|
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
There's a story i was told, a legend maybe.
There was this PC game, that sold superbly. One of the best selling PC games of all time. It was a sequel to a very popular franchise. Needles to say, the "casuals" loved it.
There was a problem though: the "hardcore" players, were super critical of the game. Not just superficial stuff, but core elements. Long posts and blogs and VLogs were made to explain all the problems of this "terrible" game that sold extremely well. What elitist bastards and ungrateful bunch of nostalgic whiners eh?
Then something magical happen, as it does only in legends. The company that made the game actually replaced the game designer by "moving him to a new project". The designer that made one of the best selling games of all time! Then they dropped a few of the most fundamental elements of the game, things that took them a long time to develop, just dropped because they got criticism that they were making the game worse. A new expansion is to come, or so they say, that includes many of the changes those nostalgic whiners wanted.
The old talk about another game that got a huge overhaul in an expansion, in spite of it also having sold very well.
Fairy tales, sigh. We should do the right thing, and bow to the powers that be, for we are not worthy of this here great fun game. Less we be with the fat people in the candy store.
|
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.
The reason for that is that SC2 is just a faster game than BW. That's also what's making it become more and more boring to watch imo
That's pretty much how most pro games have been getting decided these days. No small fights throughout the map, because the game's too fast. One fight decides a win or a loss, units move stupidly fast (e.g. lings on creep, widow mines, etc), macro mechanics create "INSTA-REMAX" scenarios (saving up larva, chrono+15 gate), and things like that.
If they want for more exciting games, maybe consider toning down the macro mechanics. Muels mine too fast, chrono boost accelerates upgrades too fast, larva reproduces too quickly. It all leads to "snowball" games too quickly, where comebacks become insanely hard.
This is obviously feedback for an expansion or something though
|
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.
the win rates % in the broodlord infestor era were also 50-50-50 and thus 'balanced' and the denial was also of epic proportions. and we all knew it was just imbalanced as fuck.
just like we all know now. statistics 
|
as I said, david kim is delusional as fuck
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 11 2014 07:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 06:35 ffadicted 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. Beautiful There's a story i was told, a legend maybe. There was this PC game, that sold superbly. One of the best selling PC games of all time. It was a sequel to a very popular franchise. Needles to say, the "casuals" loved it. There was a problem though: the "hardcore" players, were super critical of the game. Not just superficial stuff, but core elements. Long posts and blogs and VLogs were made to explain all the problems of this "terrible" game that sold extremely well. What elitist bastards and ungrateful bunch of nostalgic whiners eh? Then something magical happen, as it does only in legends. The company that made the game actually replaced the game designer by "moving him to a new project". The designer that made one of the best selling games of all time! Then they dropped a few of the most fundamental elements of the game, things that took them a long time to develop, just dropped because they got criticism that they were making the game worse. A new expansion is to come, or so they say, that includes many of the changes those nostalgic whiners wanted. The old talk about another game that got a huge overhaul in an expansion, in spite of it also having sold very well. Fairy tales, sigh. We should do the right thing, and bow to the powers that be, for we are not worthy of this here great fun game. Less we be with the fat people in the candy store.
Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.
We don't know how the new D3 will be. and I still had tons of fun with the old D3 everybody seemed to whine about. go figure.
|
On January 10 2014 23:36 Faust852 wrote:
Seriously guys, eventhough I don't appreciate David Kim's communication and way to explain things, please be polite toward him. I dare you to name a single game ever where there were 50% WR in all 3 matchup at pro level for so long. So yes, imo TvP is broken, but hell, if you hate the game so much, play another one, but don't insult David Kim like that, he's doing a good job keeping the most competitive complexe rts ever balanced.
So yeah, there are problems and it's normal to complain about it, but don't go witht he insults, it's being really weak and lacking.
c&c Generals where actually 33% on each of the 3 races.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 11 2014 08:16 MiCroLiFe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 23:36 Faust852 wrote:
Seriously guys, eventhough I don't appreciate David Kim's communication and way to explain things, please be polite toward him. I dare you to name a single game ever where there were 50% WR in all 3 matchup at pro level for so long. So yes, imo TvP is broken, but hell, if you hate the game so much, play another one, but don't insult David Kim like that, he's doing a good job keeping the most competitive complexe rts ever balanced.
So yeah, there are problems and it's normal to complain about it, but don't go witht he insults, it's being really weak and lacking. c&c Generals where actually 33% on each of the 3 races.
C&C Generals was actually 70% on each of the 3 races
See? I can pull numbers out of thin air too
|
On January 11 2014 08:16 MiCroLiFe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 23:36 Faust852 wrote:
Seriously guys, eventhough I don't appreciate David Kim's communication and way to explain things, please be polite toward him. I dare you to name a single game ever where there were 50% WR in all 3 matchup at pro level for so long. So yes, imo TvP is broken, but hell, if you hate the game so much, play another one, but don't insult David Kim like that, he's doing a good job keeping the most competitive complexe rts ever balanced.
So yeah, there are problems and it's normal to complain about it, but don't go witht he insults, it's being really weak and lacking. c&c Generals where actually 33% on each of the 3 races.
So they played 1vs1vs1 in generals?
|
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.
If only we had test maps or expansion pack Betas that could give us some indication of balance without screwing with pros' careers before they're ready.
It's not rocket science. If Blizzard actually wanted to test serious changes, they have plenty of avenues to actually test serious changes without negatively impacting anybody. They could create a custom mod and then do three or four patches for it, over a period of six months, to patch it up to 55-45 before they let it supplant the core game.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 11 2014 08:32 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 06:47 Zealously 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. 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. If only we had test maps or expansion pack Betas that could give us some indication of balance without screwing with pros' careers before they're ready. It's not rocket science. If Blizzard actually wanted to test serious changes, they have plenty of avenues to actually test serious changes without negatively impacting anybody. They could create a custom mod and then do three or four patches for it, over a period of six months, to patch it up to 55-45 before they let it supplant the core game.
An important thing to note is that no progamer spends any significant time on test maps. Implementing major changes on a test map is a great idea that I fully agree with, but the fact remains that once the changes were put in the core game - the game that all the best players almost exclusively play, any imbalance would grow in significance exponentially. It's like giving Krass certain buffs and because he doesn't make said tools look broken, it's fine. That's not the case, however, as once the Taejas and Innovations of the world put their minds and skills to it, something that's not broken on one level may be impossible to stop in the GSL.
Like I said, I'm not against implementing potential overhauls on test maps, but you need to keep in mind that for balance to be achieved on the top level (GSL/SPL), the players that play on the top level have to play it. Which they don't.
|
On January 11 2014 08:06 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 07:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:On January 11 2014 06:35 ffadicted 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. Beautiful There's a story i was told, a legend maybe. There was this PC game, that sold superbly. One of the best selling PC games of all time. It was a sequel to a very popular franchise. Needles to say, the "casuals" loved it. There was a problem though: the "hardcore" players, were super critical of the game. Not just superficial stuff, but core elements. Long posts and blogs and VLogs were made to explain all the problems of this "terrible" game that sold extremely well. What elitist bastards and ungrateful bunch of nostalgic whiners eh? Then something magical happen, as it does only in legends. The company that made the game actually replaced the game designer by "moving him to a new project". The designer that made one of the best selling games of all time! Then they dropped a few of the most fundamental elements of the game, things that took them a long time to develop, just dropped because they got criticism that they were making the game worse. A new expansion is to come, or so they say, that includes many of the changes those nostalgic whiners wanted. The old talk about another game that got a huge overhaul in an expansion, in spite of it also having sold very well. Fairy tales, sigh. We should do the right thing, and bow to the powers that be, for we are not worthy of this here great fun game. Less we be with the fat people in the candy store. Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. We don't know how the new D3 will be. and I still had tons of fun with the old D3 everybody seemed to whine about. go figure.
I enjoyed it to! Then again, i wasn't a hardcore D2 fan and i didn't go on the forums and call them whiners and what not while acting all smug with a holier than thou attitude towards anyone that had something negative to say.
One of the admins on Bnet, Kaivax, posted in regards to people asking to see more statistics:
I have to ask this question, and I recognize that it is easy to see as an argument. I don't want an argument. I simply want to better understand:
How would a pile of data about the outcomes for a bunch of other players make the game better for you? How would that give you more of a good experience when playing?
Is data analysis itself the best game going for ... "everyone", as you say?
Help me be a better advocate for what players derive pleasure from.
I'm here for you.
|
On January 11 2014 08:55 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 08:32 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 11 2014 06:47 Zealously 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. 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. If only we had test maps or expansion pack Betas that could give us some indication of balance without screwing with pros' careers before they're ready. It's not rocket science. If Blizzard actually wanted to test serious changes, they have plenty of avenues to actually test serious changes without negatively impacting anybody. They could create a custom mod and then do three or four patches for it, over a period of six months, to patch it up to 55-45 before they let it supplant the core game. An important thing to note is that no progamer spends any significant time on test maps. Implementing major changes on a test map is a great idea that I fully agree with, but the fact remains that once the changes were put in the core game - the game that all the best players almost exclusively play, any imbalance would grow in significance exponentially. It's like giving Krass certain buffs and because he doesn't make said tools look broken, it's fine. That's not the case, however, as once the Taejas and Innovations of the world put their minds and skills to it, something that's not broken on one level may be impossible to stop in the GSL. Like I said, I'm not against implementing potential overhauls on test maps, but you need to keep in mind that for balance to be achieved on the top level (GSL/SPL), the players that play on the top level have to play it. Which they don't.
That's one factor. The other is the effect of having a public test process going on side by side to the main game on the thinking and play of serious SC2 players. For example, in the 6 month test process you have 4 changes being played with. What effect does this have on pro and serious amateurs in the main game when it comes to devising new strategies and play styles? Where is the incentive to theory craft, to discuss the game with other players, to grind out custom games and ladder games to refine a strategy when side-by-side a test process is going on that may invalidate all the things you are working toward? Of course, you could argue that Blizzard should keep it quiet. But that is probably worse as you put in all the time and then just as you release it at a tournament or on ladder, Blizzard affects or destroys it with their many tested changes.
I can accept the above if it happens very rarely and if the game really needs it. But, if it were a regular occurrence, as some want, I think it would destroy SC2 as a serious game for the serious gamer (pro or competitive casual). I can see the attraction in this process (even if Blizzard had the resources to do it - I doubt they do). But, it is not that simple.
|
Blizzard could change the game if they wanted to. They could run a test server that functions as an open beta for a more experimental version of the game. Taeja won't play on it, but many gm and masters level players will. They could have some minor tournaments to further incentivize people to take it seriously. This will suffice to create a balanced enough game. As long as the changes are for the better this will be good for the game. Balance is a meaningless concept when there is a really immature metagame anyway, so there is plenty of time to finetune the balance once pros start to play this version en masse.
|
If a player can get a 70% win ratio in TvT. Would blizzard nerf TvT because one person was more skilled at it?
I don't understand why win ratios treated like they are the best representation of game balance, when its possible for them to demonstrate racial imbalance in a mirror match up.
It seems like there are better ways to balance a game.
|
On January 11 2014 08:55 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 08:32 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 11 2014 06:47 Zealously 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. 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. If only we had test maps or expansion pack Betas that could give us some indication of balance without screwing with pros' careers before they're ready. It's not rocket science. If Blizzard actually wanted to test serious changes, they have plenty of avenues to actually test serious changes without negatively impacting anybody. They could create a custom mod and then do three or four patches for it, over a period of six months, to patch it up to 55-45 before they let it supplant the core game. An important thing to note is that no progamer spends any significant time on test maps. Implementing major changes on a test map is a great idea that I fully agree with, but the fact remains that once the changes were put in the core game - the game that all the best players almost exclusively play, any imbalance would grow in significance exponentially. It's like giving Krass certain buffs and because he doesn't make said tools look broken, it's fine. That's not the case, however, as once the Taejas and Innovations of the world put their minds and skills to it, something that's not broken on one level may be impossible to stop in the GSL. Like I said, I'm not against implementing potential overhauls on test maps, but you need to keep in mind that for balance to be achieved on the top level (GSL/SPL), the players that play on the top level have to play it. Which they don't.
Dedicating a small chunk of practice time to the test maps wouldn't be a terrible idea.. if the maps actually made significant changes to the game. The problem is Blizzard is really inconsistent with test maps, and they rarely make significant changes anyway. If they developed any sort of consistency and relevance, the test maps could then basically be a window into the future.
There's also the possibility of organizers (probably someone like TB since he's capable of thinking outside the box) to host showmatches/tournaments on the test maps to see how actual competitive matches play out. If Blizzard throws the community any sort of bone, I'm sure there are enough dedicated people to take care of the rest and make this game as great as it could be.
Blizzard just needs to.. do something. Anything.
edit: I completely misread your post, changed some points.
|
Nerf Protoss and buff Terran? Can you even imagine hearing such talk back in 2010?! Ha! Toss will have the lategame edge, Terran will have a slight early game edge. Its been this way forever and I don't see how they fix that without breaking the matchup.
|
On January 11 2014 10:38 nottapro wrote:
If a player can get a 70% win ratio in TvT. Would blizzard nerf TvT because one person was more skilled at it?
I don't understand why win ratios treated like they are the best representation of game balance, when its possible for them to demonstrate racial imbalance in a mirror match up.
It seems like there are better ways to balance a game. ...Population winrates for mirror matchups will always be 50%.
|
On January 11 2014 11:22 Havik_ wrote:
Nerf Protoss and buff Terran? Can you even imagine hearing such talk back in 2010?! Ha! Toss will have the lategame edge, Terran will have a slight early game edge. Its been this way forever and I don't see how they fix that without breaking the matchup.
T early game edge? lol
|
On January 11 2014 11:31 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 10:38 nottapro wrote:
If a player can get a 70% win ratio in TvT. Would blizzard nerf TvT because one person was more skilled at it?
I don't understand why win ratios treated like they are the best representation of game balance, when its possible for them to demonstrate racial imbalance in a mirror match up.
It seems like there are better ways to balance a game. ...Population winrates for mirror matchups will always be 50%.
I think you've missed the point of my analogy, and decided to make a direct comparison I wasn't trying to make. But whatever lol
|
On January 11 2014 12:10 nottapro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 11:31 RampancyTW wrote:On January 11 2014 10:38 nottapro wrote:
If a player can get a 70% win ratio in TvT. Would blizzard nerf TvT because one person was more skilled at it?
I don't understand why win ratios treated like they are the best representation of game balance, when its possible for them to demonstrate racial imbalance in a mirror match up.
It seems like there are better ways to balance a game. ...Population winrates for mirror matchups will always be 50%. I think you've missed the point of my analogy, and decided to make a direct comparison I wasn't trying to make. But whatever lol
but you can't compare population winrates to "one player being better than another" because the whole point of population winrates is that when you're looking at an entire population, you've automatically normalized for skill... unless you can somehow prove that people who are skilled at SC are more likely to choose to play a certain race, which you can't
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
