|
On January 16 2019 17:27 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +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 
My point wasn't about similarity between the games, my point was about mindset of players and viewers. It happens to be the case that brood war is similar to sc2, but my point could have been made with any game. Brood war makes a good example because of it's long history of success and early appearance in the timeline of esports, so it's players are representative of what I feel is a positive mindset for the game.
|
people + Show Spoiler +below Masters need to accept that a diverse race RTS game won't be balanced for their level of play. I"m 100% satisfied with that state of affairs.
I played Brood War, Red Alert 3 , SC2 and, Company of Heroes. They were all imbalanced at my level of play. I had great fun with all those games. Did I lose a few games to players slightly less skilled than me due to some imbalance... probably. Meh, who cares.
In 2003 i lost my Brood War disk and played the famously imbalanced vanilla SC1 for 3+ months. It was fun. I probably lost a few games I didn't deserve to lose.. and i probably won a few games i didn't deserve to win. meh, who cares.
Fun is more important than winning exactly 50% of your games.
|
Spain881 Posts
This is a really interesting discussion, thanks travis for the quality OP.
I also like more the BW community mindset about balance than the one of SC2. It is true that in BW there is no other choice, but still, the result is better. Balance gets too much attention in SC2.
Asimmetric balance is good for the game. It strengthens the strategic component of it, because you need to work on strategies to benefit from your better tools and also to minimize the impact of the best tools of the adversary. That said, the assimetry has to end in the extreme late game. Matchups have to be balanced when all units and upgrades are available. If not, one race always has an advantage in the matchup. Unfortunately these scenarios are the most rarely played and therefore difficult to balance.
|
T>P so hard in brood war
BS overpowered vultures and siege tanks. Protoss hilariously weak in BW
|
On January 17 2019 15:56 BerserkSword wrote:
T>P so hard in brood war
BS overpowered vultures and siege tanks. Protoss hilariously weak in BW
As a (mostly) terran main in bw, i always felt that indeed TvP was much easier than TvZ. ( Maybe i needed to learn mech instead of SK terran in tvz, woulda been easier maybe)
Siege tanks and vultures/mines with turrets with good macro was almost unbreakable...
Until arbiters.
I think arbiters and carriers is what made Protoss strong versus terran. Without those, it did indeed feel weak.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On January 17 2019 01:32 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 17:27 deacon.frost wrote: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 My point wasn't about similarity between the games, my point was about mindset of players and viewers. It happens to be the case that brood war is similar to sc2, but my point could have been made with any game. Brood war makes a good example because of it's long history of success and early appearance in the timeline of esports, so it's players are representative of what I feel is a positive mindset for the game.
I get it, but if you use the comparison people will attack the comparison 
Anyway, my point was actually confirmed by Flash himself I believe. He said in some interview translated here(or maybe on youtube, but I 100 % read the quote here) that he was thinking about some issue in TvX and he was nearing a perfection which meant he would be able to perform it and then a balance change happened.
With this approach I don't blame pros trying to force the change via Blizzard and "whine" rather than solving it. Because solving it may result in a lost time.
|
On January 17 2019 18:55 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2019 01:32 travis wrote:On January 16 2019 17:27 deacon.frost wrote: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 My point wasn't about similarity between the games, my point was about mindset of players and viewers. It happens to be the case that brood war is similar to sc2, but my point could have been made with any game. Brood war makes a good example because of it's long history of success and early appearance in the timeline of esports, so it's players are representative of what I feel is a positive mindset for the game. I get it, but if you use the comparison people will attack the comparison Anyway, my point was actually confirmed by Flash himself I believe. He said in some interview translated here(or maybe on youtube, but I 100 % read the quote here) that he was thinking about some issue in TvX and he was nearing a perfection which meant he would be able to perform it and then a balance change happened. With this approach I don't blame pros trying to force the change via Blizzard and "whine" rather than solving it. Because solving it may result in a lost time.
Pro players complain about balance because it's in their interest to do so. And the opportunities readily present themselves as Blizzard solicits their opinion or the question comes up in interviews. But pro players are not full-time lobbyists, and they are not lazy. I think it's a bit silly to state that balance being in flux destroys pro players' will to innovate. Of course they are still practicing to circumvent whatever real balance problems might exist. At the very least, I don't know of any empirical evidence for SC2 being less strategically rich than BW due to player despondency.
|
On January 16 2019 02:09 travis wrote:
I think, for some reason, too many people have decided *how the game is supposed to be*.
YES finally someone points this out. As if the different races should only differ in some units.
Many players think the game should be so that they have an (if just slightly) higher win rate than 50%. It is too easy to point out balance issues. Even if they do exist. I think in most cases they exist only if one tries to repeat the builds one knows already. As if there should be right that an approach to the game should have a good chance to win.
Shifting strategies can force a player to modify the build. That is not necessarily imbalance.
|
On January 17 2019 19:47 [F_]aths wrote:
Many players think the game should be so that they have an (if just slightly) higher win rate than 50%. It is too easy to point out balance issues. Even if they do exists. I think in most cases they exists only if one tries to repeat the builds one knows already. As if there should be right that an approach to the game should have a good chance to win.
People also tend to leave out imbalances that happen to favor them, since those are "fine".
How incredibly boring this game would be if strategies that always win if executed correctly existed, yet so many seem to be asking for just that.
|
On January 17 2019 01:32 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 17:27 deacon.frost wrote: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 My point wasn't about similarity between the games, my point was about mindset of players and viewers. It happens to be the case that brood war is similar to sc2, but my point could have been made with any game. Brood war makes a good example because of it's long history of success and early appearance in the timeline of esports, so it's players are representative of what I feel is a positive mindset for the game.
StarCraft is pretty much the only competitive game in existence which divides players into factions such that balance becomes an existential issue. In every other game players are expected to utilize the full range of options the game has to offer, and navigating complex counter relationships between different factions, classes, cards and so on are a key component of strategic mastery.
But in StarCraft 2 there is the somewhat ludicrous situation of (pro) players being dependent on Blizzard to constantly rebalance the game for them, a process still continuing nine years and counting. Compare BW, which did receive significant balance touch-ups after release, but which still received only a fraction of the development time yielded to its successor. Granted, there is a frontpage article now which delineates the controversy of terran dominance in BW, but any fair assessment of the record should tell you that BW is remarkably balanced for a game with such paucity of changes.
The interesting counter-factual here is to ask if SC2 strictly needed the changes it received, or whether the results would be similar without Blizzard's constant attention. And even if they would be similar, does it affect integrity of the competitive scene to have occasional minor tweaks to nudge balance?
|
Australia3123 Posts
On January 16 2019 04:32 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2019 04:25 Marl wrote:
broodwar pros went back to broodwar for a reason Because SC2 was too hard
They were better at BW then SC2. So relax and stop freaking out man.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On January 17 2019 19:59 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2019 01:32 travis wrote:On January 16 2019 17:27 deacon.frost wrote: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 My point wasn't about similarity between the games, my point was about mindset of players and viewers. It happens to be the case that brood war is similar to sc2, but my point could have been made with any game. Brood war makes a good example because of it's long history of success and early appearance in the timeline of esports, so it's players are representative of what I feel is a positive mindset for the game. StarCraft is pretty much the only competitive game in existence which divides players into factions such that balance becomes an existential issue. In every other game players are expected to utilize the full range of options the game has to offer, and navigating complex counter relationships between different factions, classes, cards and so on are a key component of strategic mastery. But in StarCraft 2 there is the somewhat ludicrous situation of (pro) players being dependent on Blizzard to constantly rebalance the game for them, a process still continuing nine years and counting. Compare BW, which did receive significant balance touch-ups after release, but which still received only a fraction of the development time yielded to its successor. Granted, there is a frontpage article now which delineates the controversy of terran dominance in BW, but any fair assessment of the record should tell you that BW is remarkably balanced for a game with such paucity of changes. The interesting counter-factual here is to ask if SC2 strictly needed the changes it received, or whether the results would be similar without Blizzard's constant attention. And even if they would be similar, does it affect integrity of the competitive scene to have occasional minor tweaks to nudge balance?
That's because the Blizzard decided to keep in touch and balance!
BW had to develop AROUND this, SC2 can't develop around this because Blizzard has everything under their control. Map pool and game itself.
And BW is balanced by maps, now imagine that this would be strictly controlled by Blizzard and they would place there THEIR maps. Now imagine the situation, just try it. The last time I checked Blizzard maps were completely fine and balanced
BTW what happened with "balance" when they needed Flash to lose? Maps were shifted less Terran friendly?
If SC2 would stay without any Blizzard interaction it would have developed in the same way but Blizzard is controlling everything in the game. That's why it's different situation. Don't use BW to comparison because this is a huge condition why it's different. SC2 was balanced 5 years ago into a good state that wouldn't require any interaction from Blizzard if they decided to do so. They didn't.
Edit>
Also if you take into account other games, they have self balancing mechanism. You can ban heroes, you switch sides. This doesn't happen in SC2. You can ban the most unbalanced map you don't like unless it's finals. If the map pool has 4 strongly Terran favored maps and the balance is shifted towards Terrans there's NOTHING you can do other than fight an uphill battle(which even Flash wasn't able to overcome ). Check CS - if there's an OP T weapon on an OP T map you will play as T if you start as CT. So while you're playing an uphill battle in the end it's turned around by you playing the game as T. Or you can ban OP heroes in MOBAs(if they still use this system). Imagine playing PvT and then TvP on the same map pool and only after that the score would decide who advances
We. Don't. Have. This. Mechanisms.
|
Very nice read, very well written and I agree with your sentiments 100%.
|
@deacon.frost
The point of interest here is to question why BW did well without Blizzard and to ask whether SC2 needs Blizzard to keep patching it. I could very easily argue that BW, with its obvious disadvantages, is well balanced because of certain design choices, whereas SC2 is more fragile and requires more maintenance.
|
On January 17 2019 21:19 Grumbels wrote:
@deacon.frost
The point of interest here is to question why BW did well without Blizzard and to ask whether SC2 needs Blizzard to keep patching it. I could very easily argue that BW, with its obvious disadvantages, is well balanced because of certain design choices, whereas SC2 is more fragile and requires more maintenance.
BW has fewer units and is balanced by extremly high mechanical skill ceiling due to an arcane user interface and by awful pathing-AI, and by maps.
SC2 have more units, is a more complex game overall, is not balanced much by maps, have a modern user interface and the mechanical skill ceiling is not as game deciding as it was in BW. Plus consumers now are much more demanding compared to 20 years ago and will not accept a hands-off approach.
The BW approach would not work for SC2.
|
On January 17 2019 21:30 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2019 21:19 Grumbels wrote:
@deacon.frost
The point of interest here is to question why BW did well without Blizzard and to ask whether SC2 needs Blizzard to keep patching it. I could very easily argue that BW, with its obvious disadvantages, is well balanced because of certain design choices, whereas SC2 is more fragile and requires more maintenance. BW has fewer units and is balanced by extremly high mechanical skill ceiling due to an arcane user interface and by awful pathing-AI, and by maps. SC2 have more units, is a more complex game overall, is not balanced much by maps, have a modern user interface and the mechanical skill ceiling is not as game deciding as it was in BW. Plus consumers now are much more demanding compared to 20 years ago and will not accept a hands-off approach. The BW approach would not work for SC2.
But the latter seems a bit self-defeatist, since ideally the goal of the developers should not be “to be seen doing something”, when doing nothing could suffice. Would the game collapse if Blizzard abandoned it? It can’t really be proven, because even if it worked for BW, SC2 is a different game like you explained. But it seems psychologically healthier for the community to not have to depend on Blizzard.
edit: and personally I just find these frequent community updates really insipid: “we have seen liberators/adepts/battlecruisers/hobgoblins/... are a bit strong and we are monitoring this development”. My opinion is that I think they should keep quiet unless there is some sort of external demand by the community to fix something. Otherwise the developers should focus on improving the game, not on micromanaging it.
|
If the 'This is how the game is supossed to be played' mentality were to take over, then you'd only be left with people who like to play/watch that way.
Wether that's a good thing or not is subjective.
|
It's really sad that Demuslim has fallen so far into a typical balance whiner on a regular basis. I can barely tolerate his stream anymore, the chat is so close to avilo's.
|
On January 16 2019 02:09 travis wrote:
But, he did make the fatal mistake of making a balance complaint while casting. And it inspired me.
Fatal? Really? As a pro player or as a caster he has every right to give his opinion.
So, where am I going with this? Well, I want to go back to what Demuslim was talking about. I think his statement is something a lot of people would agree with. The Terran can't safely match Protoss income rate, and that's a problem with the matchup.
I don't agree. I think we should look at the brood war examples as to why. I think, for some reason, too many people have decided *how the game is supposed to be*. I think that this rigidity of thinking sets people back, and makes them miss out on understanding and fail to see potential opportunities. Players, especially pro players, should be embracing the strengths of the race they are using - while working around the weaknesses.
I don't agree with you. You should not compare SC2 with other games. Not even broodwar. It's also wishful thinking to think a hero will rise and defy all balance odds.
There is nothing inherently wrong with Terran having to open up with hyperaggressive openings vs Protoss, for example. Maybe that's how the game should be played! It's all in your mind that there is something *wrong* with that.
I've been watching SC2 since 2010 and seeing games lately where a terran player is being forced to use the same opening is just boring. I haven't seen any TvP lategames the past months and it's not fun to watch at all. Don't you want to see Maru fight an equally skilled Protoss player where they both have a giant army and multitask as much as they can instead of the cheesy play we've lately been seeing?
Maybe the best players are players who can embrace this playstyle, seeking to do the most damage possible and if not winning the game with it then *coming out ahead* to go into the later game. A lot of players act like the only thing you can do with an aggressive opening is win or lose, but that's silly. It's just an opening, and it puts you in some sort of position for later into the game. The amount of times I see players say *if X fails you lose*, is sad. Because it's not true. An opening can fail to kill an enemy but still put you in a great position if you do it well enough.
Players should not be looking at weaknesses as imbalances in the game. The races should not be directly compared. But they are, constantly.
If brood war came out now, instead of 20 years ago, the amount of complaining would be through the roof. It would be absolutely bonkers.
#You can't move out against Zerg it's impossible and they expand all over the map
#All Terran can do is turtle while Protoss can take a million bases
#I can't even get out of my base vs Terran all I can do is make a thousand sunkens and try desperately to get to lurkers so that I don't instantly die
etc etc
But instead, because brood war was new, players didn't know better. So, they embraced these aspects of the game and played around them. They perfected them. They weren't balance issues... they were the game.
To sum it up, I think that many members of the community need to re-think how they view balance between the races... and I think that pros should be gleefully embracing the strengths and weaknesses in the matchups.
Weaknesses indeed are okay as long as there are counters for each situation. Demuslim has been constantly providing impartial feedback on balance. Since you've not replied to any point he made you don't seem to be taking his feedback seriously or have no interest in coming with counter arguments.
Balance updates are necessary in my opinion to keep the game less stale and fun to play/watch.
What I do think is that people who complain about balance should analyse the game from all 3 races and mirror matchups. Explain why it's a problem and how it could be solved. If someone complains about balance ask him why and don't get upset it's just a game.
|
On January 17 2019 16:00 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2019 15:56 BerserkSword wrote:
T>P so hard in brood war
BS overpowered vultures and siege tanks. Protoss hilariously weak in BW
As a (mostly) terran main in bw, i always felt that indeed TvP was much easier than TvZ. ( Maybe i needed to learn mech instead of SK terran in tvz, woulda been easier maybe) Siege tanks and vultures/mines with turrets with good macro was almost unbreakable... Until arbiters. I think arbiters and carriers is what made Protoss strong versus terran. Without those, it did indeed feel weak.
I agree. Arbiters and Carriers were somewhat of an equalizer. But they are late game units and Goliaths can still easily challenge carriers. Carriers require critical masses and tons of minerals to maintain as well.
Basically it is a Terran player having insane advantage until late game (if the protoss player even survives) and then it becomes more of an equal match than anything, except the Terran usually has a bigger bank and mines and turrets all over the map.
Terran is lowkey broken in BW. The Vulture and Siege tank are too strong. 75 minerals for the fastest unit in the game, meat shield, that can produce 3 "cloaked" units that helps in zoning out. then only 2 supply for a siege tank....lol
even scvs have so much more fighting ability than the P/Z counterparts. there's a reason all but one bonjwa was a terran player
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
