| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
CicadaSC
United States1842 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Did u watch the games? Every single game was an all in. herO being able to stop 3 1 base all ins is not a great indicator of balance  and moreover, one or two series is not indicative of anything due to a multitude of factors | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12375 Posts
On September 22 2023 23:36 Balnazza wrote: So four month ago herO made less mistakes? What happened four months ago? On September 22 2023 23:26 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't think i am. I think you are. I think you just want equal outcomes no matter if 'deserved' or not. Now maybe that would be ideal in a sense of entertainment for an audience, as generally each viewer identifies with certain races, and more variety in matchups all throughout a tournament is good too. I can see that argument, but obviously this runs counter to a sense of competitive integrity. Ideally we surely want people who are 'better' to win, because they got there through work and dedication. I don't want chess to be balanced in a way where magnus carlsen wins fewer tournaments just because fans of other players think it is boring. I don't think my approach is "more dangerous", i don't make any claims regarding what an outcome should be like in specific, you do. You are the person who wants to force something, i am saying that one should look at other things to balance the game 'fairly', not that it doesn't have to be looked at at all. Your perception of what is deserved is based on what is happening, and what is happening is based on balance. What is dangerous when you decide to substitute 'merit' for 'balance', is that you're creating many situations that are problematic without realizing it. What if Maxpax starts winning against the players who deserve to win? Is it imbalanced, or has he reached the level of being 'deserving'? How do you know? Maybe we should patch him down so that he doesn't win against those 'deserving' players, or maybe we shouldn't. What if Serral has a slump, and starts losing? Is he no longer deserving, or do we keep him in that status? For how long? If you organize the parameters of your game around the idea that it is fair for someone in particular to be winning in the end, the game doesn't just become less interesting to watch for spectators, it also becomes silly to play for the pros. Would you dedicate years of your life to a game in which it is understood that if you become the best player you can be with your tools, your opponent with other tools is supposed to win more often than you because they are more deserving? Magnus Carlsen doesn't play against people who have different tools than him, so we know that when he wins he deserves it. We know that white has a slight advantage over black in chess. What if Magnus Carlsen only played the white pieces? Would being the best in the world be as impressive, or would we want to know if he could also do it in a balanced environment where everyone starts from the same point? | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
The idea is not that there are certain players who are always locked into a tier with no change happening, that would be absurd. So if you think that is what i am arguing i see the confusion. I am arguing that there is a way to interpret how well people are playing, a way to interpret that certain dynamics in a game are questionable, a way to interpret things outside of the strict outcome analysis you seem to suggesting as the only way to balance a game. Is it difficult? Sure, but that doesn't stop me from believing it is the only real way to understand balance. Balance is two players with equal skill having the same chance to win vs each other, not the best player of race a having an equal chance to win vs the best of race b. Or to say it more broadly, that the top players of each race should more or less win the same amount of matches / tournaments, this isn't what balance is, this is an outcome which only works when the skillsets are evenly distributed, and there is no reason to think that it is at this moment of sc2, in fact i'd say it seems unlikely that it is. I understand that magnus doesn't play vs different tools, the argument was solely based on the idea that it might become boring for spectators when the same race / players win most of the time, as i said, i could see this argument being part of the equation here, and my reply to it was to appeal to competitive integrity. I am not sure if this is an argument you would make, that the spectator experience based on the race they feel attached to is important to consider, but i think people have made that argument before and it at least feels like you'd think that it is indeed important, as that feels like it is an important core of an outcome based balance view. To transfer your question to sc2, i DO in fact think that zerg is the race which allows players to be most consistent, i don't think serral would do what he does with protoss. But i don't base this off of him winning more than herO, i think he is also better than herO as a player, i think he probably would do better with protoss than herO. I think both things are true at the same time. It's not a matter if pure %es, it's a matter of how they play, where i see the strengths, how protoss loses a lot of games compared to zerg, not just that they don't win as often. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1246 Posts
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill? | ||
|
QOGQOG
834 Posts
On September 23 2023 06:26 Balnazza wrote: herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill? Truly a devastating rhetorical question in the war against the straw man. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1246 Posts
On September 23 2023 06:50 QOGQOG wrote: Truly a devastating rhetorical question in the war against the straw man. Okay, sorry, I will stop using arguments and switch to the apparently correct way of discussing this: So, uh, Protoss is balanced, because it really feels that way. But like, totally! Better? Convinced? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26221 Posts
On September 23 2023 06:26 Balnazza wrote: herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill? herO obviously had a mini-slump, anyone who watched his (admittedly incredibly entertaining) disaster-fest versus Nightmare could see he was super sloppy for a while compared to his best shape. Equally I mean, Protoss had a tournament winning player for the first time since Trap hard carried the race in that respect (still doesn’t get enough credit IMO), things looked to be trending into a good spot after Protoss was lagging for YEARS and Blizz’s next balance pass was to overall nerf Toss? I mean come on it’s pretty absurd | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12375 Posts
On September 23 2023 06:26 Balnazza wrote: herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill? I mean I'm going to try and resist being patronizing but you introduced the notion of consistency as important like five posts ago and suddenly I'm supposed to have an explanation for herO not doing equally well in all of his tournaments? | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1246 Posts
On September 23 2023 08:11 Nebuchad wrote: I mean I'm going to try and resist being patronizing but you introduced the notion of consistency as important like five posts ago and suddenly I'm supposed to have an explanation for herO not doing equally well in all of his tournaments? No, you don't need to explain his slumb, because it is just that. But you yourself said that herO before won tournaments and now he does not and you were the one who connected that to the last patch. I just showed you that herO winning or not winning tourneys did have nothing to do with the patch, but just with him. And that is the entire problem Protoss has...or maybe like 95% of the problem. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12375 Posts
On September 23 2023 08:38 Balnazza wrote: No, you don't need to explain his slumb, because it is just that. But you yourself said that herO before won tournaments and now he does not and you were the one who connected that to the last patch. I just showed you that herO winning or not winning tourneys did have nothing to do with the patch, but just with him. And that is the entire problem Protoss has...or maybe like 95% of the problem. herO's results were better in the last patch before protoss was nerfed, yes. The argument that it's based on herO's consistency rather than balance is a non-argument because consistency isn't detached from balance. If one of your races has a win condition that requires more things to go right than the others, then the players from that race will be less consistent. If the cyclone made it in the game as it is right now then suddenly the zergs would become very inconsistent let me tell you that. | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
On September 22 2023 23:26 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't think i am. I think you are. I think you just want equal outcomes no matter if 'deserved' or not. Now maybe that would be ideal in a sense of entertainment for an audience, as generally each viewer identifies with certain races, and more variety in matchups all throughout a tournament is good too. I can see that argument, but obviously this runs counter to a sense of competitive integrity. Ideally we surely want people who are 'better' to win, because they got there through work and dedication. I don't want chess to be balanced in a way where magnus carlsen wins fewer tournaments just because fans of other players think it is boring. I don't think my approach is "more dangerous", i don't make any claims regarding what an outcome should be like in specific, you do. You are the person who wants to force something, i am saying that one should look at other things to balance the game 'fairly', not that it doesn't have to be looked at at all. That is the logical conclusion of balancing based on outcome. And as i said, i think this kinda works in healthy scenes (though even there i think it shouldn't be the only consideration), but it definitely doesn't work in our current one. This sums it up. You can't balance around perceived skill because it's perceived by people with biases. You can't be too reactionary about tournament results, because we all know there are more variables than just race. Nonetheless, those results over time are ultimately all there is to hang your hat on. All of us, including me and everyone is this thread, are biased about the factions we want to see win and the ones we want to see lose. We should stick to the numbers, but not be nazi's about them either. | ||
|
Agh
United States1014 Posts
Remove the 3 major polarizing units. Disruptor, Widow Mine, Lurker. The power level of these three units in terms of cost effectiveness combined with game impact is absurd. Any lapse of focus and any one of these 3 units can end a game in seconds, they simply have no place. I'd even go further and remove Liberators, Swarm Hosts, and Colossus, but these are much less impactful. Further balance design change: -Drastically increasing Brood Lord move speed but removing their ability to spawn units. -Adding an additional Adept upgrade that adds very minor splash damage to compensate for the removal of the other two units, and giving Zealot charge a choice for their autocast - either doing extra damage(current) or gaining extra shield. -Changing ghost reducing base damage by 2 to 8(16), and reducing their health by 10 but allowing them to gain stimpack. Whenever I come back to the game the feeling of frustration always overpowers the sense of enjoyment. It's just from the units and interactions, if it was from lack of ability I would be fine with it. I play random and don't have a bias towards any race. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1246 Posts
On September 23 2023 08:50 Nebuchad wrote: herO's results were better in the last patch before protoss was nerfed, yes. The argument that it's based on herO's consistency rather than balance is a non-argument because consistency isn't detached from balance. If one of your races has a win condition that requires more things to go right than the others, then the players from that race will be less consistent. If the cyclone made it in the game as it is right now then suddenly the zergs would become very inconsistent let me tell you that. herO has won one tournament more on the last patch than the current won, though of course much bigger ones. If you look at his Top 4 results alone, he had a good streak of like 10 months in a row on the last and current patch combined in which he did well and then dropped off. Combine that with the fact that the other protoss didn't drop off but stayed mostly in their "around the middle", except for Maxpax, I honestly doubt the certainty in which you attribute this to balance alone On September 23 2023 14:33 Agh wrote: My thoughts on the game to make it more enjoyable, competitive, and less frustrating: Remove the 3 major polarizing units. Disruptor, Widow Mine, Lurker. The power level of these three units in terms of cost effectiveness combined with game impact is absurd. Any lapse of focus and any one of these 3 units can end a game in seconds, they simply have no place. I'd even go further and remove Liberators, Swarm Hosts, and Colossus, but these are much less impactful. Further balance design change: -Drastically increasing Brood Lord move speed but removing their ability to spawn units. -Adding an additional Adept upgrade that adds very minor splash damage to compensate for the removal of the other two units, and giving Zealot charge a choice for their autocast - either doing extra damage(current) or gaining extra shield. -Changing ghost reducing base damage by 2 to 8(16), and reducing their health by 10 but allowing them to gain stimpack. Whenever I come back to the game the feeling of frustration always overpowers the sense of enjoyment. It's just from the units and interactions, if it was from lack of ability I would be fine with it. I play random and don't have a bias towards any race. I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining | ||
|
Vision_
870 Posts
On September 23 2023 18:23 Balnazza wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 23 2023 08:50 Nebuchad wrote: herO's results were better in the last patch before protoss was nerfed, yes. The argument that it's based on herO's consistency rather than balance is a non-argument because consistency isn't detached from balance. If one of your races has a win condition that requires more things to go right than the others, then the players from that race will be less consistent. If the cyclone made it in the game as it is right now then suddenly the zergs would become very inconsistent let me tell you that. herO has won one tournament more on the last patch than the current won, though of course much bigger ones. If you look at his Top 4 results alone, he had a good streak of like 10 months in a row on the last and current patch combined in which he did well and then dropped off. Combine that with the fact that the other protoss didn't drop off but stayed mostly in their "around the middle", except for Maxpax, I honestly doubt the certainty in which you attribute this to balance alone On September 23 2023 14:33 Agh wrote: My thoughts on the game to make it more enjoyable, competitive, and less frustrating: Remove the 3 major polarizing units. Disruptor, Widow Mine, Lurker. The power level of these three units in terms of cost effectiveness combined with game impact is absurd. Any lapse of focus and any one of these 3 units can end a game in seconds, they simply have no place. I'd even go further and remove Liberators, Swarm Hosts, and Colossus, but these are much less impactful. Further balance design change: -Drastically increasing Brood Lord move speed but removing their ability to spawn units. -Adding an additional Adept upgrade that adds very minor splash damage to compensate for the removal of the other two units, and giving Zealot charge a choice for their autocast - either doing extra damage(current) or gaining extra shield. -Changing ghost reducing base damage by 2 to 8(16), and reducing their health by 10 but allowing them to gain stimpack. Whenever I come back to the game the feeling of frustration always overpowers the sense of enjoyment. It's just from the units and interactions, if it was from lack of ability I would be fine with it. I play random and don't have a bias towards any race. I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining I feel that problems comes essentially from stalkers because of : WIKI SC2 QUOTE "Stalkers are relatively gas inefficient units, particularly as an armored unit because this makes them weak to Marauders and Immortals, and Stalkers may get phased out towards the end game as more specialised units are unlocked in the tech tree." Then you can also add roachs to this list because of their cheap gas cost (25 gas / 50 gas). Their use is really punitive if you miss your pressure. When i look at the base units of protoss i see zealots which are tanky and quite good against everything except banes, ghost etc but if you ask yourself which role stalkers are made for, it becomes less obvious, it s like if their role was stucked between all ranged base unit (hydras, marauders, roachs) and from my opinion, if stalkers are bad against zerglings, they should be at less ok-ish against roachs (which isn t the case) Then the marauders bonus against armored seems to be overpowered (stimpack+medivacs) Adepts were just a band-aid because they didn t adress the bigest problem of protoss base units which their lack of complementarity between stalkers and zealots (regarding the protoss death ball). Oftenly Protoss players do 1 stalkers for 3 or 4 zealots in end game, that s a proof of stalkers end game problem | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26221 Posts
On September 23 2023 20:57 Vision_ wrote: I feel that problems comes essentially from stalkers because of : Then you can also add roachs to this list because of their cheap gas cost (25 gas / 50 gas). Their use is really punitive if you miss your pressure. When i look at the base units of protoss i see zealots which are tanky and quite good against everything except banes, ghost etc but if you ask yourself which role stalkers are made for, it becomes less obvious, it s like if their role was stucked between all ranged base unit (hydras, marauders, roachs) and from my opinion, if stalkers are bad against zerglings, they should be at less ok-ish against roachs (which isn t the case) Then the marauders bonus against armored seems to be overpowered (stimpack+medivacs) Adepts were just a band-aid because they didn t adress the bigest problem of protoss base units which their lack of complementarity between stalkers and zealots (regarding the protoss death ball). Oftenly Protoss players do 1 stalkers for 3 or 4 zealots in end game, that s a proof of stalkers end game problem I quite like the Stalker, more of a light skirmisher that rewards finesse, I think it does have quite a defined role, and clear downsides and strengths. But within the context of SC2 as is, and as you correctly point out stalkers just melt and don’t throw enough DPS down in many scenarios. | ||
|
Drahkn
194 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26221 Posts
On September 24 2023 08:43 Drahkn wrote: Very clever not to give out the names of the people in the council , that way when they f this up no-one can be held accountable I’m pretty sure most of the people on the council are known to be on the council, wtf are you talking about? | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1842 Posts
On September 24 2023 10:46 WombaT wrote: I’m pretty sure most of the people on the council are known to be on the council, wtf are you talking about? Most is a strong statement, but there are definitely a fair bit who have talked about being on it. | ||
|
Agh
United States1014 Posts
On September 23 2023 18:23 Balnazza wrote: I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining Why would it be hard to doubt when your statement highlights the issue? Without players there isn't really a product to "watch" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1246 Posts
On September 24 2023 18:05 Agh wrote: Why would it be hard to doubt when your statement highlights the issue? Without players there isn't really a product to "watch" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The important part is that *I* hate libs and mines. I also love Lurker, which you apparently dislike...and so on. Not to mention that removing these units would force you to buff other units to compensate and honestly, I don't think people need more reasons to throw marines and zerglings at each other | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV 2025
ByuN vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV 2025
SC Evo League
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
Sziky vs Dewalt
eOnzErG vs Cross
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
StRyKeR vs TBD
Bonyth vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
