|
Dominican Republic589 Posts
Hi, i was the one very impress with SC2 announcement back in 2007, thought to myself i'm going to die playing this, well it wasn't the case, i followed and played the game when WOL was released non stop, then bought HOTW literally just played the campaign nothing else i stopped playing SC2 due to the nature of constant balance changes that never let the meta settle for years like Brood War did, basically i got bored of SC2 because it was not the same for me anymore, then Legacy of the Void come to the public and i was again inserted on playing, played here and there, mostly 2v2s, not enough time to play but still follow the Pro scene and Some Streamer and stuff trying to catch up all the time lost, but then again i got lost interest so i can still see SC2 is being under a balance patch since almost 10 years.
with all the being said, is this new Patch actually stable Meta wise? are there any other issue balance wise that can be fixed on any incoming patch if there is any? i would like to read your opinion since i'm trying to get back to the game but i'm afraid is still the same META SHIFTING. meta shifting does not allow you to fully develop a good game sense or good overall strategies because units stats keep changing to favor one race over the other, have u ask yourself why there is no shifting rules in Chess?
|
Northern Ireland20726 Posts
I like meta shifts personally, keeps the strategy in the game. There’s a balance between stability and freshening things up so space is given for players ahead of the strategic curve, but I think largely SC2 has done a good job there.
Brood War/SC1 needed balanced by maps, also it was the first RTS to be explored to quite the degree it was.
You can afford not to change the base game because so much of what we consider RTS fundamentals weren’t really a known factor then. From pure mechanics, to even something as obvious how as Maynarding workers to a new expansion, macro fundamentals etc etc.
The actual development of strategy is the fun part of it for me, seeing how people adjust to changes and find what is optimal etc.
|
On January 11 2020 00:38 BonitiilloO wrote: meta shifting does not allow you to fully develop a good game sense or good overall strategies because units stats keep changing to favor one race over the other, have u ask yourself why there is no shifting rules in Chess?
Both players have the same pieces in chess, but one starts first. This isn't a good example.
|
On January 11 2020 03:27 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2020 00:38 BonitiilloO wrote: meta shifting does not allow you to fully develop a good game sense or good overall strategies because units stats keep changing to favor one race over the other, have u ask yourself why there is no shifting rules in Chess? Both players have the same pieces in chess, but one starts first. This isn't a good example. Especially since White is OP and needs to be nerfed to overcome its first-move advantage.
|
Balance is still pretty good. The goal is not just balance, but increase the amount of diversity and amount of viable strategies. They try to make as many unit compositions work as possible, make things more flexible, etc.
Haven't followed LOTV much but balance overall seems fine, but in general the direction they're going with some changes seems bad, but again I haven't followed too closely to judge well enough.
HOTS balances were really good.
As an example of the increased diversity (unit comp and increased action/harass/tactics etc.), you will notice that mirror MUs are way more interesting and varied now. TvT is on some big picture level still mostly the same, but it also needed the least attention of the mirror MUs. PvP and ZvZ are way more diverse and interesting now.
|
On January 11 2020 09:40 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Balance is still pretty good. The goal is not just balance, but increase the amount of diversity and amount of viable strategies. They try to make as many unit compositions work as possible, make things more flexible, etc.
Haven't followed LOTV much but balance overall seems fine, but in general the direction they're going with some changes seems bad, but again I haven't followed too closely to judge well enough.
HOTS balances were really good. pvz at the end of HOTS was determined entirely by whether the third base was too wide to cover with force fields, and tvz was cancer turtle mech universally despised by anyone who didn't play cancer turtle mech themselves
|
Northern Ireland20726 Posts
On January 11 2020 09:44 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2020 09:40 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Balance is still pretty good. The goal is not just balance, but increase the amount of diversity and amount of viable strategies. They try to make as many unit compositions work as possible, make things more flexible, etc.
Haven't followed LOTV much but balance overall seems fine, but in general the direction they're going with some changes seems bad, but again I haven't followed too closely to judge well enough.
HOTS balances were really good. pvz at the end of HOTS was determined entirely by whether the third base was too wide to cover with force fields, and tvz was cancer turtle mech universally despised by anyone who didn't play cancer turtle mech themselves I don’t think the state of play was good in HoTS, especially at the end of it but the balance largely was.
The issue was that balance isn’t necessarily fun, things like having stylistic options, or hell even different options full stop are kind of important.
Early HoTS had epic TvZ when the likes of Innovation at (IMO) his peak rocking biomine against titans like Soulkey playing ling/bling/muta in some of the best games we’ve seen in SC2. By the end, nah not so fun.
PvZ to me has basically always sucked bar some of LoTV and a short period in Wings, where BL/Infestor wasn’t quite refined and warp prism and multipronged attacks as a response by the likes of HerO lead to proper macro games. When Zergs plugged the holes it became terrible.
I don’t think any Terran matchup has ever been particularly good when BW-esque slow-pushing defensive mech has been the go-to, required strategy in the meta. When it’s a viable option, sure but when it’s the obligatory strat not so much.
When TvZ, say has bio be 60-40 ‘better’ over mech, or 40-60 unflavoured in the meta it’s tended to be a good matchup. When TvZ is ‘you have to go mech’ it’s tended to not be as enjoyable.
|
On January 11 2020 04:17 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2020 03:27 SC-Shield wrote:On January 11 2020 00:38 BonitiilloO wrote: meta shifting does not allow you to fully develop a good game sense or good overall strategies because units stats keep changing to favor one race over the other, have u ask yourself why there is no shifting rules in Chess? Both players have the same pieces in chess, but one starts first. This isn't a good example. Especially since White is OP and needs to be nerfed to overcome its first-move advantage. Has anyone in chess played the first two moves blind, like pre chosen and they have to move them out after the reveal? Or is that not a thing?
|
On January 11 2020 04:17 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2020 03:27 SC-Shield wrote:On January 11 2020 00:38 BonitiilloO wrote: meta shifting does not allow you to fully develop a good game sense or good overall strategies because units stats keep changing to favor one race over the other, have u ask yourself why there is no shifting rules in Chess? Both players have the same pieces in chess, but one starts first. This isn't a good example. Especially since White is OP and needs to be nerfed to overcome its first-move advantage.
I don't play chess, but similar to StarCraft balance, I imagine whether you start first or not is just an advantage if you're equally skilled anyway. You could just as well make a different mistake which doesn't have to do with who starts first because I doubt anyone plays perfectly. Chess isn't a blind game, so it should be possible to react to opponent accordingly.
|
On January 11 2020 19:03 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2020 04:17 Boggyb wrote:On January 11 2020 03:27 SC-Shield wrote:On January 11 2020 00:38 BonitiilloO wrote: meta shifting does not allow you to fully develop a good game sense or good overall strategies because units stats keep changing to favor one race over the other, have u ask yourself why there is no shifting rules in Chess? Both players have the same pieces in chess, but one starts first. This isn't a good example. Especially since White is OP and needs to be nerfed to overcome its first-move advantage. I don't play chess, but similar to StarCraft balance, I imagine whether you start first or not is just an advantage if you're equally skilled anyway. You mean unlike StarCraft because in Chess imbalance only matters if you're equally skilled. On the other hand, StarCraft has dozens if not hundreds of interactions with a disparity in the amount of mechanical skill required to execute vs defend against them. Anyone who thinks that balance only matters at the highest level doesn't know what balance is or how the game operates.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36659 Posts
|
On January 11 2020 11:02 Drusas_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2020 04:17 Boggyb wrote:On January 11 2020 03:27 SC-Shield wrote:On January 11 2020 00:38 BonitiilloO wrote: meta shifting does not allow you to fully develop a good game sense or good overall strategies because units stats keep changing to favor one race over the other, have u ask yourself why there is no shifting rules in Chess? Both players have the same pieces in chess, but one starts first. This isn't a good example. Especially since White is OP and needs to be nerfed to overcome its first-move advantage. Has anyone in chess played the first two moves blind, like pre chosen and they have to move them out after the reveal? Or is that not a thing?
That's literally just a nerf for black, since black now needs to respond to an unknown move with no disadvantage for white.
On January 11 2020 22:05 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2020 19:03 SC-Shield wrote:On January 11 2020 04:17 Boggyb wrote:On January 11 2020 03:27 SC-Shield wrote:On January 11 2020 00:38 BonitiilloO wrote: meta shifting does not allow you to fully develop a good game sense or good overall strategies because units stats keep changing to favor one race over the other, have u ask yourself why there is no shifting rules in Chess? Both players have the same pieces in chess, but one starts first. This isn't a good example. Especially since White is OP and needs to be nerfed to overcome its first-move advantage. I don't play chess, but similar to StarCraft balance, I imagine whether you start first or not is just an advantage if you're equally skilled anyway. You mean unlike StarCraft because in Chess imbalance only matters if you're equally skilled. On the other hand, StarCraft has dozens if not hundreds of interactions with a disparity in the amount of mechanical skill required to execute vs defend against them. Anyone who thinks that balance only matters at the highest level doesn't know what balance is or how the game operates.
Lots of positions in chess are objectively about equal but practically speaking much easier to play for one side, so I fail to see the difference.
|
Come on, guys. Chess is balanced because in any serious tournament, players take turns playing black and white. In Swiss style, they play black and white equally much.
Chess is also solved to the point that black can not win at the highest AI level.
It should be compared to playing only 2 maps being 53/47 and vica versa.
|
On January 12 2020 04:11 Slydie wrote: Come on, guys. Chess is balanced because in any serious tournament, players take turns playing black and white. In Swiss style, they play black and white equally much.
Chess is also solved to the point that black can not win at the highest AI level.
It should be compared to playing only 2 maps being 53/47 and vica versa.
And who plays as perfectly as AI for black/white to matter that much? It's like saying that Terran is OP if you control each unit at the same time (just like those AI micro videos on youtube) with 1000+ APM. Sure it is, but can you play at this level?
Edit: Since it's forbidden to give a link to youtube videos, just look for "Ursadak vs. Automaton 2000 - Micro Bot Duel".
|
Canada8767 Posts
On January 12 2020 05:00 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2020 04:11 Slydie wrote: Come on, guys. Chess is balanced because in any serious tournament, players take turns playing black and white. In Swiss style, they play black and white equally much.
Chess is also solved to the point that black can not win at the highest AI level.
It should be compared to playing only 2 maps being 53/47 and vica versa. And who plays as perfectly as AI for black/white to matter that much? It's like saying that Terran is OP if you control each unit at the same time (just like those AI micro videos on youtube) with 1000+ APM. Sure it is, but can you play at this level? Edit: Since it's forbidden to give a link to youtube videos, just look for "Ursadak vs. Automaton 2000 - Micro Bot Duel".
In most top professional chess tournament if you win a game with black you're pretty far ahead in the match, it's mostly about getting a draw when you play black and winning with white. It's nothing compared to SC imbalanced but it's still there.
|
Dominican Republic589 Posts
I still think the games. Needs to settle to something more skill focus instead of making you go in a way on purpose, a shifting Meta isn't good for noob or new players that are trying to figure out how to get better at the game, I bet there are a.lot of players at low levers that just stopped playing because of it.
|
On January 12 2020 05:46 BonitiilloO wrote: I still think the games. Needs to settle to something more skill focus instead of making you go in a way on purpose, a shifting Meta isn't good for noob or new players that are trying to figure out how to get better at the game, I bet there are a.lot of players at low levers that just stopped playing because of it. Imbalance (worse at lower levels than higher) and the game intentionally adding pointless mechanics to raise the difficulty of playing are infinitely bigger barriers of entry than a shifting meta as there isn't a particularly defined one at the lower levels regardless of the state of the pro scene.
|
On January 12 2020 06:39 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2020 05:46 BonitiilloO wrote: I still think the games. Needs to settle to something more skill focus instead of making you go in a way on purpose, a shifting Meta isn't good for noob or new players that are trying to figure out how to get better at the game, I bet there are a.lot of players at low levers that just stopped playing because of it. Imbalance (worse at lower levels than higher) and the game intentionally adding pointless mechanics to raise the difficulty of playing are infinitely bigger barriers of entry than a shifting meta as there isn't a particularly defined one at the lower levels regardless of the state of the pro scene.
Yup. Lowleague balance is a different beast all together, and mainly consists of which cheeses are easier to execute than defend.
I have to say map balance IS a factor, though, at least down to gold league.
|
On January 12 2020 05:23 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2020 05:00 SC-Shield wrote:On January 12 2020 04:11 Slydie wrote: Come on, guys. Chess is balanced because in any serious tournament, players take turns playing black and white. In Swiss style, they play black and white equally much.
Chess is also solved to the point that black can not win at the highest AI level.
It should be compared to playing only 2 maps being 53/47 and vica versa. And who plays as perfectly as AI for black/white to matter that much? It's like saying that Terran is OP if you control each unit at the same time (just like those AI micro videos on youtube) with 1000+ APM. Sure it is, but can you play at this level? Edit: Since it's forbidden to give a link to youtube videos, just look for "Ursadak vs. Automaton 2000 - Micro Bot Duel". In most top professional chess tournament if you win a game with black you're pretty far ahead in the match, it's mostly about getting a draw when you play black and winning with white. It's nothing compared to SC imbalanced but it's still there.
Top pros are using supercomputers a lot in their training, and in some ways, Magnus Carlsen is even harder to play against for humans as he is better at setting traps and creating something out of nothing than even the top AIs. If AlphaStar moved on with sc2, it would probably at least work out some very crisp timing attacks and holds humans could use.
In long chess, draws are extremely common and wins with black pieces are very rare. I guess in a big Swiss style tournament it could be an advantage to draw black pieces vs weak players to steal a black win you should not get, but I have not seen anyone complain about this "balance" issue.
|
Canada8767 Posts
On January 12 2020 07:20 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2020 05:23 Nakajin wrote:On January 12 2020 05:00 SC-Shield wrote:On January 12 2020 04:11 Slydie wrote: Come on, guys. Chess is balanced because in any serious tournament, players take turns playing black and white. In Swiss style, they play black and white equally much.
Chess is also solved to the point that black can not win at the highest AI level.
It should be compared to playing only 2 maps being 53/47 and vica versa. And who plays as perfectly as AI for black/white to matter that much? It's like saying that Terran is OP if you control each unit at the same time (just like those AI micro videos on youtube) with 1000+ APM. Sure it is, but can you play at this level? Edit: Since it's forbidden to give a link to youtube videos, just look for "Ursadak vs. Automaton 2000 - Micro Bot Duel". In most top professional chess tournament if you win a game with black you're pretty far ahead in the match, it's mostly about getting a draw when you play black and winning with white. It's nothing compared to SC imbalanced but it's still there. Top pros are using supercomputers a lot in their training, and in some ways, Magnus Carlsen is even harder to play against for humans as he is better at setting traps and creating something out of nothing than even the top AIs. If AlphaStar moved on with sc2, it would probably at least work out some very crisp timing attacks and holds humans could use. In long chess, draws are extremely common and wins with black pieces are very rare. I guess in a big Swiss style tournament it could be an advantage to draw black pieces vs weak players to steal a black win you should not get, but I have not seen anyone complain about this "balance" issue.
Oh I was just saying white is better then white in chess, although I was under the impression that most chess tournament had tennis like rules where you play as much white as black. I was just saying white is better if you play just a single game, although it's a smaller imbalance than what you have in a Starcraft match with race + map + starting position. Anyway were getting off topic
|
Anyway were getting off topic
Yes we are. The OP did mention his league.
Meta shifts are not that fast, even at expansion releases, players have had good results not using the new units at all. By playing a 100 ladder games, you should have a very good idea about the meta in your league, then find a higher level player to help you counter what you struggle with.
There are players up to high master or even low GM who do completely their own thing, as they have more practice at their oddball style than their opponents have countering it.
Even at the historically worst states of game balance, a few 100 mmr points of skill difference have been able to offset it, less in lower leagues. Mechanics and game sense is just that important.
|
On January 11 2020 00:38 BonitiilloO wrote: Hi, i was the one very impress with SC2 announcement back in 2007, thought to myself i'm going to die playing this, well it wasn't the case, i followed and played the game when WOL was released non stop, then bought HOTW literally just played the campaign nothing else i stopped playing SC2 due to the nature of constant balance changes that never let the meta settle for years like Brood War did, basically i got bored of SC2 because it was not the same for me anymore, then Legacy of the Void come to the public and i was again inserted on playing, played here and there, mostly 2v2s, not enough time to play but still follow the Pro scene and Some Streamer and stuff trying to catch up all the time lost, but then again i got lost interest so i can still see SC2 is being under a balance patch since almost 10 years.
with all the being said, is this new Patch actually stable Meta wise? are there any other issue balance wise that can be fixed on any incoming patch if there is any? i would like to read your opinion since i'm trying to get back to the game but i'm afraid is still the same META SHIFTING. meta shifting does not allow you to fully develop a good game sense or good overall strategies because units stats keep changing to favor one race over the other, have u ask yourself why there is no shifting rules in Chess? Oh man i feel ya. I ditched the game eventually after 7 years exactly because of that - constant meta/balance changes. And no, they aren't gonna change that - they just keep revamping the game with retarded patches every (half) year. And yes, there will be dozens of newfags who will tell you that constant balance tweaks are good for the game blah blah. They are the majoirty and its a modern trend in evey game. Devs think that's the only way of keeping the game alive, so we are pretty much fucked. META never settled in SC2. And never will. I guess they will continue this bs even after SC3 release if it ever happens.
User was warned for this post.
|
On January 12 2020 20:51 insitelol wrote: And yes, there will be dozens of newfags who will tell you that constant balance tweaks are good for the game blah blah.
Complains about "newfags" but doesn't seem to have been around the stagnant eras of constant 4gate, infestor broodlord, etc...
|
On January 12 2020 21:19 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2020 20:51 insitelol wrote: And yes, there will be dozens of newfags who will tell you that constant balance tweaks are good for the game blah blah. Complains about "newfags" but doesn't seem to have been around the stagnant eras of constant 4gate, infestor broodlord, etc... Yep, this kind of blah blah blah.
|
I never understood the comparison between chess and RTS games. Where does it even come from? One is a real time strategy as the acronym suggests, the other is a turn based strategy, additionally, there is only 1 race in chess, so its more like a mirror match where one of the players starts with 1-2 (perhaps more) workers less and finally in chess you have all the units already on the board (map) so there is no strategy in deciding builds, all units are available and will be used one way or another, so in this sense chess is more similar to micro wars than to a real starcraft game
|
On January 13 2020 00:10 M2 wrote: I never understood the comparison between chess and RTS games. Where does it even come from? One is a real time strategy as the acronym suggests, the other is a turn based strategy, additionally, there is only 1 race in chess, so its more like a mirror match where one of the players starts with 1-2 (perhaps more) workers less and finally in chess you have all the units already on the board (map) so there is no strategy in deciding builds, all units are available and will be used one way or another, so in this sense chess is more similar to micro wars than to a real starcraft game The comparison is that both games need strategic AND tactical thinking. Both games have different units, so that makes it more alike than comparisons with othello, go and other turn based strategy games. The chess - StarCraft comparison is a bit overused since it doesn't say much, hence Tastosis adding a lot of other elements whenever that comparison is mentioned.
|
On January 13 2020 00:55 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 00:10 M2 wrote: I never understood the comparison between chess and RTS games. Where does it even come from? One is a real time strategy as the acronym suggests, the other is a turn based strategy, additionally, there is only 1 race in chess, so its more like a mirror match where one of the players starts with 1-2 (perhaps more) workers less and finally in chess you have all the units already on the board (map) so there is no strategy in deciding builds, all units are available and will be used one way or another, so in this sense chess is more similar to micro wars than to a real starcraft game The comparison is that both games need strategic AND tactical thinking. Both games have different units, so that makes it more alike than comparisons with othello, go and other turn based strategy games. The chess - StarCraft comparison is a bit overused since it doesn't say much, hence Tastosis adding a lot of other elements whenever that comparison is mentioned.
Another very important difference is that both players have full vision. The strategic element of SC2 is actually less important for this reason.
However, if the topic is "metagame" then the comparison makes a lot of sense. Openings are solved in chess to the point that top players often play the 20+ first moves almost without thinking. The "right" plays have all been calculated. "Fisher chess" and "No casteling chess" could actually be considered "mods" to avoid this.
SC2 openings are much less set in stone than chess ones are, but tvz and tvt, which I am most familiar with have a lot of things worked out at the top level.
|
|
|
|