|
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.
By expanding you get more gas. More gas = better units. This might not always work out as expected, but saying there is no countermeasure to turtling is just plain wrong. Also, every mod that's ever been somewhat successful has been considered an upgrade by some. That's why people play it. That's why they made it in the first place. That doesn't say anything about how well or badly designed a game is. You can always create a mod to specifically cater to the wishes of one set of people. For those people, the mod must be an upgrade.
|
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.
Where did you find this? I can probably tell you how it works if I knew what all the symbols mean.
|
France9034 Posts
I don't want to appear condescending or whatever, but seriously, blizzard, you're doing it kinda wrong....
Balance is one thing. But a game can be perfectly balanced, it doesn't automatically grant that it will be good, or that it doesn't need to be improved... Flipping a coin is perfectly balanced, but I'd be fucking bored of flipping coin for minutes... (No analogy there, I just needed an example  ).
I mean. RorO vs Stats earlier this week in Proleague (don't worry, only minor spoilers, and not about match result). Maybe that situation was perfectly balanced. But it was horrible as fuck to watch for many people. Balance is one thing, but it isn't everything.
I believe the game is quite balanced (yeah, even the 1 - 15 record in the Proleague doesn't prevent me to say this, Proleague has always been kind of weird when it comes to balance and the metagame, let alone it's a teamleague and I don't believe we can harvest really meaningful data from these).
The real questions I'd like to ask David Kim:
- The game is quite balanced, but when will the collossus get out?
- The game is quite balanced, but when will the swarm host get out or get interesting to watch?
- The game is quite balanced, but when will ZvP stop having a horrible late-game?
- The game is quite balanced, but when will PvT stop being a one way match-up for the terran (i.e. bio, bio, bio, viking/ghost lategame) 95% of the time? (Mvp vs Squirtle <3)
- The game is quite balanced, but when will be implemented a really interesting micro potential like shown in the Depth of Micro video, something that's already feasible by just manipulating some unit's stats?
- The game is quite balanced, but when will the corruptor be reworked/removed in favor of a more interesting unit?
- The game is quite balanced, but when will we get rid of the really high damage/low hp ratio that makes battles end in seconds, and most of the time games with them?
These questions have nothing to do with balance. Nothing. Well, they do, in the sense of the change they imply also imply there'll be the need to have a balanced game after.
Don't get me wrong, I still love Starcraft. (Yes, even in the face of the ZvP match-up, I still enjoy watching!). But I can't stop thinking about what it could be. And I think it could be much more. I also know that it isn't easy to change this kind of game like that. It's really hard. I can't really talk about BW as I picked up kind of late, but I know it had its rough path before a stable and awesome game, and that SC2 is still young. But we're way more aware of this these days than we were 12 years ago (which is simply a question of scale: way more people getting into e-sports as spectator, way more potential genius dissecting the game and offering possibilities).
Now, I also know I may not now enough to talk about this, but I really like to have David Kim opinion on this...
|
On January 10 2014 21:54 blarkh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:38 Ammanas wrote: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. By expanding you get more gas. More gas = better units. This might not always work out as expected, but saying there is no countermeasure to turtling is just plain wrong. Also, every mod that's ever been somewhat successful has been considered an upgrade by some. That's why people play it. That's why they made it in the first place. That doesn't say anything about how well or badly designed a game is. You can always create a mod to specifically cater to the wishes of one set of people. For those people, the mod must be an upgrade.
hydra vs reality. Every avilo game. Most goody games. 3base economy allow you to max on a decent army comp with upgrades, a 4th is useful for Z but not for P and T.
|
On January 10 2014 21:53 Ammanas wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't think so. Blizzard's multiplayer design team consists of Dustin Browder & David Kim pretty much. And Browder is also responsible for the entire design of the single player campaign and many auxiliary aspects of battle.net. I think it's dangerous to speculate about relative responsibility for the state of the game, we don't really know the dynamics in play in the design team. It's even difficult to state that Dustin Browder should take final responsibility as the game director, because he was brought on the project only in 2007, when the game was already two years in development. And currently he's off developing Heroes of the Storm.
|
|
|
On January 10 2014 21:54 blarkh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:38 Ammanas wrote: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. By expanding you get more gas. More gas = better units. This might not always work out as expected, but saying there is no countermeasure to turtling is just plain wrong. Also, every mod that's ever been somewhat successful has been considered an upgrade by some. That's why people play it. That's why they made it in the first place. That doesn't say anything about how well or badly designed a game is. You can always create a mod to specifically cater to the wishes of one set of people. For those people, the mod must be an upgrade.
I think the reason the BW economy works well is generally misunderstood by most people. Most people seem to think that it just makes expanding more rewarding, however, its not as simple as that. Instead, it obtains the below two characterisca at the same time.
- Makes expanding more rewarding for the mobile race --> The mobile race can always stay ahead in econ relative to immobile race. This is unlike in Sc2, where the immobile race often times priororities securing a 4th rather than attacking as he can have the same level of income on 4bases as the mobile race can have on 5 races. In BW 5 bases > 4 bases. In Sc2, 5 bases = 4 bases.
- Incentives the immobile race to take expansions at a slower rate and instead invests into offensive/aggresive units. This is the most misnderstood part of the economy, and probably the most important. In BW the immobile race can have much higher 2/3-base income than in Sc2, which incentiives offensive playstyles rather than being "forced" to turtle all game long as in Sc2.
So to make it simple. BW econ allows the mobile race to take lots of bases while the immobile race doesn't have to.
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.
FRB failed cus it was a flawed concept for reasons described above. It actually forced the immobile race to take bases faster which makes the game more turtlish and defensive as the immobile race can't invest into offensive units.
Starbow today replicates the BW econ (roughly) which is the most solid one out there.
|
I think we need to look as much at the TvZ, if there's been the shit-ton of whine about protoss beeing even "broken" right now from alot of terrans. And while PvT has seen an advantage for protoss lately, look at TvZ, it's pretty damn close to the same statistics in favor of the Terran as what Protoss has agains Terran. How come that is never brought up to the same kind of light?
|
On January 10 2014 22:03 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:53 Ammanas wrote: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. I don't think so. Blizzard's multiplayer design team consists of Dustin Browder & David Kim pretty much. And Browder is also responsible for the entire design of the single player campaign and many auxiliary aspects of battle.net. I think it's dangerous to speculate about relative responsibility for the state of the game, we don't really know the dynamics in play in the design team. It's even difficult to state that Dustin Browder should take final responsibility as the game director, because he was brought on the project only in 2007, when the game was already two years in development. And currently he's off developing Heroes of the Storm.
Whatever happened to Rob Pardo
|
I think balance should only be an issue if it ruins the game. As BL/Infestor did. If the game should be played, it must make fun. That said, balance doesn't matter. As a zerg player, I would love to see Swarm Host removed. Completely.
|
On January 10 2014 21:42 shivver wrote:
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.
Finaly a protoss that are actually smart and see the problem;)
you have a star in my book
|
What I feel are very good suggestions mentioned by some GM/pros: (with much respect for the balance team)
- I like the baby steps on the Time Warp (this is not the most important))
- I like the baby steps on the Photon Overcharge (somewhat important)
- Baby steps instead on the Hydralisk changes, maybe 125/50 instead 100/50 to keep the massing of the unit somewhat in check.
- Key change: Reducing the MSC sight range. I think this could change the metagame. It has to be done this way to help TvP without having a negative impact on PvP macro games. More than baby steps are needed here - it must be meaningful.
- Remove EB prerequisite for the missile turret. This will help alot in TvP when we do scout cheese. This should allow the Terran to come out equal or ahead (perhaps by dropping down a CC earlier) when we see that early SG, DS or Blink with MSC. This should not impact TvZ or TvT if you think about it.
- Keep the ghost change but perhaps tone it down (maybe reduce cost of research by 50/50 and make it 30 seconds). There are more important changes that must be made, which will have an impact on the meta game to the point where ghosts come into play.
- You must change the tank. It must have a component that is damage to shields. This could not be more clear. Make it +5, +10 or +15 damage to shields (Avilo suggested +15 but do try out less if that is what is acceptable for now). Just test this it out, please. Baby steps... your fans have waited long enough on this one. Lets not wait until LOTV on this.
- Baby steps on the Tempest changes.
- Revert back some of the Dark Shrine buffs. Baby steps instead of the prior changes.
Thank you for listening. Please consider Avilo's comments thus far. I think his views on TvP balance are very very good. The only thing about his suggestions that I am not entirely comfortable with are the armory changes impacting TvZ.
|
On January 10 2014 22:07 NapkinBox wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 22:03 Grumbels wrote:On January 10 2014 21:53 Ammanas wrote: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. I don't think so. Blizzard's multiplayer design team consists of Dustin Browder & David Kim pretty much. And Browder is also responsible for the entire design of the single player campaign and many auxiliary aspects of battle.net. I think it's dangerous to speculate about relative responsibility for the state of the game, we don't really know the dynamics in play in the design team. It's even difficult to state that Dustin Browder should take final responsibility as the game director, because he was brought on the project only in 2007, when the game was already two years in development. And currently he's off developing Heroes of the Storm. Whatever happened to Rob Pardo
Probably working on Titan.
|
On January 10 2014 21:54 blarkh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:38 Ammanas wrote: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. By expanding you get more gas. More gas = better units. This might not always work out as expected, but saying there is no countermeasure to turtling is just plain wrong. Also, every mod that's ever been somewhat successful has been considered an upgrade by some. That's why people play it. That's why they made it in the first place. That doesn't say anything about how well or badly designed a game is. You can always create a mod to specifically cater to the wishes of one set of people. For those people, the mod must be an upgrade.
I was talking about something else. Players cannot make more workers then really necessary cause then they just straight up lose to turtling player when he finally moves out.
60 is the magic number in SC2, give or take (usually it is slightly more, because of various reasons). Now, when it is 60 against 60 workers, it doesn't matter if you have 5 or 3 bases - you are still mining the same. Yes, you can create few more workers and mine more gas, but it is directly influencing you army in a negative way (less supply for units).
How it should be working is, that if you are 60 vs 60 workers and you have 5 bases while your opponent has 3, you should be mining more. Economy in SC2 doesn't allow this.
I was not talking about creating more workers. I was saying that if you have the same amount of workers as turling player, it doesn't matter if you are on 3 or 5 bases. It should matter. It is just bad design.
|
On January 10 2014 22:12 Elendur wrote:
The following is a question for anyone that shares the same reasoning as the Blizzard balance team:
- So if the only Terrans left in the entire world-wide GM league were Polt, Bomber and Taeja, and they managed to maintain 50% win rates.... TvP would be balanced in the GM league?
Representation is way off in the GM league from what we can see. Perhaps this affects the data that you view showing that the remaining Terrans are less impacted than those who would have 30-40% win rates if they actually still were showing as Terran in GM?
GM is the weirdest league, you've a huuuuuuuuuuge skill difference between top and bottom, lots of ppl with 2+ accounts in it, people with 70+% winrate over an entire season and co. + only 200 accounts (and way less person)
|
well from a gold zerg perspective,it's kinda funny with protoss...what i mean about that is the thing that,altho you have 1 more base up,more army(roach/hydra/ling) better positioning,you get absolutely crushed by some arcon/zealot/stalker/imortall spam,obv it's a counter,but 20-25 more army supply it's just ridicilous...
tvz in golds is as following,altho zergs tend not to have a bad time vs bio ball,it just gets stupid to play on bigger maps,the terran just can easily outproduce almost every zerg from 3 bases,as he spams just marines,and tanks. Now many of you will think,well it's easy mutas,banelings lings,"easy" but the factor of "creepy" is that the terran production at 3 bases is just to funny...terrans can make so many marines,and still not have a great macro,and not even spend their whole minerals...as you as a zerg,have 4-5 bases up,tending to make a economic advantage,ye in ur ***...and i don't even need to comment on mech vs zerg,if you don't scout it you get crushed and demolished,if you scout it,still you have some badass time...
|
On January 10 2014 22:14 Ammanas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 21:54 blarkh wrote:On January 10 2014 21:38 Ammanas wrote: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. By expanding you get more gas. More gas = better units. This might not always work out as expected, but saying there is no countermeasure to turtling is just plain wrong. Also, every mod that's ever been somewhat successful has been considered an upgrade by some. That's why people play it. That's why they made it in the first place. That doesn't say anything about how well or badly designed a game is. You can always create a mod to specifically cater to the wishes of one set of people. For those people, the mod must be an upgrade. I was talking about something else. Players cannot make more workers then really necessary cause then they just straight up lose to turtling player when he finally moves out. 60 is the magic number in SC2, give or take (usually it is slightly more, because of various reasons). Now, when it is 60 against 60 workers, it doesn't matter if you have 5 or 3 bases - you are still mining the same. Yes, you can create few more workers and mine more gas, but it is directly influencing you army in a negative way (less supply for units). How it should be working is, that if you are 60 vs 60 workers and you have 5 bases while your opponent has 3, you should be mining more. Economy in SC2 doesn't allow this. I was not talking about creating more workers. I was saying that if you have the same amount of workers as turling player, it doesn't matter if you are on 3 or 5 bases. It should matter. It is just bad design.
That's not true really. The optimal amount of workers depends upon how much army-trading we see. If there is constant action, then 80+ workers is absolutely fine.
But yeh, there is definitely a problem Sc2-econ as immobile race is always incentivized to take another base rather than attacking due to the "catch-up" issue.
|
On January 10 2014 22:18 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 22:14 Ammanas wrote:On January 10 2014 21:54 blarkh wrote:On January 10 2014 21:38 Ammanas wrote: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. By expanding you get more gas. More gas = better units. This might not always work out as expected, but saying there is no countermeasure to turtling is just plain wrong. Also, every mod that's ever been somewhat successful has been considered an upgrade by some. That's why people play it. That's why they made it in the first place. That doesn't say anything about how well or badly designed a game is. You can always create a mod to specifically cater to the wishes of one set of people. For those people, the mod must be an upgrade. I was talking about something else. Players cannot make more workers then really necessary cause then they just straight up lose to turtling player when he finally moves out. 60 is the magic number in SC2, give or take (usually it is slightly more, because of various reasons). Now, when it is 60 against 60 workers, it doesn't matter if you have 5 or 3 bases - you are still mining the same. Yes, you can create few more workers and mine more gas, but it is directly influencing you army in a negative way (less supply for units). How it should be working is, that if you are 60 vs 60 workers and you have 5 bases while your opponent has 3, you should be mining more. Economy in SC2 doesn't allow this. I was not talking about creating more workers. I was saying that if you have the same amount of workers as turling player, it doesn't matter if you are on 3 or 5 bases. It should matter. It is just bad design. That's not true really. The optimal amount of workers depends upon how much army-trading we see. If there is constant action, then 80+ workers is absolutely fine. But yeh, there is definitely a problem Sc2-econ as immobile race is always incentivized to take another base rather than attacking due to the "catch-up" issue.
When one of the players (or both for that matter) is turtling, we don't see too much army trading, do we?
|
On January 10 2014 22:18 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 22:14 Ammanas wrote:On January 10 2014 21:54 blarkh wrote:On January 10 2014 21:38 Ammanas wrote: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. By expanding you get more gas. More gas = better units. This might not always work out as expected, but saying there is no countermeasure to turtling is just plain wrong. Also, every mod that's ever been somewhat successful has been considered an upgrade by some. That's why people play it. That's why they made it in the first place. That doesn't say anything about how well or badly designed a game is. You can always create a mod to specifically cater to the wishes of one set of people. For those people, the mod must be an upgrade. I was talking about something else. Players cannot make more workers then really necessary cause then they just straight up lose to turtling player when he finally moves out. 60 is the magic number in SC2, give or take (usually it is slightly more, because of various reasons). Now, when it is 60 against 60 workers, it doesn't matter if you have 5 or 3 bases - you are still mining the same. Yes, you can create few more workers and mine more gas, but it is directly influencing you army in a negative way (less supply for units). How it should be working is, that if you are 60 vs 60 workers and you have 5 bases while your opponent has 3, you should be mining more. Economy in SC2 doesn't allow this. I was not talking about creating more workers. I was saying that if you have the same amount of workers as turling player, it doesn't matter if you are on 3 or 5 bases. It should matter. It is just bad design. That's not true really. The optimal amount of workers depends upon how much army-trading we see. If there is constant action, then 80+ workers is absolutely fine. But yeh, there is definitely a problem Sc2-econ as immobile race is always incentivized to take another base rather than attacking due to the "catch-up" issue.
80 worker is overkill 100% of the time for P/T if there is lots of action you cannot stretch yourself too thin or you die.
|
Being safe and feeling safe are two different things in real world. Seeing a few horrible crimes on TV can make people feel unsafe despite the low crime rate stats published by authorities.
Similarly, being balanced and feeling balanced are two different things in starcraft. 50-50 data by Blizzard is not what makes players happy. That's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
