EPTGame Balance and The Uncertainty Principle
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On January 21 2011 03:00 darmousseh wrote: They can find the correlation between skill and balance by looking at results of random players, unfortunately none of these exist at the top level. Some math guy there probably knows this, but doesn't say anything because then their entire idea of balance would be destroyed. You are making the assumption that random players are equally skilled at all three races. Sometimes people are simply naturally better at one race, or simply have a better strategic understanding of one over another. | ||
|
dragonsuper
Liechtenstein222 Posts
| ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
But yay for attracting lay people and fabricating credibility with fancy science words! EDIT: On topic. New Blizzard project, project make SC3 balanced! Blizzard needs to adopt several sets of newborn triplets from some poor country, raise them on a private island where they will all be given the exact same amount of schooling and attention, and are forced to spend the same amount of time as one another playing video games and such. Then, each triplet will be assigned one Z one P and one T. Only with such an objective test, where all players have the same experiences (AND DNA!) can we truly know that they are equally skilled, and so if the Z players all do badly we can fix the balance. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
On January 21 2011 03:13 PJA wrote: Unlike the uncertainty principle, the more accurately you can measure skill or balance, the more accurately you can measure the other one. But yay for attracting lay people and fabricating credibility with fancy science words! Seriously...I saw balance and quantum mechanics in the same sentence and facepalmed  | ||
|
nekuodah
England2409 Posts
| ||
|
storm8ring3r
Germany227 Posts
| ||
|
searcher
277 Posts
[Edit: Actually they do use the normal distribution as you can see from the equation they show in the video lol.] | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On January 21 2011 03:13 PJA wrote: Unlike the uncertainty principle, the more accurately you can measure skill or balance, the more accurately you can measure the other one. But yay for attracting lay people and fabricating credibility with fancy science words! You are missing the point that they cannot be accurately measured in relation to eachother. The more we assume that the game is balanced, the more inaccurate our measure of player skill becomes, and the more we assume player skill is equal, the more inaccurate the measure of balance becomes. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On January 21 2011 03:16 mierin wrote: Seriously...I saw balance and quantum mechanics in the same sentence and facepalmed That is what an analogy is... Comparing two generally unrelated concepts to provide a quicker path to understanding a point or message. *facepalm | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On January 21 2011 03:17 jdseemoreglass wrote: You are missing the point that they cannot be accurately measured in relation to eachother. The more we assume that the game is balanced, the more inaccurate our measure of player skill becomes, and the more we assume player skill is equal, the more inaccurate the measure of balance becomes. No, I'm not missing the point. His point is that without first knowing the skill level of the players, we cannot accurately judge balance. This is the exact opposite of how the uncertainty principle behaves. Why does OP bring the uncertaintly principle, which is a massively flawed analogy, into his discussion at all? To garner false credibility from people who see fancy science words and go GOOD POST OP!!1!. EDIT: Furthermore, the OP thinks that blizzard determines skill level based solely on win rate. Blizzard actually determines an approximate skill level by using win rate combined with a bunch of statistical tests (mostly just some Bayesian interference stuff) which work with a few assumptions. | ||
|
Hittegods
Stockholm4640 Posts
| ||
|
searcher
277 Posts
On January 21 2011 03:19 D10 wrote: I agree, and thats why the map makers kept BW balanced, the community is way more attuned to what actually matters in a high level game than the developers broad perspective approach. Well as mentioned in the video Blizzard keeps track of community thoughts on balance. Also, they speak to top-level pros, and I would have to imagine they are more attuned than the community as a whole. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On January 21 2011 03:20 PJA wrote: No, I'm not missing the point. Why does OP bring the uncertaintly principle, which is a massively flawed analogy, into his discussion at all? To garner false credibility from people who see fancy science words and go GOOD POST OP!!1!. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=186260#12 But good job guys on totally derailing a thread into oblivion by the first page by completely ignoring the point of the post and offering splitting hair criticisms. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On January 21 2011 03:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=186260#12 But good job guys on totally derailing a thread into oblivion by the first page by completely ignoring the point of the post and offering splitting hair criticisms. Except anyone who actually knows what the uncertainty principle is is just going to say "why the fuck did you bring up the uncertainty principle, when all it does is obfuscate your point?" Is it so much to ask that people just say what they mean instead of constantly trying to create false credibility with bullshit jargon? EDIT: If anyone wants to read a real balance post with meaningful information, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=186103. Honestly, you're insulting me for derailing a thread when OP is posting exactly what was posted in this other thread, except minus any real information or insightful analysis. | ||
|
Drunken.Jedi
Germany446 Posts
On January 21 2011 03:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=186260#12 But good job guys on totally derailing a thread into oblivion by the first page by completely ignoring the point of the post and offering splitting hair criticisms. No one is derailing your thread, all people did was pointing out that the uncertainty principle is not applicable here, because the exact opposite is the case: the better game balance is known, the easier it is to derive player skill and vice versa. This is not hair splitting, this is pointing out that about half of your OP is factually wrong and confusing. That said, I agree with the second part of the OP, Blizzard seem to be oblivious to this problem. My personal theory is that they know full well that statistical approaches to determining balance are very flawed but they just pretend that they have some sort of way to figure out "adjusted win percentages" to make it seem that the game is more balanced than it actually is. | ||
|
Tiazi
Netherlands761 Posts
| ||
|
MoreFaSho
United States1427 Posts
| ||
| ||
