|
On January 11 2014 05:10 ftjust wrote:
how does blizzard determine a players skill level to be able to count his games towards the stats? these stats feel like bullshit to me.
its as if they only took peoples stats who had close to 50% winrate.
No, I suspect that their mysterious "skill" algorithm is just the MMR - which is why you see such even balance across all leagues.
|
What a joke. Who gives a crap what the actual % are. The game is a mess to play and watch. It's just like infestor/BL in WoL. Who cares if it's winnable, it was stupid to play and stupid to watch. Make the matchups more dynamic and worry about win % later.
The whole 'well our metrics say the matchup is within +- 3% of 50% so everything is ok' attitude is why the game has stagnated so much.
|
OK full disclosure I don't play SC2, just watch.
Thats out of the way I will say a few short words. I am not shocked that this thread is 29 pages of balance accusations but sadly disappointed. AFA balance is concerned, Protoss isn't as bad as people say, its borne out by the statistics not by pro league streak. For a year David Kim has been crunching numbers and never has he felt like there needed a large change to the game, I trust that his team isn't lying to not do their job, its just seriously balanced.
Protoss isn't broken its powerful! Anyone can be good with Protoss, I just saw Taeja rape Sen in a show match as Protoss and he looked like capable of beating anyone if he switched right now, my point is Protoss has the tools to beat anyone, and is easier to play in some ways than Terran based on warp gates and warp prisms giving battlefield presence anywhere and easy mass spamming of units making it powerful in the hands of experts.
You know, I feel like the truth of the matter is twofold; people want to blame balance for their shortcomings and they do not want to address the elephant in the room. SC2 as a spectator sport is extremely boring for the most part.
The game has achieved humanly possible levels of balance year(s?) ago and now its been slight tweak here, slight tweak there. We haven't had a dramatic gameplay ability or across the board balance change forever. Every game is so easy to know what to expect and sleepy unless there is a lot at stake then SC2 is still good.
Ironically to make the game fun, we need to break it again and throw caution to the wind and let balance get bad for awhile.
This is what I want, Season 4 (I think 2 seasons a year right?) add a new unit to each race and let the chips fall where they may. That would provide a huge shot in the arm and be controversial and fun. Terran get Science Vessel. Zerg get Raptor to jump cliffs maybe Lurker if Raptor isn't powerful enough. Protoss get Dark Archons. I really believe this game needs a boost patch into LoTV, would be fun and chaotic. Make the new units DLC so Blizzard makes money.
Also quickly on Mech: one thing I see when most Terran go mech, they don't repair with SCVs. Mech doesnt work because a lot of times people don't "all in" on Mech! At least try to repair your tanks as that is why mech would even be viable in the first place.
If Blizzard allowed SCV to "boost repair" people would be encouraged to bring them. Say double mineral cost and repair speed, right now arguably SCV repair too slow to be attractive.
Thats all I got. Peace.
|
how can they quote those stats and say they prove anything about the balance when all it shows is the fact that their match making is working fine ?
|
On January 11 2014 06:03 kongoline wrote:
how can they quote those stats and say they prove anything about the balance when all it shows is the fact that their match making is working fine ?
Because they said they citing matches from players of similar skill level within their ranking system. Of course people could argue that the system is flawed due to imbalances in the game, but I don't feel that is the case.
|
On January 11 2014 04:19 ArTiFaKs wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 01:43 Justikhar wrote:On January 11 2014 01:22 templar rage wrote:
However, I do agree that David Kim/Blizzard should be spending more time trying to make the game better designed instead of chasing a 50/50 winrate. The process should be that they make a fun game, and then they balance it. This is probably what they're doing, but Blizzard believes they have a fun game and have moved on to balancing it, whereas we here aren't as confident.
And of course this is where Blizzard calls "BS". Why? Because here you are in this forum talking about a game that is essentially just the 4th expansion of a game that came out in 1998, over 15 years ago. Starcraft isn't a subscription model like WoW. They don't have to constantly placate to the base to maintain a revenue stream. They have other brands they can focus on, and even new ones (Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, etc) They are proud of the brand and the massive tournaments and fan LOVE for the game they seen over the years, so they choose to make a commitment to it, period. If it really wasn't a fun and beloved product, they could dump it like the thousands of junk games you never heard of sitting on a Gamestop shelf right now. Far contrary to your implication of them not not having a 'fun game', they have one of the most fun games of all time .... that's why this website exists, and that's why you're on said website talking about it. Much of this is standard human behavior, so there are no surprises here, but always worth acknowledging. Just a bunch of fat people in a candy store complaining to everyone in line how terrible that platter of free chocolates they just finished off was. This.
Justikhar is the new bonjwa of TL forums.
|
On January 11 2014 06:12 Tiaraju9 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 04:19 ArTiFaKs wrote:On January 11 2014 01:43 Justikhar wrote:On January 11 2014 01:22 templar rage wrote:
However, I do agree that David Kim/Blizzard should be spending more time trying to make the game better designed instead of chasing a 50/50 winrate. The process should be that they make a fun game, and then they balance it. This is probably what they're doing, but Blizzard believes they have a fun game and have moved on to balancing it, whereas we here aren't as confident.
And of course this is where Blizzard calls "BS". Why? Because here you are in this forum talking about a game that is essentially just the 4th expansion of a game that came out in 1998, over 15 years ago. Starcraft isn't a subscription model like WoW. They don't have to constantly placate to the base to maintain a revenue stream. They have other brands they can focus on, and even new ones (Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, etc) They are proud of the brand and the massive tournaments and fan LOVE for the game they seen over the years, so they choose to make a commitment to it, period. If it really wasn't a fun and beloved product, they could dump it like the thousands of junk games you never heard of sitting on a Gamestop shelf right now. Far contrary to your implication of them not not having a 'fun game', they have one of the most fun games of all time .... that's why this website exists, and that's why you're on said website talking about it. Much of this is standard human behavior, so there are no surprises here, but always worth acknowledging. Just a bunch of fat people in a candy store complaining to everyone in line how terrible that platter of free chocolates they just finished off was. This. Justikhar is the new bonjwa of TL forums.
Long live the king.
|
On January 11 2014 01:43 Justikhar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 01:22 templar rage wrote:
However, I do agree that David Kim/Blizzard should be spending more time trying to make the game better designed instead of chasing a 50/50 winrate. The process should be that they make a fun game, and then they balance it. This is probably what they're doing, but Blizzard believes they have a fun game and have moved on to balancing it, whereas we here aren't as confident.
And of course this is where Blizzard calls "BS". Why? Because here you are in this forum talking about a game that is essentially just the 4th expansion of a game that came out in 1998, over 15 years ago. Starcraft isn't a subscription model like WoW. They don't have to constantly placate to the base to maintain a revenue stream. They have other brands they can focus on, and even new ones (Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, etc) They are proud of the brand and the massive tournaments and fan LOVE for the game they seen over the years, so they choose to make a commitment to it, period. If it really wasn't a fun and beloved product, they could dump it like the thousands of junk games you never heard of sitting on a Gamestop shelf right now. Far contrary to your implication of them not not having a 'fun game', they have one of the most fun games of all time .... that's why this website exists, and that's why you're on said website talking about it. Much of this is standard human behavior, so there are no surprises here, but always worth acknowledging. Just a bunch of fat people in a candy store complaining to everyone in line how terrible that platter of free chocolates they just finished off was.
Beautiful
|
I think DK is just worrying about his job here. I imagine that they have some kind of goal with top priority that all MU is within 5% of balance, and it's easy to just get ladder data where MMR is already doing 99% of the job balancing the WR. Then there are "work items" to make sure the new units get used to justify their design work in HoTS. Units like hellbats and widow mines have seen good use in the beginning so the corresponding "work items" are closed and the units can be nerfed. Oracle, on the other hand, needed to be buffed since the corresponding "work item" was still outstanding.
DK almost never revert patches because it would be difficult to justify that to his boss. Patch + revert = resources spent on a net result of nothing.
|
On January 11 2014 06:35 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 01:43 Justikhar wrote:On January 11 2014 01:22 templar rage wrote:
However, I do agree that David Kim/Blizzard should be spending more time trying to make the game better designed instead of chasing a 50/50 winrate. The process should be that they make a fun game, and then they balance it. This is probably what they're doing, but Blizzard believes they have a fun game and have moved on to balancing it, whereas we here aren't as confident.
And of course this is where Blizzard calls "BS". Why? Because here you are in this forum talking about a game that is essentially just the 4th expansion of a game that came out in 1998, over 15 years ago. Starcraft isn't a subscription model like WoW. They don't have to constantly placate to the base to maintain a revenue stream. They have other brands they can focus on, and even new ones (Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, etc) They are proud of the brand and the massive tournaments and fan LOVE for the game they seen over the years, so they choose to make a commitment to it, period. If it really wasn't a fun and beloved product, they could dump it like the thousands of junk games you never heard of sitting on a Gamestop shelf right now. Far contrary to your implication of them not not having a 'fun game', they have one of the most fun games of all time .... that's why this website exists, and that's why you're on said website talking about it. Much of this is standard human behavior, so there are no surprises here, but always worth acknowledging. Just a bunch of fat people in a candy store complaining to everyone in line how terrible that platter of free chocolates they just finished off was. Beautiful
It is a wonderful , sobering discription of this thread.
|
All the people asking Blizzard to focus on "fun" or "game design" need to realize that those are the kinds of things they save for expansions. Why? Because it's what the players actually want, and it takes more time than simply applying a balance patch, so of course they are going to make you pay for it. Sure, they can tweak a few stats in the name of having a more diverse and exciting game, but they aren't going to redesign a unit, add a new skill, or do anything that could significantly upset the balance of the game, because they really don't have time for that when their real job is to make an expansion.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 11 2014 05:31 oxxo wrote:
What a joke. Who gives a crap what the actual % are. The game is a mess to play and watch. It's just like infestor/BL in WoL. Who cares if it's winnable, it was stupid to play and stupid to watch. Make the matchups more dynamic and worry about win % later.
The whole 'well our metrics say the matchup is within +- 3% of 50% so everything is ok' attitude is why the game has stagnated so much.
Here's a fun question: what if winrates drop below 40% for one race for a while following a complete overhaul? Do you really think people wouldn't want to lynch David Kim just as much then as they do now, if not more? Dynamic match-ups and whatnot is great and greater variety is always something to strive for, but let's not fool ourselves - people would be incredibly mad.
|
On January 11 2014 05:31 oxxo wrote:
What a joke. Who gives a crap what the actual % are. The game is a mess to play and watch. It's just like infestor/BL in WoL. Who cares if it's winnable, it was stupid to play and stupid to watch. Make the matchups more dynamic and worry about win % later.
The whole 'well our metrics say the matchup is within +- 3% of 50% so everything is ok' attitude is why the game has stagnated so much.
This. All of the games I see these days are just macro games that build up to exactly 1 battle and it's over.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 11 2014 06:48 wptlzkwjd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 05:31 oxxo wrote:
What a joke. Who gives a crap what the actual % are. The game is a mess to play and watch. It's just like infestor/BL in WoL. Who cares if it's winnable, it was stupid to play and stupid to watch. Make the matchups more dynamic and worry about win % later.
The whole 'well our metrics say the matchup is within +- 3% of 50% so everything is ok' attitude is why the game has stagnated so much. This. All of the games I see these days are just macro games that build up to exactly 1 battle and it's over.
Which game are you watching?
|
On January 11 2014 06:50 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 06:48 wptlzkwjd wrote:On January 11 2014 05:31 oxxo wrote:
What a joke. Who gives a crap what the actual % are. The game is a mess to play and watch. It's just like infestor/BL in WoL. Who cares if it's winnable, it was stupid to play and stupid to watch. Make the matchups more dynamic and worry about win % later.
The whole 'well our metrics say the matchup is within +- 3% of 50% so everything is ok' attitude is why the game has stagnated so much. This. All of the games I see these days are just macro games that build up to exactly 1 battle and it's over. Which game are you watching?
The one in his mind where everyone just a-moves at eachother. People seem to shape the game I their minds to fit the argument they want to make.
|
On January 11 2014 00:28 Satiinifi wrote:
I guess it all depends on how you measure balance, if you take the best player of each race and make them duke it out the game is probly balanced, has always been, but if you take 100-1000 top players of each race, its extremely extremely fucking imbalanced. Its same as saying that the wealth in the world is fairly balanced, if you take 3 of the richest fuckers out there, but if you include the couple of billion people who are fucking starving, it doesnt look too fair anymore does it. David kim is just a fucking delusional guy living in his very own world, far from realism.
so he posts win% for all leagues, which are pretty even if you ask me, and still gets flamed for only looking at 100-1000 top players of each race...
|
Hm, i think i'l start to ladder again just to see what all the fuss is about. How bad can it be? Or are we talking mostly prolevel here?
|
On January 11 2014 06:47 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 05:31 oxxo wrote:
What a joke. Who gives a crap what the actual % are. The game is a mess to play and watch. It's just like infestor/BL in WoL. Who cares if it's winnable, it was stupid to play and stupid to watch. Make the matchups more dynamic and worry about win % later.
The whole 'well our metrics say the matchup is within +- 3% of 50% so everything is ok' attitude is why the game has stagnated so much. Here's a fun question: what if winrates drop below 40% for one race for a while following a complete overhaul? Do you really think people wouldn't want to lynch David Kim just as much then as they do now, if not more? Dynamic match-ups and whatnot is great and greater variety is always something to strive for, but let's not fool ourselves - people would be incredibly mad.
I think most people arent asking for big overhauls at once, just continuous incremental changes that build towards more diversity. Which is basically what they have been doing, except suddenly they want to "take it slow" after the last patch that did way more harm than good for balance. The least they should be doing now is rectify the last patch by either pulling back some of the changes or just giving small buffs in other areas to compensate. Then they can take all the time they want to work on heroes.
Also I don't even understand what winrates have to do with buffing underused stuff such as mech TvP and roach burrow. Those are not even a part of the current meta, so theres no reason not to keep slowly pushing them.
|
On January 10 2014 11:39 iHirO wrote:
I'd be interested to know how the player skill was factored out.
Almost certainly some sort of Bayesian inference approach, from the little maths we've seen.
|
On January 10 2014 11:55 CutTheEnemy wrote:
On EU, 24% of masters players are terran now compared with 35% and 38% for zerg and protoss. How can he say its balanced considering this? His appeal to win percentages within leagues is highly misleading.
He's also been speaking for years as though he's ignorant of our main complaint- its isn't balance per se, its how hard and stressful it is to play terran and win. We know terrans can win once they go pro, but most of us aren't capable of sustaining the serious damage to our personal relationships, grades, hands and paychecks it takes in order to play the race competitively.
Saying statistics and claiming numbers is one thing, it's a whole other thing to actually put down a reliable source along with your story. Where did you take those statistics from? Not sc2ranks I hope, since that is awfully inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
