy to leave it to Blizzard to do, slowly and carefully.
I'm glad someone reasonable is posting in here, because reading these comments is getting frustrating and annoying. Just wana say thanks for being a logical human being.
|
On January 10 2014 18:22 ArTiFaKs wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 18:01 aZealot wrote:On January 10 2014 14:56 dcemuser wrote:On January 10 2014 14:37 aZealot wrote:On January 10 2014 14:24 stuchiu wrote:On January 10 2014 14:15 Roman666 wrote:On January 10 2014 14:06 stuchiu wrote:On January 10 2014 13:25 Plansix wrote:On January 10 2014 13:22 itsjustatank wrote:On January 10 2014 13:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That assumes that your goal is to mislead the people you are presenting the data to, which David and Blizzard have almost no reason to do. In fact, they have numerous reasons to provide us with the most accurate information possible.
Unless you believe that DKim is trying to mislead us and sell us on the idea that the game is balance when he knows that one race is over powers. I question all use of statistics, and it leads me to question people's motives when I sense bad methodology. I don't make the assumption that all data and interpretations of data presented to me are kosher, precisely because I know how easy it is to shape any data set to say whatever it is I want it to say and phrase it in such a way that few people will question it. Ok, but I am going to ask you the same question, why would they do that? You don't just imply that their data is incorrectly gathered, but they do so with purpose with the intent to mislead. Do you really think they want an imbalanced game? I don't really see any good reason for them to "cook the numbers" to make the game appear balanced. I don't think they would purposely mislead anyone. But it's easy to mislead yourself into just looking at the numbers. There was a reason BL/infestor wasn't touched for the last 6-8 months of WoL and it was because the numbers were balanced. It's easy to mislead yourself into thinking winrates are the problem rather than the design or function of the matchups. There are just too few people with too much information and too many objectives to comprehensively cover all paths and solutions to everything the want. From what I've seen in the last few years they want: 1) A balanced game across all levels of play (to attract more casual players. I can understand the sentiment, but you won't be attracting casuals to play more through ladder imho.) 2) They want it to be fun and dynamic. 3) They want to increase the skill cap. 4) They want less deathball matchups. 5) They want Zerg to be "Zergy" 6) The bunker must be changed. 7) They want to all races to have multiple options per matchup. But a lot of those objectives are contradictory. They felt Protoss was too weak early so they gave them photon cannon. That helped balance but increased the amount of deathball matchups and fun and dynamic gameplay (Nothing is more deflating than watching a TvP about to ramp up in speed to only be stopped cold by a photon cannon.) They want the game to be more fun and dynamic so they increase the speed of mutas, medivacs and oracles. But at the same time it decreases tension and awe of the game. Mass drops are now a standard play capable of being done by every solid Terran instead of a hard earned specialty way to play that was only done by MMA and Gumiho. Mutas became faster and gained regen increasing the "Multitasking" of Zerg players but in the end all it really did was let weaker players play like Soulkey/DRG/Leenook at the end of WoL without the extreme control, intuition and practice as it was much more forgiving. They wanted to give Protoss more options in the early game against both Zerg and Terran so they gave them the MSC, cheaper dts and an oracle. While Zerg can still play a variety of opening builds, Terran has been pigeonholed into going reaper cc every game unless they want to just randomly gamble on a cc or double proxy rax compared to Protoss' 4-5 solid openings that all transition well into mid-late (And this doesn't include obscure builds like First's double forge robo immortal build.) Which is why I assume they read all of the balance threads on here and other places. Even if they never release how they are reaching those numbers, even being critical of the methodology is still an important point to bring up so that both spectators and the dev.team don't take the numbers as the only truth. I doubt very much that they will ever comprehensively tell us how they came to these numbers and honestly they shouldn't. It only opens them to more criticism and takes away from actual balance discussion but its always important to not take these numbers at face value either. But what would be the point of releasing these numbers? To back their point, to have the unsinkable argument when some one would question their thinking? Without saying how they came up with these numbers, it even more sinkable argument, because everyone can question it. Seriously, what they were thinking? They just wanted something concrete to show why they think Protoss isn't as much of a problem as the community is making it out to be? Maybe they just wanted to show some of their reasoning and keep us as informed as they can without violating company policy? Who knows. In any case, I am glad that they keep their methods in-house and do not publicise. Nor should they (especially to a community as over-represented in armchair experts as SC2). It's a pity he felt he had to share it, even if partially. A more blatant fuck you to the community would have been a lot better. I'm sure it would have been a lot more cathartic for him too. Slow and steady as she goes from Blizzard suits me just fine. I would honestly much rather have some radical change, but I know that Blizzard can't and won't do that until the expansion (if they do it at all). If there were to be radical change, a new expansion is the place to put it. Although the degree of that radicality is another issue. For example, new units is a radical change but may not be radical enough for some. Radical for the sake of it may destroy the scene entirely if it destroys the basics of the game that people have become used to over the last 4 years. For example, for the same of argument, a change to resources or resource collection that means basic build timings have to be re-thought. The game would have to be re-learned, for everyone, from scratch. This would not be good for anybody. Therefore, I think for LOTV, we are likely to see another expansion like HOTS. New units and some tweaks to unit behaviours. These types of changes make the most logical sense for everybody (including Blizzard). And, speaking for myself, assuming I am still playing this game when that time comes, I would be fine with this level of radical change. I think the two most valuable insights people can give Blizzard right now are:
A) Short term - what small changes can be made to make the game more fun to play and/or more fun to watch?
If people have opinions of this kind (and plenty of us do) this is fine. The problem is that one person's idea for improvement is another person's idea for destroying the game. Nor should we expect Blizzard to take on board this feedback and necessarily do anything with it. Nor should we expect them to test all of these ideas. Do we seriously expect them to put resources into endlessly chasing their own tails especially when a lot of people are certain that they have the idea that will improve the game, no question. Consider the case where small change X is made in the test environment. It appears to have a positive effect (based on whatever the metric of "positive effect" is decided to be). But this is no guarantee this will be the case when that change is made in a live environment (this is because, for one, the effect of say 10 testers in the space of a week is not as effective as the effect of 10,000 real users in the space of 3 months). What if small change Y comes up and is tested but has negative effects (based on whatever the metric of "negative effect" is decided to be). However, if X were not in the game, then Y might actually be positive. How is it decided and who decides between X and Y? Sure, let's keep Blizzard informed of our ideas. We show we love this infuriating, crazy, lovely game when we do so. But, let's not pretend to any more than that or think less of Blizzard when our ideas are met with silence.
B) Long term - what radical changes can be made to overhaul game systems, map attributes, race mechanics, or entire units to make the game more fun to play and/or more fun to watch?
As I have said above, my take on this is dependent on the degree of radicality of changes. I'd be against changes that lead to substantial re-learning of the game. Therefore, removal of units is out as is fundamental alteration of race mechanics (such as forcefields, floating buildings, spawn larvae etc). I believe the positive effects of these changes are largely unknown (and in the many cases usually imagined). I prefer a known state, whatever its shortcomings, to an imagined utopia. This leaves map attributes as this is an area where the existing tools of SC2 can be realised in new or different ways. Will different maps lead to a better or different meta? I don't know. But, I think it an area still largely unexplored and one which does not condemn users to have to re-learn the game. Are there limits with maps? Probably, given such things as forcefields and Zerg production. But, as long as we do not expect SC nirvana from maps it is an area worth looking at further and in more depth. I'd have no trouble with a greater variety of maps on ladder and in tournament play - even if they are imba for my race (as long as there is a good distribution of these maps between races). I want to see more different maps in 2014.
There are lots of good topics about point B (though they're scattered across the last four years - maybe making a big "large changes that could improve SC2 list with all the big featured blogs/threads from TL would be cool), but there isn't a lot of feedback about point A.
That's why I guess I felt frustrated earlier in the thread with the detour to statistics; the majority of the informed SC2 community doesn't actually think there is a statistical balance problem with win rates. That isn't the game's issue -remotely-. The problem is keeping everything interesting, fresh, and evolving over a long period of time. If SC2 (and its final expansion) are able to engage users and players, then that's what will give SC2 a legacy like Brood War. If it can't do that, it will eventually fail a couple of years after LotV.
I don't know who the majority of the SC2 community are, nor do I know if they are informed or not (about what?). It's too easy to throw around words like "community". Keeping things fresh and interesting and evolving is up to the players (not Blizzard). However, what is fresh to one person is imba to another. I am not sure what you want or expect when you say this. It's almost as meaningless, to me, as complaints that the game is "stagnant" and "stale". The history of WOL and HOTS shows a ebb and flow in strategy and play, and the top players are getting better and better. If we want more then perhaps it says more about us and our expectations than about Blizzard or the game itself. SC2 may or not live up to BW. Personally, I don't care. I don't give two shits about BW or its legacy. I've had a lot of fun with this game over the last four years. My only regret is that I did not play enough. If, after LOTV, the game dies in 2 - 3 years then so be it. I've spent a lot of money on worse games. If that is how it goes, I'll thank Blizzard for a really good game and go on my way.
SC2 doesn't have to beat MOBAs, and it doesn't even need perfect balance (Brood War's balance certainly wasn't perfect - not in win rates or unit potential). It just needs to keep people interested, and the fans will keep the game alive.
I agree that perfect balance is not required. But, some approximation of balance over a sufficient length of time is required because losing over something imba is not fun. The problem is, of course, what is imba or not. I like Blizzard's current approach to balance (as opposed to WOL where they were too itchy with the trigger finger on their nerf gun) even if I don't like their tendency to interpose what they think is cool or desirable (e.g. Oracles and Roaches) over that of the players'. Sure, the constraint on Terrans' openings is a concern in TvP. But, that has to be balanced against the flowering of P openings (and gameplay) in all HOTS match-ups. The game is better for a stronger and better Protoss race. Should this constraint for Terran be remedied as far as can be without losing too many gains made in other areas? Absolutely. What that solution may be, I don't know. Some form of nerf to the Overcharge is likely, but what and to what extent is the question. Whatever it is, I am happy to leave it to Blizzard to do, slowly and carefully. I'm glad someone reasonable is posting in here, because reading these comments is getting frustrating and annoying. Just wana say thanks for being a logical human being.
aZealot is a big fan of the game as is. Therefore he is against any big changes. That post is just a rationalization of "i like the game, don't change it". Nothing wrong with other people feeling a different way.
|
Protoss: lose 10 games, avoid a nerf...
|
On January 10 2014 18:01 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 14:56 dcemuser wrote:On January 10 2014 14:37 aZealot wrote:On January 10 2014 14:24 stuchiu wrote:On January 10 2014 14:15 Roman666 wrote:On January 10 2014 14:06 stuchiu wrote:On January 10 2014 13:25 Plansix wrote:On January 10 2014 13:22 itsjustatank wrote:On January 10 2014 13:20 Plansix wrote:On January 10 2014 13:16 itsjustatank wrote:
[quote]
Here's the thing though: all they do is present win-rates, and they already break down the win-rates by tier. Ignoring or weighting data based on their stated filters in this context is only done assuming you want to shape the data to your advantage. That assumes that your goal is to mislead the people you are presenting the data to, which David and Blizzard have almost no reason to do. In fact, they have numerous reasons to provide us with the most accurate information possible. Unless you believe that DKim is trying to mislead us and sell us on the idea that the game is balance when he knows that one race is over powers. I question all use of statistics, and it leads me to question people's motives when I sense bad methodology. I don't make the assumption that all data and interpretations of data presented to me are kosher, precisely because I know how easy it is to shape any data set to say whatever it is I want it to say and phrase it in such a way that few people will question it. Ok, but I am going to ask you the same question, why would they do that? You don't just imply that their data is incorrectly gathered, but they do so with purpose with the intent to mislead. Do you really think they want an imbalanced game? I don't really see any good reason for them to "cook the numbers" to make the game appear balanced. I don't think they would purposely mislead anyone. But it's easy to mislead yourself into just looking at the numbers. There was a reason BL/infestor wasn't touched for the last 6-8 months of WoL and it was because the numbers were balanced. It's easy to mislead yourself into thinking winrates are the problem rather than the design or function of the matchups. There are just too few people with too much information and too many objectives to comprehensively cover all paths and solutions to everything the want. From what I've seen in the last few years they want: 1) A balanced game across all levels of play (to attract more casual players. I can understand the sentiment, but you won't be attracting casuals to play more through ladder imho.) 2) They want it to be fun and dynamic. 3) They want to increase the skill cap. 4) They want less deathball matchups. 5) They want Zerg to be "Zergy" 6) The bunker must be changed. 7) They want to all races to have multiple options per matchup. But a lot of those objectives are contradictory. They felt Protoss was too weak early so they gave them photon cannon. That helped balance but increased the amount of deathball matchups and fun and dynamic gameplay (Nothing is more deflating than watching a TvP about to ramp up in speed to only be stopped cold by a photon cannon.) They want the game to be more fun and dynamic so they increase the speed of mutas, medivacs and oracles. But at the same time it decreases tension and awe of the game. Mass drops are now a standard play capable of being done by every solid Terran instead of a hard earned specialty way to play that was only done by MMA and Gumiho. Mutas became faster and gained regen increasing the "Multitasking" of Zerg players but in the end all it really did was let weaker players play like Soulkey/DRG/Leenook at the end of WoL without the extreme control, intuition and practice as it was much more forgiving. They wanted to give Protoss more options in the early game against both Zerg and Terran so they gave them the MSC, cheaper dts and an oracle. While Zerg can still play a variety of opening builds, Terran has been pigeonholed into going reaper cc every game unless they want to just randomly gamble on a cc or double proxy rax compared to Protoss' 4-5 solid openings that all transition well into mid-late (And this doesn't include obscure builds like First's double forge robo immortal build.) Which is why I assume they read all of the balance threads on here and other places. Even if they never release how they are reaching those numbers, even being critical of the methodology is still an important point to bring up so that both spectators and the dev.team don't take the numbers as the only truth. I doubt very much that they will ever comprehensively tell us how they came to these numbers and honestly they shouldn't. It only opens them to more criticism and takes away from actual balance discussion but its always important to not take these numbers at face value either. But what would be the point of releasing these numbers? To back their point, to have the unsinkable argument when some one would question their thinking? Without saying how they came up with these numbers, it even more sinkable argument, because everyone can question it. Seriously, what they were thinking? They just wanted something concrete to show why they think Protoss isn't as much of a problem as the community is making it out to be? Maybe they just wanted to show some of their reasoning and keep us as informed as they can without violating company policy? Who knows. In any case, I am glad that they keep their methods in-house and do not publicise. Nor should they (especially to a community as over-represented in armchair experts as SC2). It's a pity he felt he had to share it, even if partially. A more blatant fuck you to the community would have been a lot better. I'm sure it would have been a lot more cathartic for him too. Slow and steady as she goes from Blizzard suits me just fine. I would honestly much rather have some radical change, but I know that Blizzard can't and won't do that until the expansion (if they do it at all). As I have said above, my take on this is dependent on the degree of radicality of changes. I'd be against changes that lead to substantial re-learning of the game. Therefore, removal of units is out as is fundamental alteration of race mechanics (such as forcefields, floating buildings, spawn larvae etc). I believe the positive effects of these changes are largely unknown (and in the many cases usually imagined). I prefer a known state, whatever its shortcomings, to an imagined utopia.
You prefer known states?
So I guess we should have just kept Broodlord/Infestor vs. Archon toilet going for another 5 years or so. The risk in changing such a fundamental part of the match up was too great. And when Blizzard finally did change it, all the pros were so upset about having to relearn the matchup that they left in droves.
Right? That totally happened.
We have test realms and Betas for a reason. Blizzard needs to start taking advantage of them.
TFT is what every expansion pack has the potential to be. It completely retooled ROC, and not a single person on planet earth will tell you that ROC was a better game.
|
On January 10 2014 18:30 Ghanburighan wrote:
Protoss: lose 10 games, avoid a nerf...
Man ,fuck the nerf, what about the mech buffs? They say they need more data, is 4 years of mech being rubbish not enough?
|
On January 10 2014 18:20 Valikyr wrote:
Terran players seriously overrate the difficulty of playing their own "master race". Sorry, but SjoW and Avilo are doing worse with Protoss than Minigun is with Terran. Not saying Protoss is the harder race, I think Terrran is harder overall but get down off your high horse will you?
Edit: MicroLife just posted the most retarded post I have ever seen. So congrats on that. Name one protoss other than Naniwa that beats Koreans. And Naniwa has beaten Koreans since 2011. Dimaga beat Flash with off-beat strats and Scarlett has the mechanics of Koreans. Jesus.
What was retarded about my post? if i recall correctly, HUK was in CODE S after beating loads of koreans to qualify.
stephano was there aswell, beating many koreans. Terran winning koreans? NO AND WILL NEVER HAPPEND
|
My message to David Kim
I do not know if you read the comments, all the shit you are getting sure makes it hard to go through. That being said, i really do hope that you read this message.
What the people need out of a balance team is not statistic nitpicking or very weird theological discussion about what is or what is not balanced. A very slow to response time and marginally changing the smallest of elements to try to keep things in balance.
We need a balance team, that is active and open minded to change. Test maps currently are not going as far as they should. I am guessing that there is no staff currently for SC2 and that is actually the only reason i can see, why the current situation is as it is.
The point of a test map is to test things out, just to see how they affect the game. So please DO THAT. Just for an example make a couple of test maps with some of the comments from Depths of Micro (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=433944). Make many testmaps and release them, there is alot of input from just one video and the discussion that follows.
Why havent we seen test maps that replace units / abilities more freely. If the Blizzard team really learned from Halve and Riot, they should know, that the community needs VARIETY. Most people grind the ladder playing the same game over and over again. Even if some one could statistically show the player, that TVP matchup is balanced. IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT, that you are playing a very stale metagame.
I dont think the current problem of the balance teams focus should be ultimate balance, but maybe the keyword should be different. If we grind out as many crazy options for testmaps as the forums and people out in the community have thought of we might hit a better solution, if not, they might be fun to play.
FUN TO PLAY is what is needed. If you look at MOBA games, there is alot more variety in every game. SC2 variety is in very small details. We need to bring alot more creative freedom and break the cramp of changing things. For all i care, the official patch can stay the way it is, but bring alternative versions for the test environment, that push the limits / take it out of them.
|
On January 10 2014 18:32 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 18:30 Ghanburighan wrote:
Protoss: lose 10 games, avoid a nerf... Man ,fuck the nerf, what about the mech buffs? They say they need more data, is 4 years of mech being rubbish not enough?
Six of one, half a dozen of another.
|
On January 10 2014 18:20 Valikyr wrote:
Terran players seriously overrate the difficulty of playing their own "master race". Sorry, but SjoW and Avilo are doing worse with Protoss than Minigun is with Terran. Not saying Protoss is the harder race, I think Terrran is harder overall but get down off your high horse will you?
Edit: MicroLife just posted the most retarded post I have ever seen. So congrats on that. Name one protoss other than Naniwa that beats Koreans. And Naniwa has beaten Koreans since 2011. Dimaga beat Flash with off-beat strats and Scarlett has the mechanics of Koreans. Jesus.
Minigun has been playing all three races since Wings of Liberty. He was GM with Zerg/Protoss, and High Masters with Terran. SjoW played Protoss for like less than a week, and IDK anything about Avilo.
Big difference.
|
I find it kinda weird that some people complain that the metagame is stale. At the beginning of WoL everyone complained how random, cheese and coinflippy sc2 is in comparison to bw. Now people are complaining about a "stale" or stable if you want, mostly macro oriented metagame.
Not that i like that i personally enjoy low eco situations the most.
|
I do wonder why DK spent so much time discussing Grandmaster P representation, but threw it out because a) sample size, b) pro level is more important. But if we look at the only pro tournament happening, P has been fielded something like twice as much as T or Z. And master's is as skewed as GM with a much larger sample size.
|
On January 10 2014 18:20 Valikyr wrote:
Terran players seriously overrate the difficulty of playing their own "master race". Sorry, but SjoW and Avilo are doing worse with Protoss than Minigun is with Terran. Not saying Protoss is the harder race, I think Terrran is harder overall but get down off your high horse will you?
Edit: MicroLife just posted the most retarded post I have ever seen. So congrats on that. Name one protoss other than Naniwa that beats Koreans. And Naniwa has beaten Koreans since 2011. Dimaga beat Flash with off-beat strats and Scarlett has the mechanics of Koreans. Jesus.
Minigun has been playing terran since WoL, I remember him stomping catz a number of times TvZ. he's played a LOT more terran than they have played protoss, and also Minigun is considerably better than them as well overall.
|
On January 10 2014 18:39 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 18:20 Valikyr wrote:
Terran players seriously overrate the difficulty of playing their own "master race". Sorry, but SjoW and Avilo are doing worse with Protoss than Minigun is with Terran. Not saying Protoss is the harder race, I think Terrran is harder overall but get down off your high horse will you?
Edit: MicroLife just posted the most retarded post I have ever seen. So congrats on that. Name one protoss other than Naniwa that beats Koreans. And Naniwa has beaten Koreans since 2011. Dimaga beat Flash with off-beat strats and Scarlett has the mechanics of Koreans. Jesus. Minigun has been playing all three races since Wings of Liberty. He was GM with Zerg/Protoss, and High Masters with Terran. SjoW played Protoss for like less than a week, and IDK anything about Avilo. Big difference.
its a reason he cant hit gm as terran, but whit zergand toss
|
DK logic :
- We only care about pro level --> show stats why ladder is balance.
- Protoss 50% GM small sample size --> show proleague protoss win rate with sample size of 30 matches.
|
On January 10 2014 18:20 Valikyr wrote:
Terran players seriously overrate the difficulty of playing their own "master race". Sorry, but SjoW and Avilo are doing worse with Protoss than Minigun is with Terran. Not saying Protoss is the harder race, I think Terrran is harder overall but get down off your high horse will you?
Edit: MicroLife just posted the most retarded post I have ever seen. So congrats on that. Name one protoss other than Naniwa that beats Koreans. And Naniwa has beaten Koreans since 2011. Dimaga beat Flash with off-beat strats and Scarlett has the mechanics of Koreans. Jesus.
State just took a game off DRG, and nearly beat motherfucking Flash. Elfi took series off MMA and Jjakji recently, but also took out HerO and Taeja in Acer Teamstory Cup. The main thing is, foreign P like Minigun, Socke and Huk take a lot of games off Koreans, even if they lose series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
