Solar: After patch, Protoss became the strongest. - Page 3

On October 23 2023 03:06 tigera6 wrote:

So when Dark leave for military, Rogue not coming back and Serral potentially retire, are you going to buff Zerg because they only have Reynor left?

On October 25 2023 22:19 Nebuchad wrote:
Why would Reynor not deserve to play at top level because some other zergs have retired, what an incredibly silly thing to believe

On October 22 2023 00:19 covetousrat wrote:
Whatever race you play will always be the weakest. "Ted"

On October 25 2023 22:35 ZeroByte13 wrote:
How being the only top zerg left means that Reynor cannot play at top level anymore? o_O

In this hypothetical situation lack of top-zergs and big zerg wins would mean literally that - lack of top-players and not their race being weak gameplay-wise?

If all current terran pro-players will leave the scene tomorrow, would you say we need to buff terrans to a point when they (now comprised of just GM guys) win 33% of tournaments?

On October 25 2023 22:45 Nebuchad wrote:
Wow you also post in this fashion in other threads that's amazing

On October 25 2023 22:45 Nebuchad wrote:
"If all current terran pro-players will leave the scene tomorrow, would you say we need to buff terrans to a point when they (now comprised of just GM guys) win 33% of tournaments?"

=> Yes.

On October 25 2023 22:51 ZeroByte13 wrote:
I'm sorry, I see an unreasonable argument, I comment on it.
Not my fault really that such arguments are often yours, 'cause you also post in the same manner in all topics - but it's kinda expected from you by now, really. It's more sad than amazing but oh well.

I mean, just look at this...

On October 25 2023 23:08 ZeroByte13 wrote:
In that tigera6 post they didn't say Reynor is underperforming.
Only that he'd remain the only strong zerg if all other strong zerg would leave.

And you commented on this quote - "Why would Reynor not deserve to play at top level because some other zergs have retired"

How Reynor remaining the only strong zerg (tigera6's scenario you commented on) means that he "doesn't deserve to play at top level"? He'd actually start winning even more 'cause he often loses to other strong zergs.

On October 25 2023 22:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:

To the contrary, it's silly to believe anyone "deserves" to be at the very top just because they are the best that is left for a particular faction in a game. In an imaginary world where every protoss player better than yourself stops playing, does sc2 need to be balanced around your current skill level so there is a protoss player winning tournaments too?
I honestly do not understand the underlying logic behind this view, where does the idea come from that every race needs to have the same outcomes no matter what? Each race should give equally skilled players fair chances to beat each other, that is balance, not the outcome we observe in any situation.

On October 26 2023 00:57 The_Red_Viper wrote:


It's a hypotehtical to test your foundational logic, which seems to be: each race needs to produce the same outcomes in tournaments in general, any other context doesn't matter. If that isn't your foundation, then i'd like to hear an addition to it, but it seems to be. And that foundation is easily 'attackable' by proposing something like i did, imagining a world where your current skill as protoss would suddenly become the best protoss gameplay in the world. It will never happen, but the point isn't that it will or won't, it's to test your stance. Telling me it's not realistic is just a copout, because you probably do not want to bite the bullet that the game should be balanced around yourself, if you are truly the best protoss has to offer (as in, your master or whatever skill level).
My foundational pov is different, it's that balance is achieved not by strictly looking at an outcome in a scenario, but by creating a dynamic in which equally skilled players can beat each other about 50% of the time. There is a necessity for "equally skilled players" in this pov, which seems to be missing in yours completely.
As i said, i'd like to hear what the logic behind this pov of yours even is, it seems to think that each faction has some right to be equally represented in tournaments, but why? That's just as arbitrary as thinking a player of each country needs to be represented in tournaments. The only opportunity which needs to exist is that if one is skilled enough, one should be able to win with any race, coming from wherever, but playing a ratio game for the sake of itself is the "silly" thing here.

Also in regards to your analogy (kinda weird one, doesn't seem to track other than you saying both scenarios are silly because unlikely), yes if democracy would consistently produce outcomes one thinks are morally wrong, then it could be argued to be a bad system under a certain lens, but i guess this is neither here nor there.

On October 26 2023 07:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:


It is a ridiculous output because the foundational concept of yours is highly flawed, that is the point of the hypothetical, to showcase that. And it does.

Well no, i personally am not able to do that, i am saying one can try to analyse the outcomes we get on more levels than just the winrates of a race at the very highest level. That's more complex, but also the only way to actually balance a game around the only reasonable concept there is: Players of equal skill should win about 50% of the time against each other.
You project things onto this which simply aren't part of the argument, it obviously isn't as simple as looking at serral and deciding he has to win vs anyone just because of his status, a serral can play worse than an opponent too. It's tricky to analyse what 'playing worse' means, how to quantify and qualify it, but that has to be the core question, not if protoss, zerg and terran are winning about the same amount of tournaments for the sake of it. Especially not in an environment which is far from ideal, with a playerbase which gets smaller and smaller, no young talent coming to replace the old guard, giving it new life through their own hunger for glory. In a healthy competitive environment your pov is close enough to mine that it's fine, but it's not same and it doesn't work when there is no natural way to distribute skills equally among the top players any longer (not that this is ever perfectly working, but close enough).
You are right though, we went over this already and you don't really seem to resonate with this, oh well our discussion here won't change anything about the reality of our situation anyway.

On October 26 2023 05:09 Charoisaur wrote:

For something that has "no counters" we see it succeed surprisingly rare at the top level