|
There was a thread that was closed today explaining why we can't look at players win rates to determine the current balance of the game. Wasn't a very interesting one but one thing really struck me. I've seen some threads like that and many threads regarding SC2 match making system, MMR, leagues etc. And I don't understand why anyone hasn't posted what really points out the balance (the most objective one that we can really have) when the system is based on MMR... Do you guys just like to post anything rather than post thought out things? Or has the average TL user zero clue about statistics and math? Or is just the race bias that really so strong that it keeps statistics, math and common reasoning out?
This post is an attempt to explain what can we really look on to determine balance. It should be obvious to anyone that the win rates don't matter at all, cause the ladder system tries to achieve 50% win rate for everyone. Blizzards adjusted result rates might matter but we don't have the formula so we can't really say anything. What WE can really draw conclusions from is the race distribution in leagues divided by total players of a particular race. By balancing the win rate blizzard automaticly flips the balance indicator on percentage of players of particular race in a given league.
This is so obvious it's painful to even try to explain it. If race X is more powerful than race Y than if you have two players of each race on the same skill level, the X race guy will have higher MMR but the same win rate as player X (because obviously he will be matched with tougher opponents). It's only natural that if both X and Y have the same number of players and X players tend to be placed higher in MMR system that means that simply X is more powerful. So the only viable balance indicator for all levels is the normalized MMR race distribution.
I don't post regularly, but i felt this needs to be said. I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Usually the most math and science illiterate people post such things. This simply doesn't make sense and is destroying the game. A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats.
If you think that SC2 should be balanced based on pro level only because we will see only X's left in GSL than that ultimately means that the game is broken and attempts should be made to fix that rather than nerf/buff units. You are attempting to fix this game in a terrible way for every single person including those GSL players. Start looking at race skill ceilings and race & units micro and macro capabilities rather than messing with unit stats.
If anyone wants to discuss against what i wrote, I very welcome to do so. I'd only ask that the arguments touch only the theory of what i posted (statistics, math behind MMR system) and have nothing to do with particular races.
|
balance around GM or tournament data only since those players are outliers concerning MMR
/thread
|
Hum, I am not quite sure whether you or me is science illiterate, but surely there is a self-selection problem based on the player's unobservable ability. (Noobs play T, Pros play Z)
|
ARRRG another thread with balance in the title!!!! Doesn’t everyone know that amateur (aka not pros, even if GM level) players as extremely poor judges of another players overall skill. Many players naturally devalue their opponents skill level and simply blame the game as a whole. Why, because it takes the sting out of the loss. Also, win rates on the ladder are not a system to determine balance. In fact, the ladder is simply a tool to assure that everyone has the most enjoyable experience when finding games.
|
A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats.
no, it isn't
if you tried to balance brood war across all levels, you'd end up nerfing protoss into the ground, because protoss is by far the strongest at low level play, and as a result top level korean professional play becomes even more of a tvz-fest than it already is
so your entire argument has been shut down in 1 run-on sentence, i'm afraid
|
|
|
On July 10 2012 22:23 Plansix wrote:
Doesn’t everyone know that amateur (aka not pros, even if GM level) players as extremely poor judges of another players overall skill. Many players naturally devalue their opponents skill level and simply blame the game as a whole.
You're 100% right. Now, please kindly quote from OP a single line where I wrote an amateurs opinion of balance. In fact, please quote any line that says ANYTHING about anyones opinion on balance. Did you read the OP? I posted theory behind MMR league system and you have just replayed with something that has 0 correlation with what I wrote.
|
On July 10 2012 22:41 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 22:23 Plansix wrote:
Doesn’t everyone know that amateur (aka not pros, even if GM level) players as extremely poor judges of another players overall skill. Many players naturally devalue their opponents skill level and simply blame the game as a whole. You're 100% right. Now, please kindly quote from OP a single line where I wrote an amateurs opinion of balance. In fact, please quote any line that says ANYTHING about anyones opinion on balance. Did you read the OP? I posted theory behind MMR league system and you have just replayed with something that has 0 correlation with what I wrote.
okay
I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only.
|
On July 10 2012 22:37 Zanno wrote:
if you tried to balance brood war across all levels, you'd end up nerfing protoss into the ground, because protoss is by far the strongest at low level play, and as a result top level korean professional play becomes even more of a tvz-fest than it already is
so your entire argument has been shut down in 1 run-on sentence, i'm afraid
How would you end up nerfing protoss into the ground? Balance how? Unit stats? Race capabilities? Skill ceiling? Did you read my whole post? You're argument is so vague, it makes really no sense and really doesn't address anything that I've wrote.
EDIT: Let's play the ball. Let's take a hypothetical situation where T and Z players in BW are much more skilled than P players. I'm curious what would be your opinion if there were 0 protoss in competitive play in such circumstances?
|
Blaine, you might consider editing your OP because you come off sounding arrogant and not the smartest. Just take the parts out where you insult your readers and talk about how you're smarter than they are. That should do the trick.
|
On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:
I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Usually the most math and science illiterate people post such things. This simply doesn't make sense and is destroying the game. A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats.
Arrogant. Ignorant.
|
On July 10 2012 22:42 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 22:41 BlaineMono wrote:On July 10 2012 22:23 Plansix wrote:
Doesn’t everyone know that amateur (aka not pros, even if GM level) players as extremely poor judges of another players overall skill. Many players naturally devalue their opponents skill level and simply blame the game as a whole. You're 100% right. Now, please kindly quote from OP a single line where I wrote an amateurs opinion of balance. In fact, please quote any line that says ANYTHING about anyones opinion on balance. Did you read the OP? I posted theory behind MMR league system and you have just replayed with something that has 0 correlation with what I wrote. okay Show nested quote +I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only.
Please don't troll.. How is that an opinion on balance? If you can't see a difference between an opinion on balance and opinion on the way people think the game should be balanced then you have proved you shouldn't be posting in this thread. I'm interested in logical discussion.
|
On July 10 2012 22:50 Koshi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:
I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Usually the most math and science illiterate people post such things. This simply doesn't make sense and is destroying the game. A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats. Arrogant. Ignorant.
Please explain how am i ignorant. Thank you.
|
This has been debated many times by people who are smarter than you... not gonna do the research for you but you should look it up.
|
On July 10 2012 22:51 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 22:50 Koshi wrote:On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:
I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Usually the most math and science illiterate people post such things. This simply doesn't make sense and is destroying the game. A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats. Arrogant. Ignorant. Please explain how am i ignorant. Thank you.
Its so obvious its painful to try to explain it.
|
It's not completely the same argument. You posted race distribution in GM. There would be nothing bad with race being underrepresented in GM if that race had less players overall. My argument is about normalized MMR distribution.
On July 10 2012 22:54 MilesTeg wrote:
This has been debated many times by people who are smarter than you... not gonna do the research for you but you should look it up.
I did and found nothing, I wrote that in my OP. I'd appriciate if you posted a SINGLE link to the discussion. Also please elaborate how can you determine how smart is a person through an internet cable. Thanks.
|
|
|
On July 10 2012 22:54 iamperfection wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 22:51 BlaineMono wrote:On July 10 2012 22:50 Koshi wrote:On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:
I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Usually the most math and science illiterate people post such things. This simply doesn't make sense and is destroying the game. A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats. Arrogant. Ignorant. Please explain how am i ignorant. Thank you. Its so obvious its painful to try to explain it.
Why would you balance around something as meaningless as the ladder? Pro tournaments are the only things that matter.
|
Until you do this math on a real example people won't understand you. Maybe you do have a good idea but your op is nonsensical.
|
It's always good to start a thread with a theme of "Hey idiots, look how smart I am!"
That being said, MMR distribution across all leagues would be a useful metric, if we accept your premise that all leagues should be balanced. I don't.
However, MMR distribution has some problems, as well. It says nothing about preference at each level of play (maybe people who play casually prefer X race and therefore there is a higher representation in bronze-silver league). It also has no real reference point for per-matchup balance, which is where real discussion can be had and where problems with balance will be solved. This is why matchup winrates with normalization for MMR are also a good metric. Neither can be the only metric used.
There are several good reasons why balance at lower levels isn't a focus. One reason is that lower level players don't play properly or even similarly to the point that changes made to the game won't reliably make the desired effect. The other reason is that no change is made in a vacuum. Changes will affect all leagues, no matter how much you can try to limit the effect. Finally, the most important level of play is the professional level, where there is actual money on the line.
Your final point is a complete departure from the rest of your post, which is about using empirical data to make decisions about objective balance. "race skill ceilings and race & units micro and macro capabilities" is abstraction that can't be reliably predicted. When you add a new mechanic/unit/ability to the game (which I'm assuming is what you're getting at because it is an overly vague statement) you can't predict how the top-of-the-top players will use that ability. This means that this type of balance would completely disrupt the balance of pro play in a very undesirable way, while pros are forced to experiment with the new change without any common ground from the previous patch. Do you really want a pro play to be that unstable?
TL;DR: Complex game is complex. Balance is too complex of a topic for one metric to tell the whole story. Also, I reject the premise that all leagues should be balanced, because pro play matters much more than casual play. "race skill ceilings and race & units micro and macro capabilities" is an abstraction that is both vague and impractical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
