EPTUser was warned for this post
The close-mindedness of views on balance - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Elantris
66 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
On January 16 2019 04:33 Elantris wrote: Demuslim is just whiner who likes to whine. You went too deep. Absolutely incorrect! you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. | ||
|
GreasedUpDeafGuy
United States398 Posts
On January 16 2019 03:58 Aveng3r wrote: I kinda get both sides of this one, on one hand players would be well served to embrace the strengths of their race, even if its not exactly how one would want to play a matchup On the other hand I get the frustration that arises from being "forced" to play a matchup a certain way in order to win Also: Awesome contribution I see the community hasn't changed at all in my time away | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
On January 16 2019 05:10 GreasedUpDeafGuy wrote: I see the community hasn't changed at all in my time away Care to elaborate? | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15958 Posts
On January 16 2019 04:19 Snakestyle11 wrote: 3) mass reaper ( not very popular anymore, but can be deadly since we are out of practice versus it, ask ziggy) 5) 2-1-1, not as strong as the other builds, but since it requires completely different answer than other builds, can still be good. 7) cyclone/hellion ( not very viable as an opening anymore, but maybe) 9) widowmine/marine drop When you list those as "viable openings" you might as well say for Zerg: 5) 2 Base Muta (not that strong but can be deadly if unscouted) 6) Nydus (kills terran if they don't expect it) 7) 7 Roach rush after expansion 8) Proxy Hatchery (kills terran if they don't scout) 9) 12 pool (kills terran if they don't know how to play) 10) Ling runby to kill every scv while the hellions are across the map 11) Mass Ravager ling Queen drop bust (this is actually really legit and common) | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On January 16 2019 04:33 Elantris wrote: Demuslim is just whiner who likes to whine. You went too deep. I don't like seeing this here. Being publicly criticized makes anyone feel bad, even people who are public figures for a living. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Demuslim is a "whiner", and I don't think personal attacks have any place here. I chose his statements as a basis for the thread because he is a good player and a good caster and he is very well known in esports. Everyone: nothing in this thread should be personal. This is just a game that we hopefully all love, so we are all linked by that. If you don't want to get along with others please refrain from posting here. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
But it's possible. And the developers have to ignore those who make comments like Demuslim make, because they are viewing the game through a lense of symmetrical balance. But the sides aren't symmetrical. The game isn't as simplistic as that. One side can have more income and the game can still be balanced. Just like one side can have more units and the game still be balanced. | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
1) Winrates and tournament performance at pro level. This is what we typically talk about when discussing balance. This is the most important aspect for pro player but may not be the most important aspect for viewers and normal players. 2) How difficult a race is to use A race can be perfectly balanced at the top 0.1% level but too hard to use for normal players. So you handicap yourself by playing race if you do not have top level mechanics. 3) How restricted you are when you play. For instance, if you fall behind automatically if you choose to play macro instead of proxy cheese, the winrates may be balanced if you play optimally, but is an awful game play experience. Or if you are forced to use bio every single game in a certain mathup. It may be balanced but it restrict the gameplay experience. I would argue that SC2 is doing good for 1) but less so for 2) and 3). | ||
|
Doko
Argentina1737 Posts
Terran hasn't wanted to play lategame vs P since forever. You can keep trying to change the economy assymetries of the matchup all you want but its not gonna change the fact that going into the lategame is simply not something that benefits T in any way and if there is a timing they can go for they will continue to do so. I'm not even playing the game anymore but really enjoy spectating, watching every variation of a tank push with bunkers in tvp gets old, really fast. | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On January 16 2019 06:19 MockHamill wrote: There are several different aspect when talking about balance 1) Winrates and tournament performance at pro level. This is what we typically talk about when discussing balance. This is the most important aspect for pro player but may not be the most important aspect for viewers and normal players. 2) How difficult a race is to use A race can be perfectly balanced at the top 0.1% level but too hard to use for normal players. So you handicap yourself by playing race if you do not have top level mechanics. 3) How restricted you are when you play. For instance, if you fall behind automatically if you choose to play macro instead of proxy cheese, the winrates may be balanced if you play optimally, but is an awful game play experience. Or if you are forced to use bio every single game in a certain mathup. It may be balanced but it restrict the gameplay experience. I would argue that SC2 is doing good for 1) but less so for 2) and 3). Re: 2) Blizzard should never be intentionally reducing the skill ceiling. They've done this so many times in recent years: Stacking injects, HT auto attack, auto warp gate, no lift off while addon is researching, easier to click building scvs, even way back in hots when they allow tumours to be placed on ramps. Their reasoning for these changes have always been about reducing unnecessary actions, accidental game ending moment, and the amount of attention a player has to split to play the game optimally. The problem is that "unnecessary actions" separate one playing who can do those actions, and a player who can't. If you forget to turn your gateways to warp gates and you lose, that's on you. A better player would not have made that mistake. The same can be said about attention splitting. If you need to control 17 spell casters, and some of them keep wandering into the enemy and dying - that's on you. A better player wouldn't make that mistake. If you micro your heart out in a ling bane war and never inject - that's on you. A better player wouldn't make that mistake. Every time blizzard makes the game easier, even in the smallest way, the reduce the gap between players, and I think that's a problem. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On January 16 2019 07:16 InfCereal wrote: Re: 2) Blizzard should never be intentionally reducing the skill ceiling. They've done this so many times in recent years: Stacking injects, HT auto attack, auto warp gate, no lift off while addon is researching, easier to click building scvs, even way back in hots when they allow tumours to be placed on ramps. Their reasoning for these changes have always been about reducing unnecessary actions, accidental game ending moment, and the amount of attention a player has to split to play the game optimally. The problem is that "unnecessary actions" separate one playing who can do those actions, and a player who can't. If you forget to turn your gateways to warp gates and you lose, that's on you. A better player would not have made that mistake. The same can be said about attention splitting. If you need to control 17 spell casters, and some of them keep wandering into the enemy and dying - that's on you. A better player wouldn't make that mistake. If you micro your heart out in a ling bane war and never inject - that's on you. A better player wouldn't make that mistake. Every time blizzard makes the game easier, even in the smallest way, the reduce the gap between players, and I think that's a problem. Have you ever seen soO view when he was the best Zerg around? He a-moved(ish) units and when back to inject because injects >> micro units. That was when I realized how shitty this inject mechanic is. Just my view | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
On January 16 2019 07:16 InfCereal wrote: Re: 2) Blizzard should never be intentionally reducing the skill ceiling. They've done this so many times in recent years: Stacking injects, HT auto attack, auto warp gate, no lift off while addon is researching, easier to click building scvs, even way back in hots when they allow tumours to be placed on ramps. Their reasoning for these changes have always been about reducing unnecessary actions, accidental game ending moment, and the amount of attention a player has to split to play the game optimally. The problem is that "unnecessary actions" separate one playing who can do those actions, and a player who can't. If you forget to turn your gateways to warp gates and you lose, that's on you. A better player would not have made that mistake. The same can be said about attention splitting. If you need to control 17 spell casters, and some of them keep wandering into the enemy and dying - that's on you. A better player wouldn't make that mistake. If you micro your heart out in a ling bane war and never inject - that's on you. A better player wouldn't make that mistake. Every time blizzard makes the game easier, even in the smallest way, the reduce the gap between players, and I think that's a problem. Thank you for typing that  "Blizzard should never be intentionally reducing the skill ceiling." id just change your wrap up a little, if i may  "Every time blizzard makes the game easier, even in the smallest way, this reduces the interest involved in playing/viewing it for everyone, and I think that's a problem." ... Many streamers try to make their viewers follow their quips about the state of sc2 lit from their own corner, their own brand of "humor" ..more often than not it is so bad that yes this sort of thread seems warranted. However (after 8 years + of sc2) i bizarrely still like people who explain their thoughts about sc2 "balance"... Case in point, i humbly put that Demuslim should voice his thoughts the way he does since it happens that he is not just whining but trying his best to articulate said thoughts to make hopefully the game he plays be made more interesting/competitively driven! by its developer at the next round of changes. (edit/disclaimer: i didn't see the ting thingee .. i'm referencing the streamer playing the game and talking about it on his stream after having played the thing he is discussing) | ||
|
Malongo
Chile3472 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19237 Posts
On January 16 2019 08:59 Malongo wrote: I feel like the opener went right into the unwanted hole. To me this was supposed to be about different approaches to sc2 matchups and how a fixed mentality forces players to be dependant on patch fixes instead of rewarding creative solutions. Maru pretty much defined a full matchup by finding a missed opportunity in TvP last year, but here Demuslim and 9/10 of TL think this is about how different or similar are Sc2 and BW. Ypu. I personally loved the OP and was really excited that Travis authored up such a big post. He is a long time quality poster and guy. I think he did a great job of separating his thoughts from personal attacks unlike some people in this thread. I also thought demuslim's response was a great one too. I feel like there has to be a middle ground on this discussion. The fact that blizzard continues the patch the game and listens to the community is great, but does elicit these kinds of reactions because of it. At some point though, the community will have to really debate wether yearly patches for the next 5-10 years is a good thing, or is an end to 1v1 balance changes the right thing to do. Once there is a close to balance changes, everyone should come back to this OP cause it will mean much more to readers at that time. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
| ||
|
WaesumNinja
210 Posts
On January 16 2019 04:19 Snakestyle11 wrote: There is now virtually no choices for zerg in the first 6 minutes or more. You mass queen and drones with early third base and defend with as few units as possible, always ling/bane or roaches. If you mass queen, you cant attack, since they took out early ovie drops and nerfed nydus to hell. You cant use mass queen to punish someone playing greedy using air tech units to stay safe versus all rushes zerg can do. Meanwhile, here are some of the infinite terran openings versus zerg. -cut- Though you can argue that playing Z has always been like that. Remember back in WoL when zerg would 3hatch pretty much every game vs P? To ultimately transition into BL infestor? Everyone was lamenting how OP z is to macro up so hard and then do that comp. Forgetting how back then Z had no other options. 3 hatch was a response to forge fast expand, which P would do every game since it negated all early aggression from zerg until they had a deathball going in which case they could just roll over anything the Z could have at that point. Many zergs realised that their only option is to take a quick third and survive the harass until all bases are up and tech to hive, since lair tech would melt to the P army. Then broodlord infestor vs mothership archon isn't anything anyone wants back... As for a hatch tech anti air unit, I thought before about swapping roach and hydra in the tech tree and balance accordingly, but it's too big of a change. I'd rather see a queen rally point. Maybe some hive upgrade for the queen... not sure what would make sense though. Zerg has always been rather locked in their choices (I don't think protoss is very different in this regard, especially in their mirror) if you don't like having 1-2 stable openings then probably you would enjoy playing terran more. Races are just different this way and have always been. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On January 16 2019 08:59 Malongo wrote: I feel like the opener went right into the unwanted hole. To me this was supposed to be about different approaches to sc2 matchups and how a fixed mentality forces players to be dependant on patch fixes instead of rewarding creative solutions. Maru pretty much defined a full matchup by finding a missed opportunity in TvP last year, but here Demuslim and 9/10 of TL think this is about how different or similar are Sc2 and BW. It's not like Travis didn't use this and the games ARE different. Blizzard has a different approach towards them. So if you use "in BW this while in SC2 that" approach be prepared, that the reaction is - different games. The fact that the games have similar name and some similar units doesn't mean they're same. If you want to get rid off this comparisons then you have to remove the BW comparison yourself and, surprise surprise, then you're left only with SC2  | ||
|
Argonauta
Spain4948 Posts
On January 16 2019 03:34 DeMusliM wrote: But also I want to start off by saying, I absolutely disagree that you should just accept something because "That's the way it is". Sc2 matchups generally have rules, one very simple one which I don't think anybody would disagree with for example is how Terran vs Zerg is played. Isn't this quite contradictory? Your major point of disagreement with OP is that you think matchups can change. But then you enforce a set of reasoning on the base of: matchups have rules and therefore we have to stick to them. Isn't just OP saying that matchup rules do not exist and therefore you should stick and how the game it is; and not to, on the contrary, force the game to change to fit to your playstyle? | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
But it's actually the standard within e-sports to continuously add new units, races, heroes in order to sell content. And that's forced all those games into these sort of complex counter relationships where there are all sorts of options, which are balanced only by virtue of the demand on the player that they master and immerse themselves into this network. You have to know everything at risk of being figured out, to refuse is to become an open target. Personally I think it's charming SC2 is not like this. In my opinion SC2 has too many units already and would benefit from more clarity, with strategy deriving from map design and differentiation between early and late game and so on. Also, with the assumption that every match-up can never be fully balanced, then there are only two options: either one race is superior to the other two, or there is a cyclical counter relationship. Given that Blizzard tries to balance the game by avoiding the first at all costs, it's only natural the latter would constantly crop up. But of course that's a crude way of conceiving balance. Note that there is a minor effect where one match-up being uneven, say P > T, then in tournament or league scenarios there is a faint echo such that T > Z, and fainter still Z > P, - because only the stronger terrans survive to face weaker zergs. It's a minor effect, (iic) I tested it once with a 60% P > T winrate, which then caused a 52% T > Z winrate. In any case, given these factors such as the inability to exploit cyclical counter relationships due to players being locked into their race choice, and the fact that it's more about the degree to which one race dominates, I don't think pointing out this cycle is sufficient in casting aside balance concerns. SC2 is a game which has a relatively fragile balance. I don't think people appreciate the fact that BW is badly balanced, but due to its difficulty it lets players overcome most balance deficits, whereas SC2 is very well balanced, but also requires more effort because there are more units, more strategies and (slightly) easier controls. For BW the fact that Blizzard abandoned it proved to be a boon, but SC2 was created specifically so that Blizzard would have control over it, and unsurprisingly people are still asking Blizzard every day to make changes to the game. To my knowledge SC2 is the only mainstream game which locks players out of options and therefore adds extreme urgency to game balance which does not exist for any other game where a player can just switch their main. In every other game the designers want unbalanced counter relationships in order to add strategy, but in SC2 you have to be extremely cautious. | ||
|
Parcelleus
Australia1662 Posts
| ||
| ||
