|
They are not good at looking at gamedesign either ^^
|
Thankfuly, online forums are full of expert game designers with years of hypothetical experience.
|
On November 25 2017 15:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 13:52 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 13:28 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 11:12 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 05:50 Boggyb wrote:On November 25 2017 03:11 Tyrhanius wrote:On November 25 2017 02:15 youngjiddle wrote:On November 24 2017 02:21 LDLCmiyako wrote:On November 24 2017 01:39 FrkFrJss wrote:On November 24 2017 01:19 Aegwynn wrote:
[quote]
Well to be fair, pvt was never this much imbalanced. Actually...it has, and if you look on aligulac, you'll see that PvT has generally been T favoured since the beginning of WoL.There have been stretches where Protoss was favoured, but it's generally been T favoured, and also the peak of T or P being stronger has the T having larger and longer peaks of being favoured. to be fair aligulac isn't very reliable. If you look at results http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments protoss has been heavily favored on 2015 hots, and slightly favored since lotv. I'm not sure what basis aligulac uses but it's hard to define if it's normal for one player to beat another. any person who says tournament wins are a reliable source of balance information is just plain, 100% wrong. that's like say protoss is OP all of 2017 because neeb was twice as good as all wcs players while other protoss wcs players can't make top 8s in 2017. Or saying soo isn't very skilled because he isn't winning finals. alligulac is the closest thing we got to a large sample set, and only blizzard has the ladder winrates I believe. Winning a tournament means your race is able to compete at the best level, so losing as protoss is "your fault" : Neeb can win, he plays protoss so if you lose, that's your fault, so "stop blaming balance." A balance issue is when you can't simply beat one race/one strategy no matter of how skill you are, and as a result no pro manage to beat it. Rogue won Blizzcon, Zerg got huge buffs to late game, and Scarlett STILL complains about late game ZvP. Pros balance whine like everyone else. If anything, they have more incentive to whine because the strength of their race directly affects how much money they make. That being said, pros do have a far better understanding of the game (by virtue of being pros) and if they so choose, are perfectly capable of giving accurate assessments of balance. But whether they want to be accurate or just whine is obviously their own choice. I disagree with that. While pros do understand the game much better than anyone else, they also view it through lenses biased by both the race they play, and by their personal experience (which may or may not be representative of the experiences of everyone else at the highest level). So I'd say it's completely possible for pros to sincerely believe in a state of balance that isn't true. It's certainly possible for a pro to be biased, I would just think it is far easier/more common for a lesser player to be biased. Nobody is perfect, and pros are the best we can get. Same story with any expert in any field. No, they are not omniscient. Yes, they do know better than nearly everyone else. Certainly better than laymen. Whether the pros choose to be honest or to whine is another story entirely. They're experts at playing the game, not experts at evaluating balance objectively.
I fail to see how any expert at playing the game could succeed without an excellent understanding of the specific strengths and weaknesses of their own race in relation to the other races. Which is to say, balance.
On November 25 2017 17:25 Ej_ wrote:
Thankfuly, online forums are full of expert game designers with years of hypothetical experience.
This. Nobody is perfect, but some are most definitely better than others. Twitch chat GMs and forum warriors claiming to know better than professional players and designers.....
|
On November 25 2017 17:41 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 15:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 13:52 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 13:28 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 11:12 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 05:50 Boggyb wrote:On November 25 2017 03:11 Tyrhanius wrote:On November 25 2017 02:15 youngjiddle wrote:On November 24 2017 02:21 LDLCmiyako wrote:On November 24 2017 01:39 FrkFrJss wrote:
[quote]
Actually...it has, and if you look on aligulac, you'll see that PvT has generally been T favoured since the beginning of WoL.There have been stretches where Protoss was favoured, but it's generally been T favoured, and also the peak of T or P being stronger has the T having larger and longer peaks of being favoured. to be fair aligulac isn't very reliable. If you look at results http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments protoss has been heavily favored on 2015 hots, and slightly favored since lotv. I'm not sure what basis aligulac uses but it's hard to define if it's normal for one player to beat another. any person who says tournament wins are a reliable source of balance information is just plain, 100% wrong. that's like say protoss is OP all of 2017 because neeb was twice as good as all wcs players while other protoss wcs players can't make top 8s in 2017. Or saying soo isn't very skilled because he isn't winning finals. alligulac is the closest thing we got to a large sample set, and only blizzard has the ladder winrates I believe. Winning a tournament means your race is able to compete at the best level, so losing as protoss is "your fault" : Neeb can win, he plays protoss so if you lose, that's your fault, so "stop blaming balance." A balance issue is when you can't simply beat one race/one strategy no matter of how skill you are, and as a result no pro manage to beat it. Rogue won Blizzcon, Zerg got huge buffs to late game, and Scarlett STILL complains about late game ZvP. Pros balance whine like everyone else. If anything, they have more incentive to whine because the strength of their race directly affects how much money they make. That being said, pros do have a far better understanding of the game (by virtue of being pros) and if they so choose, are perfectly capable of giving accurate assessments of balance. But whether they want to be accurate or just whine is obviously their own choice. I disagree with that. While pros do understand the game much better than anyone else, they also view it through lenses biased by both the race they play, and by their personal experience (which may or may not be representative of the experiences of everyone else at the highest level). So I'd say it's completely possible for pros to sincerely believe in a state of balance that isn't true. It's certainly possible for a pro to be biased, I would just think it is far easier/more common for a lesser player to be biased. Nobody is perfect, and pros are the best we can get. Same story with any expert in any field. No, they are not omniscient. Yes, they do know better than nearly everyone else. Certainly better than laymen. Whether the pros choose to be honest or to whine is another story entirely. They're experts at playing the game, not experts at evaluating balance objectively. I fail to see how any expert at playing the game could succeed without an excellent understanding of the specific strengths and weaknesses of their own race in relation to the other races. Which is to say, balance.
They have to understand the relative strength and weakness of their own race. You still make all the right decisions in a decision tree if all your utility functions are off by a factor of two (i.e you make the same decision if you think A gives you a 25% chance of winning and B gives you a 30% chance of winning, or if you think A gives you a 50% chance of winning and B gives you a 60% chance of winning) . Whereas balance would (in this imperfect analogy) be absolute utility.
In practice pros will generally have a pretty good idea of balance, but it isn't a corollary to being a pro, and when a pro gives an erroneous evaluation of balance it isn't necessarily because they're whining or being dishonest to get a buff from Blizzard.
|
On November 25 2017 17:41 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 15:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 13:52 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 13:28 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 11:12 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 05:50 Boggyb wrote:On November 25 2017 03:11 Tyrhanius wrote:On November 25 2017 02:15 youngjiddle wrote:On November 24 2017 02:21 LDLCmiyako wrote:On November 24 2017 01:39 FrkFrJss wrote:
[quote]
Actually...it has, and if you look on aligulac, you'll see that PvT has generally been T favoured since the beginning of WoL.There have been stretches where Protoss was favoured, but it's generally been T favoured, and also the peak of T or P being stronger has the T having larger and longer peaks of being favoured. to be fair aligulac isn't very reliable. If you look at results http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments protoss has been heavily favored on 2015 hots, and slightly favored since lotv. I'm not sure what basis aligulac uses but it's hard to define if it's normal for one player to beat another. any person who says tournament wins are a reliable source of balance information is just plain, 100% wrong. that's like say protoss is OP all of 2017 because neeb was twice as good as all wcs players while other protoss wcs players can't make top 8s in 2017. Or saying soo isn't very skilled because he isn't winning finals. alligulac is the closest thing we got to a large sample set, and only blizzard has the ladder winrates I believe. Winning a tournament means your race is able to compete at the best level, so losing as protoss is "your fault" : Neeb can win, he plays protoss so if you lose, that's your fault, so "stop blaming balance." A balance issue is when you can't simply beat one race/one strategy no matter of how skill you are, and as a result no pro manage to beat it. Rogue won Blizzcon, Zerg got huge buffs to late game, and Scarlett STILL complains about late game ZvP. Pros balance whine like everyone else. If anything, they have more incentive to whine because the strength of their race directly affects how much money they make. That being said, pros do have a far better understanding of the game (by virtue of being pros) and if they so choose, are perfectly capable of giving accurate assessments of balance. But whether they want to be accurate or just whine is obviously their own choice. I disagree with that. While pros do understand the game much better than anyone else, they also view it through lenses biased by both the race they play, and by their personal experience (which may or may not be representative of the experiences of everyone else at the highest level). So I'd say it's completely possible for pros to sincerely believe in a state of balance that isn't true. It's certainly possible for a pro to be biased, I would just think it is far easier/more common for a lesser player to be biased. Nobody is perfect, and pros are the best we can get. Same story with any expert in any field. No, they are not omniscient. Yes, they do know better than nearly everyone else. Certainly better than laymen. Whether the pros choose to be honest or to whine is another story entirely. They're experts at playing the game, not experts at evaluating balance objectively. I fail to see how any expert at playing the game could succeed without an excellent understanding of the specific strengths and weaknesses of their own race in relation to the other races. Which is to say, balance. Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:25 Ej_ wrote:
Thankfuly, online forums are full of expert game designers with years of hypothetical experience. This. Nobody is perfect, but some are most definitely better than others. Twitch chat GMs and forum warriors claiming to know better than professional players and designers.....
It's all different from person to person. Just because someone is a high level player doesn't mean their points automatically hold more value than those from someone of lower skill.
avilo is GM but I don't think he's more qualified to talk about balance than let's say a Gold league player.
|
Well i will listen to a GM more than a gold player bc the GM understands the game better. Not to say that the GM will not be biased (we all do to a certain degree).
|
with the ghost changes (and incoming cost adjustment), you won't be able to depot-raxx-depot wall-in in TvT anymore
gas
raxx
gas
orbital
fact
2 in each gas
reaper
ghost academy
3 in each gas
cyclone
ghost
nuke
scouting scv tells me if you walled with depots/raxx.
scouting scv tells me if you went fast expand.
if you didn't wall, x2 gas is a perfectly fine opening already used at the highest level.
if you didn't expand, x2 gas is "..."
easy to hide the ghost academy, so you would have to blindly save a scan (even earlier than you would for the banshee timing).
reaper FE + depot/raxx wall = not enough stuff to kill a reaper + ghost + cyclone + 2nd cyclone on the way
save scan + kill ghost = you lose too many units to my cyclone
save scan + pull scvs + kill ghost = you lose too much mining time
otherwise, you lose 2 depots and a reactor.
haha, look at this nub saying ghosts are gonna change the meta. you may laugh at me now, but remember this post when you see zero terrans walling-in in gsl
|
On November 25 2017 15:30 LDLCmiyako wrote:
The thing is i'm not saying it prove any balance or imbalance, but it look way more reliable than aligulac.
The exemple of one or two player winning most of tournament works for every races.
Although i disagree about what the other guy said, i mean, it's your fault, if you lose, but that doesn't mean it's balanced. Balance isn't 1 guy is able to play 10x better than the other, to do even results and that work for any race. It's impossible to accuratly quantify how better a player is playing from another, but when there's a huge gap in mecanics and game knownledge, you can notice it.
I really dont get how protoss was "weak" before the patch, espacially in pvt, and now it feels actually insane.
About the patch coming, i dont get the mech buff, it seems already very strong vs zerg and terran. I appreciate the ghost buff, but i think it wont fix the issue of early and mid game bio play. I think it will help a lot in tvz late game, but it will unfortunatly not help in tvp.
In general I feel that the sc2 dev team is forgetting too much about some very basics of the game. I think macro should have a bigger impact on the game and be less affected by game changer unit and in my opinion the game should have better defined strong and weak timing for each race like it used to.
I dont feel any of the change are going toward this, and to me fixing the gameplay should be more important than fixing the balance
No, you are wrong in saying that looking at tournament winners is more reliable at judging balance than looking at aligulac.
It's a basic, basic concept called probability, go back to school and learn what it is if you don't know.
|
On November 25 2017 17:41 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 15:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 13:52 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 13:28 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 11:12 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 05:50 Boggyb wrote:On November 25 2017 03:11 Tyrhanius wrote:On November 25 2017 02:15 youngjiddle wrote:On November 24 2017 02:21 LDLCmiyako wrote:On November 24 2017 01:39 FrkFrJss wrote:
[quote]
Actually...it has, and if you look on aligulac, you'll see that PvT has generally been T favoured since the beginning of WoL.There have been stretches where Protoss was favoured, but it's generally been T favoured, and also the peak of T or P being stronger has the T having larger and longer peaks of being favoured. to be fair aligulac isn't very reliable. If you look at results http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments protoss has been heavily favored on 2015 hots, and slightly favored since lotv. I'm not sure what basis aligulac uses but it's hard to define if it's normal for one player to beat another. any person who says tournament wins are a reliable source of balance information is just plain, 100% wrong. that's like say protoss is OP all of 2017 because neeb was twice as good as all wcs players while other protoss wcs players can't make top 8s in 2017. Or saying soo isn't very skilled because he isn't winning finals. alligulac is the closest thing we got to a large sample set, and only blizzard has the ladder winrates I believe. Winning a tournament means your race is able to compete at the best level, so losing as protoss is "your fault" : Neeb can win, he plays protoss so if you lose, that's your fault, so "stop blaming balance." A balance issue is when you can't simply beat one race/one strategy no matter of how skill you are, and as a result no pro manage to beat it. Rogue won Blizzcon, Zerg got huge buffs to late game, and Scarlett STILL complains about late game ZvP. Pros balance whine like everyone else. If anything, they have more incentive to whine because the strength of their race directly affects how much money they make. That being said, pros do have a far better understanding of the game (by virtue of being pros) and if they so choose, are perfectly capable of giving accurate assessments of balance. But whether they want to be accurate or just whine is obviously their own choice. I disagree with that. While pros do understand the game much better than anyone else, they also view it through lenses biased by both the race they play, and by their personal experience (which may or may not be representative of the experiences of everyone else at the highest level). So I'd say it's completely possible for pros to sincerely believe in a state of balance that isn't true. It's certainly possible for a pro to be biased, I would just think it is far easier/more common for a lesser player to be biased. Nobody is perfect, and pros are the best we can get. Same story with any expert in any field. No, they are not omniscient. Yes, they do know better than nearly everyone else. Certainly better than laymen. Whether the pros choose to be honest or to whine is another story entirely. They're experts at playing the game, not experts at evaluating balance objectively. I fail to see how any expert at playing the game could succeed without an excellent understanding of the specific strengths and weaknesses of their own race in relation to the other races. Which is to say, balance. Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:25 Ej_ wrote:
Thankfuly, online forums are full of expert game designers with years of hypothetical experience. This. Nobody is perfect, but some are most definitely better than others. Twitch chat GMs and forum warriors claiming to know better than professional players and designers.....
This is just appeal to authority though, i think the community overall did a good job at looking at the game and "analysing" what are potential problems (there were countless of articles, blog posts, a lot of good stuff actually). We even saw blizzard giving in here and there (forcefields being way less of an issue, now the mothershipcore gone, etc).
I don't think it is too hard to figure out design flaws, what's actually hard is to come up with solutions. (because the whole product still has to work well, even if you "fix" a potential flaw it might just create other problems)
Would anyone here do a better job creating a game from ground up? No probably not. But that's not needed to look at certain things and find the pros/cons to the current iteration.
|
On November 26 2017 01:44 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 15:30 LDLCmiyako wrote:
The thing is i'm not saying it prove any balance or imbalance, but it look way more reliable than aligulac.
The exemple of one or two player winning most of tournament works for every races.
Although i disagree about what the other guy said, i mean, it's your fault, if you lose, but that doesn't mean it's balanced. Balance isn't 1 guy is able to play 10x better than the other, to do even results and that work for any race. It's impossible to accuratly quantify how better a player is playing from another, but when there's a huge gap in mecanics and game knownledge, you can notice it.
I really dont get how protoss was "weak" before the patch, espacially in pvt, and now it feels actually insane.
About the patch coming, i dont get the mech buff, it seems already very strong vs zerg and terran. I appreciate the ghost buff, but i think it wont fix the issue of early and mid game bio play. I think it will help a lot in tvz late game, but it will unfortunatly not help in tvp.
In general I feel that the sc2 dev team is forgetting too much about some very basics of the game. I think macro should have a bigger impact on the game and be less affected by game changer unit and in my opinion the game should have better defined strong and weak timing for each race like it used to.
I dont feel any of the change are going toward this, and to me fixing the gameplay should be more important than fixing the balance No, you are wrong in saying that looking at tournament winners is more reliable at judging balance than looking at aligulac. It's a basic, basic concept called probability, go back to school and learn what it is if you don't know.
You can say whatever you want from stats.
If aligulac winrates show for example P>T, but actually T win more tournaments than P, you can't say : "Actually, i take only the aligulac winrates".
You should take on consideration all data, not ignore which doesn't support your point of view.
Stats are meaningless if you don't have a serious design, for example take on consideration the level of the two players, it's not just about big numbers.
A game between Rogue and Innovation tell you way more about balance than 10 000 games of masters.
The 10 000 games of master just show the state of the meta at this moment, but if some pro show different strategies on a tournament, the meta will probably change so the winrate too, while the balance hasn't changed at all.
|
On November 25 2017 18:40 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:41 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 15:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 13:52 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 13:28 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 11:12 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 05:50 Boggyb wrote:On November 25 2017 03:11 Tyrhanius wrote:On November 25 2017 02:15 youngjiddle wrote:On November 24 2017 02:21 LDLCmiyako wrote:[quote] to be fair aligulac isn't very reliable. If you look at results http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments protoss has been heavily favored on 2015 hots, and slightly favored since lotv. I'm not sure what basis aligulac uses but it's hard to define if it's normal for one player to beat another. any person who says tournament wins are a reliable source of balance information is just plain, 100% wrong. that's like say protoss is OP all of 2017 because neeb was twice as good as all wcs players while other protoss wcs players can't make top 8s in 2017. Or saying soo isn't very skilled because he isn't winning finals. alligulac is the closest thing we got to a large sample set, and only blizzard has the ladder winrates I believe. Winning a tournament means your race is able to compete at the best level, so losing as protoss is "your fault" : Neeb can win, he plays protoss so if you lose, that's your fault, so "stop blaming balance." A balance issue is when you can't simply beat one race/one strategy no matter of how skill you are, and as a result no pro manage to beat it. Rogue won Blizzcon, Zerg got huge buffs to late game, and Scarlett STILL complains about late game ZvP. Pros balance whine like everyone else. If anything, they have more incentive to whine because the strength of their race directly affects how much money they make. That being said, pros do have a far better understanding of the game (by virtue of being pros) and if they so choose, are perfectly capable of giving accurate assessments of balance. But whether they want to be accurate or just whine is obviously their own choice. I disagree with that. While pros do understand the game much better than anyone else, they also view it through lenses biased by both the race they play, and by their personal experience (which may or may not be representative of the experiences of everyone else at the highest level). So I'd say it's completely possible for pros to sincerely believe in a state of balance that isn't true. It's certainly possible for a pro to be biased, I would just think it is far easier/more common for a lesser player to be biased. Nobody is perfect, and pros are the best we can get. Same story with any expert in any field. No, they are not omniscient. Yes, they do know better than nearly everyone else. Certainly better than laymen. Whether the pros choose to be honest or to whine is another story entirely. They're experts at playing the game, not experts at evaluating balance objectively. I fail to see how any expert at playing the game could succeed without an excellent understanding of the specific strengths and weaknesses of their own race in relation to the other races. Which is to say, balance. They have to understand the relative strength and weakness of their own race. You still make all the right decisions in a decision tree if all your utility functions are off by a factor of two (i.e you make the same decision if you think A gives you a 25% chance of winning and B gives you a 30% chance of winning, or if you think A gives you a 50% chance of winning and B gives you a 60% chance of winning) . Whereas balance would (in this imperfect analogy) be absolute utility. In practice pros will generally have a pretty good idea of balance, but it isn't a corollary to being a pro, and when a pro gives an erroneous evaluation of balance it isn't necessarily because they're whining or being dishonest to get a buff from Blizzard.
Not sure about the decision tree analogy, personally. For SC2, I would tend to think along the lines of dynamic Bayes nets.
And I would disagree with the classification of balance as absolute utility; balance is inherently relative by definition. When players say a certain unit or comp is strong/weak they mean that it is stronger/weaker than others. Nothing is strong or weak in a vacuum.
I do agree with what you said in practice though, but I would attribute that simply to individual bias which is of course impossible to eliminate.
On November 25 2017 18:58 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:41 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 15:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 13:52 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 13:28 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 11:12 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 05:50 Boggyb wrote:On November 25 2017 03:11 Tyrhanius wrote:On November 25 2017 02:15 youngjiddle wrote:On November 24 2017 02:21 LDLCmiyako wrote:[quote] to be fair aligulac isn't very reliable. If you look at results http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments protoss has been heavily favored on 2015 hots, and slightly favored since lotv. I'm not sure what basis aligulac uses but it's hard to define if it's normal for one player to beat another. any person who says tournament wins are a reliable source of balance information is just plain, 100% wrong. that's like say protoss is OP all of 2017 because neeb was twice as good as all wcs players while other protoss wcs players can't make top 8s in 2017. Or saying soo isn't very skilled because he isn't winning finals. alligulac is the closest thing we got to a large sample set, and only blizzard has the ladder winrates I believe. Winning a tournament means your race is able to compete at the best level, so losing as protoss is "your fault" : Neeb can win, he plays protoss so if you lose, that's your fault, so "stop blaming balance." A balance issue is when you can't simply beat one race/one strategy no matter of how skill you are, and as a result no pro manage to beat it. Rogue won Blizzcon, Zerg got huge buffs to late game, and Scarlett STILL complains about late game ZvP. Pros balance whine like everyone else. If anything, they have more incentive to whine because the strength of their race directly affects how much money they make. That being said, pros do have a far better understanding of the game (by virtue of being pros) and if they so choose, are perfectly capable of giving accurate assessments of balance. But whether they want to be accurate or just whine is obviously their own choice. I disagree with that. While pros do understand the game much better than anyone else, they also view it through lenses biased by both the race they play, and by their personal experience (which may or may not be representative of the experiences of everyone else at the highest level). So I'd say it's completely possible for pros to sincerely believe in a state of balance that isn't true. It's certainly possible for a pro to be biased, I would just think it is far easier/more common for a lesser player to be biased. Nobody is perfect, and pros are the best we can get. Same story with any expert in any field. No, they are not omniscient. Yes, they do know better than nearly everyone else. Certainly better than laymen. Whether the pros choose to be honest or to whine is another story entirely. They're experts at playing the game, not experts at evaluating balance objectively. I fail to see how any expert at playing the game could succeed without an excellent understanding of the specific strengths and weaknesses of their own race in relation to the other races. Which is to say, balance. On November 25 2017 17:25 Ej_ wrote:
Thankfuly, online forums are full of expert game designers with years of hypothetical experience. This. Nobody is perfect, but some are most definitely better than others. Twitch chat GMs and forum warriors claiming to know better than professional players and designers..... It's all different from person to person. Just because someone is a high level player doesn't mean their points automatically hold more value than those from someone of lower skill. avilo is GM but I don't think he's more qualified to talk about balance than let's say a Gold league player.
Certainly rank is not a causatory factor with regard to opinions on balance, but I would definitely argue a correlation. A GM is more likely to have a better opinion, not guaranteed to do so.
On November 26 2017 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 17:41 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 15:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 13:52 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 13:28 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 25 2017 11:12 pvsnp wrote:On November 25 2017 05:50 Boggyb wrote:On November 25 2017 03:11 Tyrhanius wrote:On November 25 2017 02:15 youngjiddle wrote:On November 24 2017 02:21 LDLCmiyako wrote:[quote] to be fair aligulac isn't very reliable. If you look at results http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments protoss has been heavily favored on 2015 hots, and slightly favored since lotv. I'm not sure what basis aligulac uses but it's hard to define if it's normal for one player to beat another. any person who says tournament wins are a reliable source of balance information is just plain, 100% wrong. that's like say protoss is OP all of 2017 because neeb was twice as good as all wcs players while other protoss wcs players can't make top 8s in 2017. Or saying soo isn't very skilled because he isn't winning finals. alligulac is the closest thing we got to a large sample set, and only blizzard has the ladder winrates I believe. Winning a tournament means your race is able to compete at the best level, so losing as protoss is "your fault" : Neeb can win, he plays protoss so if you lose, that's your fault, so "stop blaming balance." A balance issue is when you can't simply beat one race/one strategy no matter of how skill you are, and as a result no pro manage to beat it. Rogue won Blizzcon, Zerg got huge buffs to late game, and Scarlett STILL complains about late game ZvP. Pros balance whine like everyone else. If anything, they have more incentive to whine because the strength of their race directly affects how much money they make. That being said, pros do have a far better understanding of the game (by virtue of being pros) and if they so choose, are perfectly capable of giving accurate assessments of balance. But whether they want to be accurate or just whine is obviously their own choice. I disagree with that. While pros do understand the game much better than anyone else, they also view it through lenses biased by both the race they play, and by their personal experience (which may or may not be representative of the experiences of everyone else at the highest level). So I'd say it's completely possible for pros to sincerely believe in a state of balance that isn't true. It's certainly possible for a pro to be biased, I would just think it is far easier/more common for a lesser player to be biased. Nobody is perfect, and pros are the best we can get. Same story with any expert in any field. No, they are not omniscient. Yes, they do know better than nearly everyone else. Certainly better than laymen. Whether the pros choose to be honest or to whine is another story entirely. They're experts at playing the game, not experts at evaluating balance objectively. I fail to see how any expert at playing the game could succeed without an excellent understanding of the specific strengths and weaknesses of their own race in relation to the other races. Which is to say, balance. On November 25 2017 17:25 Ej_ wrote:
Thankfuly, online forums are full of expert game designers with years of hypothetical experience. This. Nobody is perfect, but some are most definitely better than others. Twitch chat GMs and forum warriors claiming to know better than professional players and designers..... This is just appeal to authority though, i think the community overall did a good job at looking at the game and "analysing" what are potential problems (there were countless of articles, blog posts, a lot of good stuff actually). We even saw blizzard giving in here and there (forcefields being way less of an issue, now the mothershipcore gone, etc). I don't think it is too hard to figure out design flaws, what's actually hard is to come up with solutions. (because the whole product still has to work well, even if you "fix" a potential flaw it might just create other problems) Would anyone here do a better job creating a game from ground up? No probably not. But that's not needed to look at certain things and find the pros/cons to the current iteration.
You misunderstand me. The community can, does, and has provided valuable insight on the balance situation. I'm not saying that pros or Blizzard are always right, only that when the community disagrees with them, I'm more inclined to believe the former. Because they have a greater stake in the outcome.
|
patch out yet? tvp and tvz is stil unplayable
|
On November 28 2017 04:58 MiCroLiFe wrote:
patch out yet? tvp and tvz is stil unplayable
Blizzard usually updates on Tuesday, so I wouldn't expect anything for another day (two days for EU).
|
I just hope they nerf blink but not the new ok damage and scaling of the Stalker.
|
On November 28 2017 12:34 StarscreamG1 wrote:
I just hope they nerf blink but not the new ok damage and scaling of the Stalker.
If they oracles, shield batteries, AND blink, Protoss is going to swing well into the realm of under powered.
Hell, if you look at current aligulac balance stats, Protoss is balanced in PvT (50% 66-66) and under powered in PvZ (43.91% 119-152) which would indicate the race needs tagetted PvZ BUFFS.
|
On November 28 2017 14:15 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2017 12:34 StarscreamG1 wrote:
I just hope they nerf blink but not the new ok damage and scaling of the Stalker. If they oracles, shield batteries, AND blink, Protoss is going to swing well into the realm of under powered. Hell, if you look at current aligulac balance stats, Protoss is balanced in PvT (50% 66-66) and under powered in PvZ (43.91% 119-152) which would indicate the race needs tagetted PvZ BUFFS.
We're only 4 days into the current aligulac period...if we also include the results of the previous fortnight we get a 56% win-rate for Protoss in PvT.
|
And we also have a patch on it's way...
I actually think Ghosts will be a bit too strong, but I'm excited to play against Terrans utilizing Ghosts. It's a heavy skill unit that requires you to actually hotkey your units, instead of mindlessly dropping all the time. In WoL Ghosts were slightly favoured vs High Templar style and at the time they cost 150/150, 1 shot HT's and almost didn't do any dmg to Zealots with Snipe. Now they come with Cloak, they are way faster, Snipe is about same power level, it's way worse vs HT's, but it can now 1 shot Zealots/Adepts, they also cost 150/125.
Terran will have a scary death ball whether they go for Bio+Ghosts, or Mech+Ghosts. Now it might be Protoss' time to drop and pull the Terran apart.
|
On November 28 2017 18:03 ejozl wrote:
And we also have a patch on it's way...
I actually think Ghosts will be a bit too strong, but I'm excited to play against Terrans utilizing Ghosts. It's a heavy skill unit that requires you to actually hotkey your units, instead of mindlessly dropping all the time. In WoL Ghosts were slightly favoured vs High Templar style and at the time they cost 150/150, 1 shot HT's and almost didn't do any dmg to Zealots with Snipe. Now they come with Cloak, they are way faster, Snipe is about same power level, it's way worse vs HT's, but it can now 1 shot Zealots/Adepts, they also cost 150/125.
Terran will have a scary death ball whether they go for Bio+Ghosts, or Mech+Ghosts. Now it might be Protoss' time to drop and pull the Terran apart.
Except you can not really use Mech+Ghosts except maybe in late game since you need gas for so much else. Just getting factories and upgrades costs so much gas, and every tank and thor is also gas heavy. I know Avilo is using ghosts+mech but I doubt it works on pro level.
|
Does anybody know when the patch is coming?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51484 Posts
They haven't said just that they expect it to be out during the week commencing 27th November (aka this week) so i assume we will get a random tweet / post on forum saying it has been patched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
