|
On January 10 2014 21:25 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:24 PPN wrote:
Really, DK shouldn't bother. This is no more about facts/numbers.
Regardless of the pro results or ladder numbers be they actually manipulated or not, all the whiners will always say that Protoss is imba. Nothing can be done once their minds are stubbornly set on the idea that they can't be wrong.
This is the price of a world with the Internet and social media : anybody including the unreasonnable ones can voice their opinion. I'm sure that if all these ways of communication were available in Brood War's time, people would have whined a lot too. the race who got a sad zealot fanclub qqing about the fear of nerf, it's quite delicious to witness.
Dude, I'm plat. Do you really think that Photon Overcharge reduced to 40 will ever matter to me at my level? You're the sad one who can't enjoy a game to the point where you're deluding yourself into thinking that Blizzard does it on purpose and that you should win more.
|
On January 10 2014 21:25 Qwerty85 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:14 Zetter wrote:On January 10 2014 21:06 frozzz wrote:
is he fucking serious? commenting balance winrate in bronze and then not putting gm stats and saying gm isnt relevant because its not pro level??:DDD
and yes,50% protoss in gm isnt big problem, not at all. so where are gm stats? the only way to show imbalance and the one(aside pro level) that is revelant,isnt there
Yea probably because it's all a big conspiracy at blizzard, they just want to keep terran down so and skew the statistics, just because they all favor protoss and want to see boring turtle games that don't require skill! There's no way it might have something to do with GM having just opened, they just want to make you believe that! Quite a strawman. Blizzard math guys obviously created bad formula for MMR decay so they are not incapable of making mistakes. DK is offering a vague explanation and shows some numbers but doesn't give any real info on how exactly did they get to those numbers. Their explanation on MMR decay being an equivalent of losing a few games is also wrong, and anyone who plays ranked knows that. So when you see numbers without any real explanation behind them why is person who is questioning those numbers automatically a fool that believes in Blizzard conspiracy?
Or maybe it wasn't all about questioning the numbers and more on the unneccessary aggression and infuriating lack of correct interpunction, which, combined with his way of expressing himself, make it look like what he's trying to say is "We all know DK is giving us shit, right?" instead of "I'd much prefer to have the raw numbers".
|
On January 10 2014 21:24 PPN wrote:
Really, DK shouldn't bother. This is no more about facts/numbers.
Regardless of the pro results or ladder numbers be they actually manipulated or not, all the whiners will always say that Protoss is imba. Nothing can be done once their minds are stubbornly set on the idea that they can't be wrong.
This is the price of a world with the Internet and social media : anybody including the unreasonnable ones can voice their opinion. I'm sure that if all these ways of communication were available in Brood War's time, people would have whined a lot too.
Nobody forced Blizzard to create three asymmetrical races for an e-sports game. I'm currently thinking it wasn't exactly a flawless idea given that balance has been a contentious topic for every tournament in the history of the game. It's all by Blizzard's design, so you'd think that they could at least be transparent and not talk to the community as if we are the enemy for having balance concerns. Living with the consequences of your actions and such.
|
On January 10 2014 21:17 tar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:12 bo1b wrote:On January 10 2014 21:10 tar wrote:On January 10 2014 20:52 bo1b wrote:On January 10 2014 20:24 tar wrote:On January 10 2014 20:16 bo1b wrote:On January 10 2014 20:11 tar wrote:On January 10 2014 19:57 bo1b wrote:On January 10 2014 19:52 tar wrote:On January 10 2014 19:21 bo1b wrote:
[quote]
His 36 apm comment is an exxageration to be sure, but I see protoss players in masters league with far lower apm then the other two, far more often. I'm not sure if it's possible to play a non turtling mech terran, or zerg in general with less then 200 apm in masters league, or less then 120 eapm, but it sure as fuck is possible to play that as protoss. And while apm/eapm don't mean everything, it's a bit ridiculous that it's possible to go up against protoss players with 100 less apm, or 60 less eapm then you (or far more) so frequently.
I guess I just think that difficulty should be balanced into the equation. In my experience apm scales with the demand there is to use actions. just because a toss only uses 100 apm doesn't mean he is less skilled. I am not even sure if it means that playing terran or zerg is harder due to this. A very simple example: to spend 100 mins on a zealot you need 2 actions (select gateway, click zealot) to spend 100 minerals on marines u need at least 3 actions (given a barracks with an reactor: select building, click marine 2 times). Does that mean building marines takes more skill than building zealots? If a terran plays mech instead of BIO and his apm drop from 180 to 120, does that mean he is less skilled when he plays mech or that there is simply less demand to use APM? That's why in my opinion apm is a bad indicator to judge one's overall skill, more so considering that alot of ppl spam apm due to bad habits and actually fail to use them effectively. One of the reasons it's so impressive to watch innovation or drg when they're on point is that they manage to do so much at once. Having an extra button to click when macroing is important, because it means pulling off everything else is that much harder to do. In any event, there isn't a single protoss player that really distinguishes himself from his peers via mechanical skill. The same isn't true for the other races at all. I disagree with the "on click matters because everything else is harder to do"-argument in general: e.g. spending 1000mins on zerglings simply means holding down a key yet equals 20apm. I am not saying apm isn't a factor to skill but it is a bad indicator. Also, I wasn't even considering pro lvl play. My sentiment to the apm/skill relationship is mostly based on the average sub gm player who equals high apm with skill. Starcraft is a game of managing resources. One of those resources is apm, or how much you can actually do. Arguing that making something harder doesn't affect the difficulty of other things is nonsensical. Not really. apm is not a limited resource in the sense that every one can only use 200 apm and after that his clicks won't count. Obviously there is a general physical APM limit to humans and a specific apm limit for every individual, yet again, I don't think that factors in most if any sc2 game sub pro lvl (i actually even doubt it at pro lvl) Also, not all APM is produced equally: my building zerglings example just shows that. You can also look at casting infested terrans for that matter: APM easily spikes to numbers above 600 in pro games when infested terrans are spammed. Does that make it hard to mass cast infested terrans? does it prevent the zerg from his usual macro tasks? Except your example of building zerglings doesn't show anything at all. If your making shit in the background then you cant be doing stuff in the foreground. How is it that hard to understand? If zerg and terran have to constantly be moving there army around then it becomes more difficult to find the time to do other stuff, which means that doing other stuff is harder. Dropping 50 infested terran eggs in an extremely short amount of time is difficult to do while microing your other units. Saying that you don't think something happens in a sub pro level means fuck all. When I played zerg 6 months ago finding the time to spread creep was insanely hard because I had to do a ton of other stuff. If i had another 50 apm and I could spread creep then that would directly influence my win rate. I just do not understand how you come to the conclusions that you have. Especially your example of pro level games, where people lose from being out multi tasked, out macrod etc so often. The creation of apm is irrelevant in so far of it being the equivalent of a time sink in game. If one race has to spend a significant amount less time the the other two then that accounts to difficulty. The creation of apm is irrelevant? if I a player can produce 20 actions by hitting 1 key for a second that does very much somatter when you claim that more apm = more skill. Also, I am talking about sub pro lvl. My short comment, that I think apm limits don't matter on a pro lvl are with regard to the fact that pros don't hit their physical APM limit at all in sc2. Why do I think that? BW required more APM than sc2 and it was still playable, meaning that all the pros playing sc2 at lower APM have a lot of spare APM. Getting out played by impressive multitasking says nothing about the APM but your ability to handle multiple tasks at the same time and make good decisions on all fronts. People have extremely similar levels of eapm for both terran zerg compared to broodwar counterparts lol. And yes, having to hold down z for a second to produce zerglings is an important thing to do, else we'd have long since converted to auto macro. Alright, now it gets stupid. I am talking apm you are talkin epm. More importantly: I never said making Zerglings is not important. I am making a point that 20 actions produced by holding down 1 key for 1 second is very different task from 20 actions created by microing a helion against a bunch of lings...
Of course they're different actions, but can you not see that one of the negative impacts of injecting - > szzzzzzzz is having less time to micro those lings vs a hellion, or vice versa? What I'm arguing is that by removing the need to do such actions for one race makes it considerably easier to do other things. I don't see how thats arguable, the speed at which you measure mechanical demand will be lower for protoss in every way, be it spm, apm or eapm, and it negatively impacts on the game. Imagine if they had an army on parity with zergs going into the mid game and late game, and that they could amass such an army by turtling on three bases and then push out with a far easier to micro force. It would be ridiculous, and its the most frustrating thing in the world playing tvp, as it has all the hallmarks of that. Stupidly powerful early game all ins from protoss, a stronger late game composition simply from how the terran reinforcement mechanic works, and the low hp that terran units tend to have and an easier time doing everything. If it wasn't for how stupidly good korean terrans are, and how weak protoss is at certain points they would never lose.
In any event this is silly, if you really think that all races have extremely similar levels of difficulty and that scelight or sc2gears is just reporting numbers that people falsely relate to skill or difficulty then I suppose we are going to have to disagree.
|
anyway, who cares about balance. Balance is not important, or on the other hand balance can always be achieved if you try. Even now, things are balanced. As far as numbers go, SC2 is the best balanced competitive RTS so far, even better than BW. All the complaints people have are not about balance, even though everybody is using that word - it's the wrong design decisions. David Kim can only do so much, with the tools he has at hands. People should address their hate on Dustin Browder, cause he is the guy making all the stupid design decisions like sentries, protoss designed around warpgate instead of warpgate designed around protoss, stupid economy favouring turtling and deathballs etc etc.
|
Oh man, the design arguments have started. Its only a matter of time before that word is used 20 times per page.
|
stats are manipulated? from 3-9 january 2013?
no...the 2013 is an error in the screenshot, it's this current season's data. ;P
|
France9263 Posts
On January 10 2014 21:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:25 sAsImre wrote:On January 10 2014 21:24 PPN wrote:
Really, DK shouldn't bother. This is no more about facts/numbers.
Regardless of the pro results or ladder numbers be they actually manipulated or not, all the whiners will always say that Protoss is imba. Nothing can be done once their minds are stubbornly set on the idea that they can't be wrong.
This is the price of a world with the Internet and social media : anybody including the unreasonnable ones can voice their opinion. I'm sure that if all these ways of communication were available in Brood War's time, people would have whined a lot too. the race who got a sad zealot fanclub qqing about the fear of nerf, it's quite delicious to witness. What happens when they nerf us and you still lose? I almost welcome the nerf, but I know the terran whiners will just say "I wasn't enough, they still still just 60 APM over me. Well most like 30 AMP. Or 10 AMP. Look, I'm better, I play terran damn it."
i'm absolutely fine vP because most of them are unable to play a macrogame now they rely too much on 1b/2b strat and since it's literally 50% of the match I play I get much more training in the match up than they do. Early game is stupid because the asymetry is a bit too strong imo, but it's still fine. And hellbat tech, especially with combined upgrades make lategame really possible (3/0 hellbats are awesome).
The proposed msc nerf is stupid because it affects PvP way more than the other match up (I think there is some problem vs dt builds not 100% sure about that one), i'd rather have a speed nerf/time warp nerf in order to make it way less useful offensively. Early game TvP has always been dumb anyway, and the fact it's fixed for one side is still cool. + P are playing so predictable at every level (lol at the blink builds on yeonsu in PL, every failed except Rain vs Dream)
Actually if they keep the actual balance it'll be good because more and more P are gonna get lost past 10min when their stupid gamble doesn't pay off since they don't play enough macro game.
The funniest part is that i've lower apm than most people I play, P included.
|
http://i.imgur.com/J7crAtJ.png
This is the equation that Blizzard published for how they calculate adjusted win percentages. If anyone can tell me how it works they deserve a medal.
|
I still don't understand. Why don't they see the win % for a pre-defined early/mid/late game i.e. 0~10min, 10~20min, 20min+?
Imagine if PvT is at the perfect 50%.. yet when broken down it looks something like:
a) 0~10min => PvT at 70%
b) 10~20min => PvT at 30%
c) 20min+ => PvT at 65%
Also they mention proleague.. but do they realise the Terrans that are sent out for proleague are not your average Ts? where also there are just alot more protosses who aren't at Rain level but probably much better than comparable Terran players on their team? Not to mention that proleague games usually involve lots of preparation for the specific opponent and race i.e. have a higher chance of winning vs ladder online?
Btw.. I think the biggest complaint and it has always been is how the game is played out more so than whos the winner. The whole asymmetric thing I think should go and all races should be somewhat have the necessary tools to win at any moments of the game.
|
France9263 Posts
On January 10 2014 21:37 Grumbels wrote:http://i.imgur.com/J7crAtJ.pngThis is the equation that Blizzard published for how they calculate adjusted win percentages. If anyone can tell me how it works they deserve a medal.
it says balanced at the end whatever data you enter and D.Kim can claim the whiners are wrong.
|
On January 10 2014 21:33 Plansix wrote:
Oh man, the design arguments have started. Its only a matter of time before that word is used 20 times per page.
But the design, in some areas, really IS stupid. Economy is the biggest flaw of it all - not providing countermeasures to turtling players by expanding more is directly decreasing the enjoyment of the game for players and spectators alike. Just look at Starbow, that game is balanced even with things like warp gate and collosus. They made it all work, it is infinitely more fun to both, spectate and play and it's Blizzard stupidity and stuborness that they don't at least look at why a mod is better then their game.
|
France9263 Posts
On January 10 2014 21:38 Ammanas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:33 Plansix wrote:
Oh man, the design arguments have started. Its only a matter of time before that word is used 20 times per page. But the design, in some areas, really IS stupid. Economy is the biggest flaw of it all - not providing countermeasures to turtling players by expanding more is directly decreasing the enjoyment of the game for players and spectators alike. Just look at Starbow, that game is balanced even with things like warp gate and collosus. They made it all work, it is infinitely more fun to both, spectate and play and it's Blizzard stupidity and stuborness that they don't at least look at why a mod is better then their game.
reality vs hydra is the pinnacle of entertainment what are you thinking.
|
As others have pointed out, just because stuff is 50/50 doesn't mean the game is in a good state at all.
Examples being:
pvz: soul train and bl infestor
tvp: 1-1-1 and late game protoss
basically an all in evened out a matchup that is horribly one sided and made the stats "pretty"
I envy DK, it's like he's the CEO of blizzard with no pressure on him. Must feel good to pop in once every 3 months to say something and cash a fat check.
As a protoss player, i'm so bored of pvt and why? Because I'm sick and tired of just running over terrans. Brb a move zealot/archon/collosi all day err day
I get so happy when I see mech, it's a breath of fresh air because I actually get to do something different.
|
On January 10 2014 21:32 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:24 PPN wrote:
Really, DK shouldn't bother. This is no more about facts/numbers.
Regardless of the pro results or ladder numbers be they actually manipulated or not, all the whiners will always say that Protoss is imba. Nothing can be done once their minds are stubbornly set on the idea that they can't be wrong.
This is the price of a world with the Internet and social media : anybody including the unreasonnable ones can voice their opinion. I'm sure that if all these ways of communication were available in Brood War's time, people would have whined a lot too. Nobody forced Blizzard to create three asymmetrical races for an e-sports game. I'm currently thinking it wasn't exactly a flawless idea given that balance has been a contentious topic for every tournament in the history of the game. It's all by Blizzard's design, so you'd think that they could at least be transparent and not talk to the community as if we are the enemy for having balance concerns. Living with the consequences of your actions and such.
I won't comment much on your saying about the asymetrical aspect except that a lot of competitive games are asymetrical save for a few FPS. My 2 cents.
I don't know if DK talks to the community like they are the enemy or more the community thinks DK is the enemy and thrash-talks him pretty bad in the 1st place.
|
On January 10 2014 21:33 Plansix wrote:
Oh man, the design arguments have started. Its only a matter of time before that word is used 20 times per page.
I think more then half your posts have been whining about people that are whining. Very rebel.
|
On January 10 2014 21:38 Ammanas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:33 Plansix wrote:
Oh man, the design arguments have started. Its only a matter of time before that word is used 20 times per page. But the design, in some areas, really IS stupid. Economy is the biggest flaw of it all - not providing countermeasures to turtling players by expanding more is directly decreasing the enjoyment of the game for players and spectators alike. Just look at Starbow, that game is balanced even with things like warp gate and collosus. They made it all work, it is infinitely more fun to both, spectate and play and it's Blizzard stupidity and stuborness that they don't at least look at why a mod is better then their game.
I really want to see Starbow given a chance. I hope Totalbiscuit lives up to the vague promise of maybe organizing a Starbow tournament. Keep in mind that by all accounts Starbow is not a full-time project for anyone and that the creators of the mod lack expertise in using the galaxy editor, so in many ways it can't hope to compete with Blizzard. I think it shows the power of the ideas behind Starbow that many people still think it's an improvement over the real game. But I really want to see it put to the test and have high level players try and explore the game. The Fewer Resources per Base tournament was a disaster as far as I recall, because none of the players really bothered to try and play in a different way, they were just trying to cash in on the tournament prize money, so I hope that this fate won't befall Starbow.
|
david kim has proven time and again that he can't or won't make the major design changes to the game needed, and is in actuality a PR man to the pro scene, simply parroting over and over the completely irrelevant "50%!".
Why the community listens and discusses so much about this useless PR front man who lacks the will or the power to improve the game in the many ways it desperately needs baffles me.
|
On January 10 2014 21:51 dreamseller wrote:
david kim has proven time and again that he can't or won't make the major design changes to the game needed, and is in actuality a PR man to the pro scene, simply parroting over and over the completely irrelevant "50%!".
Why the community listens and discusses so much about this useless PR front man who lacks the will or the power to improve the game in the many ways it desperately needs baffles me.
Because he is the guy responsible for balance. People think that balance is the problem of this game while it is not at all. Reasons I explained in my posts above. Dustin Browder is the one at fault.
|
On January 10 2014 21:32 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:17 tar wrote:On January 10 2014 21:12 bo1b wrote:On January 10 2014 21:10 tar wrote:On January 10 2014 20:52 bo1b wrote:On January 10 2014 20:24 tar wrote:On January 10 2014 20:16 bo1b wrote:On January 10 2014 20:11 tar wrote:On January 10 2014 19:57 bo1b wrote:On January 10 2014 19:52 tar wrote:
[quote]
In my experience apm scales with the demand there is to use actions. just because a toss only uses 100 apm doesn't mean he is less skilled. I am not even sure if it means that playing terran or zerg is harder due to this. A very simple example: to spend 100 mins on a zealot you need 2 actions (select gateway, click zealot) to spend 100 minerals on marines u need at least 3 actions (given a barracks with an reactor: select building, click marine 2 times). Does that mean building marines takes more skill than building zealots?
If a terran plays mech instead of BIO and his apm drop from 180 to 120, does that mean he is less skilled when he plays mech or that there is simply less demand to use APM?
That's why in my opinion apm is a bad indicator to judge one's overall skill, more so considering that alot of ppl spam apm due to bad habits and actually fail to use them effectively. One of the reasons it's so impressive to watch innovation or drg when they're on point is that they manage to do so much at once. Having an extra button to click when macroing is important, because it means pulling off everything else is that much harder to do. In any event, there isn't a single protoss player that really distinguishes himself from his peers via mechanical skill. The same isn't true for the other races at all. I disagree with the "on click matters because everything else is harder to do"-argument in general: e.g. spending 1000mins on zerglings simply means holding down a key yet equals 20apm. I am not saying apm isn't a factor to skill but it is a bad indicator. Also, I wasn't even considering pro lvl play. My sentiment to the apm/skill relationship is mostly based on the average sub gm player who equals high apm with skill. Starcraft is a game of managing resources. One of those resources is apm, or how much you can actually do. Arguing that making something harder doesn't affect the difficulty of other things is nonsensical. Not really. apm is not a limited resource in the sense that every one can only use 200 apm and after that his clicks won't count. Obviously there is a general physical APM limit to humans and a specific apm limit for every individual, yet again, I don't think that factors in most if any sc2 game sub pro lvl (i actually even doubt it at pro lvl) Also, not all APM is produced equally: my building zerglings example just shows that. You can also look at casting infested terrans for that matter: APM easily spikes to numbers above 600 in pro games when infested terrans are spammed. Does that make it hard to mass cast infested terrans? does it prevent the zerg from his usual macro tasks? Except your example of building zerglings doesn't show anything at all. If your making shit in the background then you cant be doing stuff in the foreground. How is it that hard to understand? If zerg and terran have to constantly be moving there army around then it becomes more difficult to find the time to do other stuff, which means that doing other stuff is harder. Dropping 50 infested terran eggs in an extremely short amount of time is difficult to do while microing your other units. Saying that you don't think something happens in a sub pro level means fuck all. When I played zerg 6 months ago finding the time to spread creep was insanely hard because I had to do a ton of other stuff. If i had another 50 apm and I could spread creep then that would directly influence my win rate. I just do not understand how you come to the conclusions that you have. Especially your example of pro level games, where people lose from being out multi tasked, out macrod etc so often. The creation of apm is irrelevant in so far of it being the equivalent of a time sink in game. If one race has to spend a significant amount less time the the other two then that accounts to difficulty. The creation of apm is irrelevant? if I a player can produce 20 actions by hitting 1 key for a second that does very much somatter when you claim that more apm = more skill. Also, I am talking about sub pro lvl. My short comment, that I think apm limits don't matter on a pro lvl are with regard to the fact that pros don't hit their physical APM limit at all in sc2. Why do I think that? BW required more APM than sc2 and it was still playable, meaning that all the pros playing sc2 at lower APM have a lot of spare APM. Getting out played by impressive multitasking says nothing about the APM but your ability to handle multiple tasks at the same time and make good decisions on all fronts. People have extremely similar levels of eapm for both terran zerg compared to broodwar counterparts lol. And yes, having to hold down z for a second to produce zerglings is an important thing to do, else we'd have long since converted to auto macro. Alright, now it gets stupid. I am talking apm you are talkin epm. More importantly: I never said making Zerglings is not important. I am making a point that 20 actions produced by holding down 1 key for 1 second is very different task from 20 actions created by microing a helion against a bunch of lings... Of course they're different actions, but can you not see that one of the negative impacts of injecting - > szzzzzzzz is having less time to micro those lings vs a hellion, or vice versa? What I'm arguing is that by removing the need to do such actions for one race makes it considerably easier to do other things. I don't see how thats arguable, the speed at which you measure mechanical demand will be lower for protoss in every way, be it spm, apm or eapm, and it negatively impacts on the game. Imagine if they had an army on parity with zergs going into the mid game and late game, and that they could amass such an army by turtling on three bases and then push out with a far easier to micro force. It would be ridiculous, and its the most frustrating thing in the world playing tvp, as it has all the hallmarks of that. Stupidly powerful early game all ins from protoss, a stronger late game composition simply from how the terran reinforcement mechanic works, and the low hp that terran units tend to have and an easier time doing everything. If it wasn't for how stupidly good korean terrans are, and how weak protoss is at certain points they would never lose. In any event this is silly, if you really think that all races have extremely similar levels of difficulty and that scelight or sc2gears is just reporting numbers that people falsely relate to skill or difficulty then I suppose we are going to have to disagree.
To cut it short, I actually only made two major points:
1. APM is not a good indicator for the overall skill of a player because
2. APM scales with the demand of it and is also influenced by certain macro mechanics
To come back to my initial example: A Terran playing mech at 120 apm is not less skilled than the same Terran playing bio at 200 apm. Same goes for Protoss.
If that makes things more difficult or not depends solely on your personal apm limit. Also, I am perfectly fine with us disagreeing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
