EPTDavid Kim's Current Balance Thoughts - Page 27
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
| ||
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
On January 11 2014 01:43 ArtistenSc2 wrote: Why not make all top players contribute? Just imagine what would happen to balance if IdrA contributed... I certainly wouldn't like it (neither would protoss pros). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 11 2014 01:45 Grumbels wrote: Stats from aligulac for the WCS Korea Code A qualifiers: PvT 32–30 (51.61%) It's the same pattern: terran is slightly disadvantaged in both non-mirrors and there is a general lack of terran players to begin with. Get out out of here with your math, logic and rational thinking. This discussion is about truth and how people feel. It would be corrupted by your filthy facts and data. On January 11 2014 01:51 Ragnarork wrote: Just imagine what would happen to balance if IdrA contributed... I certainly wouldn't like it (neither would protoss pros). Several people at blizzard have said that only a few pros provide useful feedback. The rest is very focused on their specific issues in a specific match up and overly bias. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
 )On January 11 2014 01:53 Plansix wrote: Get out out of here with your math, logic and rational thinking. This discussion is about truth and how people feel. It would be corrupted by your filthy facts and data. Sorry.  On January 11 2014 01:53 Plansix wrote: Several people at blizzard have said that only a few pros provide useful feedback. The rest is very focused on their specific issues in a specific match up and overly bias. I don't buy this though. I'm sure that by getting feedback from pros of all races that they can filter out most of the race bias. I mean, if terran players complain about protoss and protoss players do the opposite, then maybe in the end they can discover that terran players feel powerless in late-game and that protoss players feel powerless in mid-game? Even if the individual feedback is garbage, Blizzard should still be in conversations with pro-gamers because in the end they're the ones that know the game the best. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9359 Posts
What? there is no correlation between the number of players of each race in proleague and their average skilllevel. Not only that, you have to look at each roster seperately cause every team can only send out a maximum of 5 players (more like 4 though). Your missing the point here really. The point is that in order to play in proleague you need to meet a certain standard of quality. Now, there are many more protoss players playing in proleague than terran players. What does that say about balance (aside from the statistical insignifiance)? Answer: If you assume the average terran player is equally as skilled as the average protoss player, then terran is a weaker race beause you need to be in top 0.001% instead of top 0.002% to be "good enough". If the game is balanced, then the top 0.001% should be better than the top 0.002% player. But yeh, results are too insigificant, thus I prefer to look at Aliguac game distribution to get an understand of balance at competitive level (which hugely disfavors terran btw). | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
| ||
|
klup
France612 Posts
| ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On January 11 2014 01:45 Big J wrote: It's a balance discussion. make a blog if you want to discuss design. I think he has a point. There is more to balance than simply crunching numbers. I think a more effective way (albeit a harder way) would be to actually watch games of a certain level. Like, a lot of games. When you're crunching numbers the way he is you don't get to actually see the games, you don't see what came into play and what made the player win or lose. I think balance should be based on actual game analysis, not sheer numbers. The most effective way would probably be to gather a team to reviews games together. The games would have to be from Diamond+, as SC2 requires the player to have a certain understanding of the game and balance hardly matters at lower levels. In any case, balance shouldn't completely trump design. In the end, you may have a perfectly balanced game, but what does it matter if people don't enjoy playing it? I'm still convinced there are some deeper issues that lie with SC2, and that those would need to be addressed before balance, especially if said balance is calculated solely thanks to win rates. At the moment, the process of analyzing and tweaking balance involves Blizzard only. Now think about that for a second, and maybe you'll realize that it is completely wrong. It is Blizzard's game yes, but it is the players who should enjoy it. Ultimately, I think the players should have a lot more say in what is involved with the game. At the moment, the only back and forth we see involves DK and his numbers. In his post, he brings up points made by the community and counters them with potentially baseless numbers. Players should be more consulted, especially pro players. You'd have to take reasonable players known for their insight, and known for being unbiased, Grubby being the best example probably. Those players would be used to check on balance, while Blizzard could do some sort of survey to gauge the enjoyment of the players in the lower levels, since balance doesn't matter much there. A good example would be Poker. If any of you play online poker on PokerStars, you'll know that they hold a meeting with a "council" of excellent and well-known players in order to discuss issues related with their gaming conditions. Things would have to be different, but I believe something similar with Blizzard and SC2 would be great. It wouldn't even have to be half as flashy (PokerStars actually flies out the players to Isle of Man, puts them in a classy hotel, etc..) and it could all be done online. The only part that matters is the discussion and the back and forth between the relevant players and Blizzard. But well, that's just wishful thinking and it will never happen. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 11 2014 01:55 Grumbels wrote: The lead designer for Brood War was like a former professional gamer though. (guild master of the top Everquest guild) I'm sure that there are some pro players that would do a better job as lead multiplayer design than David Kim. I don't think IdrA would be bad at being the balance designer, for instance, assuming that he would first complete a college education. He seems like the right type for it. (I'll admit this is very controversial )Sorry. I don't buy this though. I'm sure that by getting feedback from pros of all races that they can filter out most of the race bias. I mean, if terran players complain about protoss and protoss players do the opposite, then maybe in the end they can discover that terran players feel powerless in late-game and that protoss players feel powerless in mid-game? Even if the individual feedback is garbage, Blizzard should still be in conversations with pro-gamers because in the end they're the ones that know the game the best. Blizzard has said they talk with pros that provide good feed back. Kim Pham just confirmed it again in Ret's blog. They just don't talk with everyone and the pros they do talk to don't broadcast that fact. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9359 Posts
I think he has a point. There is more to balance than simply crunching numbers. I think a more effective way (albeit a harder way) would be to actually watch games of a certain level. Like, a lot of games. When you're crunching numbers the way he is you don't get to actually see the games, you don't see what came into play and what made the player win or lose. I think balance should be based on actual game analysis, not sheer numbers. David Kim doesn't crunch numbers at all. He just gets them, then looks at them for 2 seconds and does other stuff. He definitely watches enough game I believe. | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On January 11 2014 02:06 Plansix wrote: Blizzard has said they talk with pros that provide good feed back. Kim Pham just confirmed it again in Ret's blog. They just don't talk with everyone and the pros they do talk to don't broadcast that fact. To be honest, my suspicion is that David Kim only talks to Korean casters & coaches, so it would be obvious that so many players say that they never had any contact with David Kim. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 11 2014 02:08 jdsowa wrote: This just shows the sophsticated degree to which Blizz understands player psychology. They realize that a percentage of the player base is going to be neurotic, paranoid, whiny, and defeatist. It would be a mistake to buff terran, because then all these people would no longer get to play the victim card, which is what they desire more than winning itself. This man may have just won the thread. | ||
|
danbel1005
United States1319 Posts
| ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On January 11 2014 02:12 Grumbels wrote: To be honest, my suspicion is that David Kim only talks to Korean casters & coaches, so it would be obvious that so many players say that they never had any contact with David Kim. ToD, Polt and Apolo are some that are public. Some Korean caster to. As far as coaches, that would be GREAT, but i don't think it's the case. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
For Aiur! | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On January 11 2014 02:20 Sapphire.lux wrote: ToD, Polt and Apolo are some that are public. Some Korean caster too. As far as coaches, that would be GREAT, but i don't think it's the case. Yeah, he mentions Engine a lot. Also Day[9]. All those people you mentioned are either casters or Koreans though. | ||
|
PPN
France248 Posts
On January 11 2014 00:40 Spaylz wrote: When I read that kind of post by David Kim, I get the feeling that Blizzard has lost sight of the fact that SC2 is a game, and it is meant for people to have fun and enjoy themselves. As of now, according to this post, they seem to be lost in numbers, completely forgetting the fact that a lot of people are falling out of love with the game because they don't find it enjoyable. Balance and level of enjoyment are two different (and sometimes unrelated) things. LoL and DotA 2 are, to my mind, clearly not balanced. But player skill makes up for it along with team play. WC3 was not balanced, and with hindsight, actually needed some serious work on a couple of mechanics. It still was a ton of fun (and still is) and people did complain about the balance but still played it, because it was awesome. It's probably harder to work that way with a RTS though, because it's no team game and you can't rely on another player to make up for something that might happen due to an unbalance. Blizzard should give up on the idea of making a 100% balanced game, there is no such thing. Not unless you create a bland produce with one race where every player gets exactly the same units. There will always be an unbalance somewhere, no matter how small. I wish Blizzard would focus on the more important picture: getting people who are no longer enjoying the game to like it again by bringing some bold changes to it. Look at DotA 2: I believe IceFrog recently released a patch where he changed a whole lot of things, and I mean a whole lot. Of course, it's a different game and there are factors to be taken into consideration which make it so that the changes probably can't be as harsh, but still. He is willing to make huge changes to his game, and Blizzard is not (never was, really). In the end, I think it will cost them dear. Don't get me wrong, I understand their need to balance SC2, it's an e-sport, there's money involved and a lot of people take it very seriously. It's a business and a sport. Nonetheless, I think it's a mistake to focus solely on that when a lot of people are complaining about a more important factor for a game: their level of enjoyment. I only partially agree with you about the enjoyment part. You can't compare a team game like Lol or Dota where imbalance is a non issue because teamates' picks make up for it and SC2 where it's basically a duel. SC2's balance is not an option contrary to these game and SC2 is actually balanced (because ladder was designed to make it happen and pro level mostly shows it). A lot of people here fail to see the difference between balance and design, and they are kinda crying to the wrong person for the wrong reasons. DK obviously has little room to tweak the latter. Oh and some people here also have a very bad case of delusion and paranoia about Blizzard/DK being incompetent/lazy/biaised/ill-intentioned. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On January 11 2014 01:43 dUTtrOACh wrote: What he doesn't get is that balance isn't purely represented by win-rates with skill factored out over a 6-day period. Also, he doesn't get the actual complaints people are making about certain match-ups if he thinks that they need more time to look at numbers. Long story short, he doesn't get it; you know... the game. It makes sense that PvT is the match-up with the most glaring issues, because he understands them the least. To not realize that Protoss has too much AoE while Terran is forced into a high-DPS, low HP, volatile army composition with very little early-game damage potential and no late-game seems pretty ridiculous. For the match-up to have undergone such a gigantic transformation from what it was in Broodwar it should make a person wonder what they've done wrong, but no... They seem to think it's all perfectly fine for the time being. Ok, fair enough, but what if that is just sc2? What if Terran mid-game is where they shine? Is that a problem with the game or with taste? Zerg had virtually no aggressive (read: early-game) options vs Terran in Broodwar but everyone just accepted it because that's what the game was. I understand that some people (a vocal set) are upset with the state of the game, but is there really a problem with balance? Or is it just design that they're mad about? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9359 Posts
Zerg had virtually no aggressive (read: early-game) options vs Terran in Broodwar but everyone just accepted it because that's what the game was. I actually think the reason for why terrans complaint isn't that they can't put reliable pressure pre 10th minute mark on the protss. But rather, that protoss has so many insanely powerfull allins and terran has 0. So its the combination really. Now, if protoss allins were "just" as strong as in WOL, the assymetry would be lower and people wouldn't complain as much. In TvZ BW - Terran didn't really have a wide variety of pre 10th minute allins that were super hard to beat, and that's the difference. | ||
| ||
