|
This is well written, but sections of it badly miss the mark.
"There's too much balance talk, and the preoccupation with imbalance is counterproductive" is an argument I will happily get behind. On the other hand, the insinuation that a series of abusive strategies in the past were not, in fact, imbalanced really sounds an awful lot like a Terran who just wants his 50 damage tanks back.
Should more attention be devoted to the flaws in our gameplay than the flaws in our game? Absolutely. But it's crazy to pretend there aren't - and most especially weren't - flaws in that game as well.
|
Sabu113:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 11 2012 10:49 Sabu113 wrote:
Terrible OP.
First the ad hominem by comparing balance complaints to the birther movement somewhat delegitimize what you attempt to do with funny captions and paragraphs.
Secondly, you seem to have no understanding about why the 1/1/1 slowly phased out. Map changes played just as large a part as the evolution of the 1gate fe and the immortal range boost.
Lastly, you have no sense of context. You ignore the environment surrounding the 5rax reaper and the 1/1/1 time (ignore blanket emps as well).
Your argument would sound better if you used the analogy more sparingly rather than batter us with it.
Questions regarding balance and the viability of the game were and are legitimate. There are metrics which you mock in this post to demonstrate that the game did not appear to be balanced. Those backed up multiple observations of the state of the game. Even pros who had a vested stake in arguing that the game was a legitimate E-sport have been vocal at times. To not conclude that the game was imbalanced or even broken after watching games or looking at various metrics would be as put in a famous article be "blind."
When was BW considered balanced by Bliz? Not in 1.00 but in 1.08.
There have been better arguments citing BW's long run trends as an example of waiting for metagame shifts rather than balance issues.There are multiple issues with this line of argument. For my part, I like the marketing one which can be found in my sig. If a pro like Bisu though that then imagine what a refined Korean audience which you are trying to attract must have thought.
Oddly timed post. Figured by now most have kind of settled on the quality of the game. I suppose the discussion might be interesting so at least the op sounds goodish Hey there. I'm OP :D I introduce myself because I understand that this is important to you, and I don't want to just get into a flame war. I'm sure I sound like a massive tool right now, but I think it's important that, while I disagree with you (as you soon will see), I don't think you're wrong for expressing your opinions. The first thing I want to talk about is the birther analogy. When I wrote this, I was trying to outline a couple of things: firstly, that both are gossip-like discussions that poison the innovation within the communicative landscape of their respective fields; and secondly, that there is no empirical evidence to support either of them. I don't want to imply that people who believe in imbalance are ignorant, and I don't want to imply that it is possible to prove balance. Perhaps a better analogy in that respect is that imbalance is like faith in a higher power-- believing in it and not believing in it are equally baseless in fact. I'll get to FRR later on. Insofar as the 1/1/1 goes, there isn't a whole lot to say. Sure, maps helped out a lot in delaying the push for an extra cycle of units, but that doesn't negate my point that Protoss found a way to deal with the 1/1/1 with the tools it had. Protoss didn't need a balance change-- it just needed time to figure things out. Look at the cute hellion/marine elevator push SlayerS Terrans took to MLG Raleigh-- Zergs didn't really have an answer for it, but shortly afterwards they found a solution, and now it's not a problem anymore. With regards to professional players talking about balance, I think we fundamentally disagree. I want to say though that it is not brave of a pro to tell the public that there are imbalanced aspects of the game. I'm sure you didn't mean to portray it as such, but it's sort of implied in your "Even pros who had a vested stake in arguing that the game was a legitimate E-sport" remark. I will say that, sometimes, when they lose, even professionals get pissed off, and sometimes shift blame elsewhere when they do. With regards to BW, I'd like to hear the multiple issues you have with the arguments better made than mine (which I will yield whole-heartedly)-- simply referring me to a quote by Bisu doesn't quite cut it for me. It's not proof-- it's an opinion. On January 11 2012 10:57 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 10:53 neoghaleon55 wrote:
Keep it clean, Sabu113.
No personal attacks such as comments on his icon.
It makes your post seem less legitimate and more of a elitist rant.
After seeing all of these threads, some stereotypes have evolved into heuristics. And my post was as kind as the OP is. Edit2: My point is that the game required changes after release before reaching a final state (as determined by Blizz and commercially accepted by the Korean people). Likewise we recieved a vanilla game last year and there have been clear issues that were not able to refined in the Beta. I would also state that there is a difference between casual playing balance and competitive balance that is significant. I care only about the later. The argument about balance on TL was so vicious and important because it attacked the basic legitimacy of the game and ESPORTS (silly caps intended) generally. If victories were due to a poorly designed game then the winners were not heroes and champions but merely people who went to the atm and swiped their race card. That's why you saw such vicious counter attacks such as DJwheat's show following Puma's tripple 1/1/1 victory over MC. In large part, counter arguments regarding balance are like the op and respond in tone and talk about personal mechanics while ignoring the argument of the 'imbalance' crowd, that the game gives such great advantages based on race that it is a poor esport. I believe some of Blizzard's changes and Gom's radical changes (no gold, calm before storm, and somewhat the qualification rejig) were driven by a consciousness that the legitimacy of the game as an esport was at risk and by all indication the problem was not going to right itself. We have recieved mutliple indications that this was true in the more sophisticated Korean scene (once again Bisu, not the only proof but my favorite). Furthermore, our consumption of RTSs has evolved signifcantly since the early days of Broodwar. Necessarily design and balance philosophy must change with the times. Macro, types of micro, unit roles and build construction have evolved since the early days of StarCraft. I think it is fair to say that the range of possible growth in SC2 is less than that in BW and more predictable, merely because we have learned how to approach an RTS. Consequently, a more active hand in balancing for at minimum the past year makes sense. I started watching BW right after Saviors reign during the age of Dragons (Incruit OSL<3). Maybe that's why I never had the same questions about legitimacy or competitiveness bother me when Auir failed to prevail after that age or khan went to crap. Likely it was in part because I could barely appreciate watching the game, but I still respected the results even if I thought the map bias was going to tip the scales. That feeling was not there for a good part of the summer and I think it was a fair and well justified notion. There were many good and legitimate questions about the balance of this game for the past year. To compare those claims to that of the birthers is insulting. Those claims tend to be put out by a certain group, whose opinions are short sighted if they look at the greater picture. I'll certainly say I've voted with my eyes. I used to stay up to watch all the GSL matches. Now I'm a touch jaded though if there are more games like ForGG Leenock that might . Let's look at the NASL finals between MC and PuMa. Both have similar mechanics, both are top-tier players, and one of them showed up with the 1/1/1 (I think that was NASL-- not sure). They are equal caliber players-- even in BW, both of them made about the same impact on the scene, but one of them had an easy-to-execute all-in that beat the other three times. I don't think that means the all-in is imbalanced. I think it means that MC saw something he had never seen before, and he had no idea how to deal with it. This persisted for quite a while, with Protoss trying desperately to find a solution to this 1/1/1 problem. I would agree with you that it would be imbalanced if, today, the 1/1/1 was still an auto-win in TvP, but it isn't. Using the tools it had, Protoss found a way to beat the 1/1/1 while still following a safe gameplan. I don't think I ignored the arguments of the imbalance crowd-- I think I addressed most of them pretty effectively. If there is an argument that I didn't address, I would love to read it. With regards to map imbalance, I think there's a difference between an imbalanced map and a plain shitty map. Look at Blistering Sands-- it seems imbalanced for Zerg because of those pesky rocks at the main's backdoor, but I think this map isn't necessarily imbalanced so much as broken. It heavily favors the Zerg style of play popular at the time (very mobile Muta/Ling force)-- I think that blink stalker play or very heavy-Hellion Mech style would fair just as well. It was also just a shitty map though because it was fucking impossible to take a third. I think this is true with a lot of old, terrible maps. Insofar as gold minerals, again, I don't think this mechanic favors a race so much as a style. You mention that these types of threads follow stereotypes, but I think you should re-examine the design of each race in StarCraft II. I think that every race has the tools to employ successfully multiple styles-- there is no general style of play that is unique to a race. I think that there are styles that are easier to execute for each race, but, at the highest level of play, ease of execution is irrelevant-- if a strategy can work with perfect micro, than it can work at the highest levels of play-- in the same way, if a Zerg wanted to skip zergling speed and play a turtle-style, upgrade-focused play until BL/Infestor play, and if it works, then it shouldn't matter how hard it is to hold off P/T aggression. <-- I recognize this is pretty sloppily organized, but I'm pretty tired and there's a lot more to get through. fOrGG/Leenock was fucking epic-- I only saw game 1 though (meant to get up early but I slept through my alarm). Sad that he lost though 
-_-:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 11 2012 11:20 -_- wrote:
You're article was well-written. However, in my opinion, you create the same false dichotomy everyone who attacks balance theorists does: players can either discuss balance or improve their game. In actuality, the choice is more likely: discuss balance or browse funny pictures about Starcraft. Certainly that is a problem with my argument. I think the difference is that funny pictures about StarCraft don't breed as much disagreement as balance argument. Divisiveness breeds discussion. I realize right now that an OP whining about balance whine is pretty hypocritical and distracts just as much as balance whine does.
Jermstuddog:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 11 2012 11:54 Jermstuddog wrote:
Every time somebody tries to suggest that 5 rax reaper was irrelevant by the time Blizzard got around to nerfing it, I stop reading right then and there.
Nobody had solved 5 rax reaper. It was still alive and kicking. Fortunately, everybody was downright terrible at the game at that point in time, so even pros were screwing it up more often than properly executing it.
It was a horrible strategy that was doing horrible things to the MU as a whole, and looking back at the history of Terran nerfs, it was only one of MANY issues that existed at the time.
OPs whole argument becomes irrelevant as soon as he mentions that build IMO. I respectfully disagree. FRR was a powerful all-in, but Zerg could deal with it. A Zerg properly defending FRR on 2 base will come out of that stage of the game light years ahead in tech and economy. Once Zerg started holding FRR, Terran was pretty screwed. It's the same as if a Terran did zero damage with a proxy 2 rax or if a Protoss did zero damage with a 4gate. FRR was an all in. It was a good all in, but Zerg could beat it. My point about FRR is totally legitimate, and, in reality, the nerf wasn't really necessary. Additionally, saying that the article is totally irrelevant because you disagree with one facet of it is totally irrational. I used multiple examples and arguments to support my thesis so that even if I couldn't convince you with one point, perhaps you would find merit in another. If you're going to dismiss an entire argument on the basis of one point, you probably shouldn't argue very often.
RedDragon571:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 11 2012 12:21 RedDragon571 wrote:
I think the reason so many people quit the game revolve around GAME DESIGN not balance.
Sc2 and blizzard sold its soul to the devil because it thought it could attract a more casual (larger) player base by simplifying game mechanics, removing micro relative to bw, speeding up the game pace (macro mechanics mules, inject, chrono) adding simplified unit counters (bonus dmg) and removing terrain advantages. Sc2 is better looking and way more easy than BW. Yes, we have seen huge growth in western e-sports because we attracted that larger casual, (much less patient and hardworking) player base. All at the cost of reducing the "staying power" and "lasting appeal" of the game.
I still love starcraft 2, because compared to every other game out there it has the highest learning curve, greatest strategic depth and biggest challenge of any other RTS. However, All those decisions, to make the game easier, made it much more blurry at top level play. I doubt we will see many repeat GSL winners, I think the jury is out on whether the game has the difficulty and mastery, that will let the top players stay at the top. The player with the best mechanics and decision making should win most of the time. However, In ladder, and elsewhere, I feel there is a problem of mechanically inferior players that copy a timing push, who get out X number of units at X time and simply just win because the copied a pro players build. I think it is too easy to imitate pro players because the mechanical bar is so low.
All of this contributes to each game being not as entertaining.
1. Most sc2 games decide the winner in one climatic battle.
2. It is much more difficult for someone to come back from being "behind" because of the macro mechanics.
3. Micro is far less interesting and less rewarding. B team pro can easily copy A team pro's strategy and execute to a similar degree.
4. Macro is power overwhelming, if you have more units, you can kill your opponent, because, terrain advantages positioning and map control are much weaker.
5. Mechanics are so simple even a bronze league player can almost pull of a Korean pro level timing push early in the game.
6.PvP and Z v Z are uninteresting to all but people who play them, due to game design flaws, not spectator friendly.
TLDR: a bit of a ramble, but basically, Game Design has simplified Starcraft into something everyone CAN play easily, but simultaneously made it into something less interesting TO play or watch. Expansions are expected to reboot franchise, and will lack the "lasting appeal" that a better designed game like Brood War was unless fundamental game design is altered. I think a lot of what you are arguing falls into a category outside imbalance. I think it takes longer than 2 years (including the Beta) to determine who will be the best of the best, and who will stay on top. I also think that time is the solution to all of the numbers in your list: 1. I remember Day9 making the comment that BW was about finesse and SC2 was about kill shit. I laughed (it was a pretty good joke when he said it)-- In the Beta and early parts of release, everything was about kill shit, but now that the game is developing into the same caliber of finesse exhibited in a lot of BW professional games-- look at Jjakji vs Leenock game 1 of the GSL November finals and fOrGG vs Leenock game 1 of GSL Season 1's Code S Round of 32. I can see most TvZ's being this perfect in a few months. 2. It was pretty damn hard to come from behind in BW too. Especially if, as is the case most of the time in StarCraft II, your opponent has roughly the same skill-level as you. I don't have a better arguement than that, so you may have intellectually bested me on this one. 3. Again, I think in a few months, boxing and a-clicking to the back of an opponents base is going to be gone. You know how a 15 hatch can hold off a 2 rax bunker attack in ZvT? The Zerg is defending a big attack with fewer units than his opponent. I think that, as the professional scene develops, Code S players will be able to win more engagements with fewer units in situations where a Code A player would not be able to win. As it stands now, I think the micro is relatively even amongst players now because the innovative focus has been more on strategy and macro than on control. 4. I think this is sort of a mesh between 1 and 3-- yes more units is better, but I think it's because, right now, the control aspect of the game is underdeveloped, and finesse hasn't either. 5. Better players will still win. There's more to an RTS than mechanics. Intuition and intelligence are often-times more rewarding than perfect mechanics. I also challenge the assertion that mechanics are easier in StarCraft II. Certainly, you have more tools to accomplish macro, but there are also extra functions you have to perform. Queens, Chronoboost, and MULEs are extra mechanics not present in BW that give players more to do. 6. Top of OP I differentiate between imbalance and broken. Also I like ZvZ-- the lategame is awesome.
This is probably longer than OP o.O
EDIT: added spoilers because it was so goddam long
|
as far as 1-1-1 goes, maps shiouldnt make or break racial balance. That means you've added another layer of complexity to the system, and if u add more units (SOON IN HOTS LOL!), then that balance is then broken across all levels again.
uits like when people figured out there were subpar talents for WoW PvP opposed to PvE. you reskilled every time u wanted to do something, and it was stupid. Then they came out with "PvP gear".
All of this ciould've been dealt with, not by adding more confounding balance varaibles to the game, but by perfecting the PvP and tweaking the PvE behind the scenes to make it work allperfectly together. Instead they created "dual balance" which is really another way of being lazy and not fixing the system with a more elegant solution thats both less code that can go wrong and easier to balance in the long run.
building on top of garbage will just create a bigger pile of garbage. Splitting balance between tweaking race and tweaking maps will just make more additions create more instability, and therefore, imbalance.
|
On January 11 2012 07:20 meadbert wrote:
The reason Protosses complain about Balance is because is because there are 0 Protoss amongst the top 12 players in Korea according to ELO, but there are 8 Protoss amongst the bottom 12.
Also consider that you can look over at the TLPD bar for foreigner results and there are 3 in the top 5. The major vocal pro representation in the community at the moment are primarily protoss players, so you're more likely to hear why/where protoss are struggling and not where protoss are doing very well. That thought process trickles down and all of a sudden it's ok for a gold protoss player to complain about the game being imbalanced because they herd a pro player say on a podcast that they thought something was too powerful when really that gold level player is just bad.
|
The way I see it is that a progamer will nearly always beat an average masters player and an established masters player will nearly always beat a diamond player, regardless of how abusive and exploitive the strategies are that they face. Thus only those who have nowhere else to improve in terms of mechanics and understanding should blame their loss on imbalance, and such a person doesn't exist.
On the other hand, one simply cannot deny that Starcraft 2 has certain strategies/tactics/compositions/situations that allow a player of lesser skill to be able to take down a much stronger player, so although I would like to say that skill completely bypasses game design in this game, I cannot honestly do so.
|
On January 11 2012 14:25 shizaep wrote:
The way I see it is that a progamer will nearly always beat an average masters player and an established masters player will nearly always beat a diamond player, regardless of how abusive and exploitive the strategies are that they face. Thus only those who have nowhere else to improve in terms of mechanics and understanding should blame their loss on imbalance, and such a person doesn't exist.
On the other hand, one simply cannot deny that Starcraft 2 has certain strategies/tactics/compositions/situations that allow a player of lesser skill to be able to take down a much stronger player, so although I would like to say that skill completely bypasses game design in this game, I cannot honestly do so.
That's an interesting point. I also think the definition of skill can be called into question here. There is more to StarCraft than mechanics. I think that, in order to fairly assess the skill of a player, one must holistically consider their mechanics, intuition, intelligence, and experience (maybe some more factors too, I don't know).
|
On January 11 2012 10:49 Sabu113 wrote:
Terrible OP.
First the ad hominem by comparing balance complaints to the birther movement somewhat delegitimize what you attempt to do with funny captions and paragraphs.
Secondly, you seem to have no understanding about why the 1/1/1 slowly phased out. Map changes played just as large a part as the evolution of the 1gate fe and the immortal range boost.
Lastly, you have no sense of context. You ignore the environment surrounding the 5rax reaper and the 1/1/1 time (ignore blanket emps as well).
Your argument would sound better if you used the analogy more sparingly rather than batter us with it.
Questions regarding balance and the viability of the game were and are legitimate. There are metrics which you mock in this post to demonstrate that the game did not appear to be balanced. Those backed up multiple observations of the state of the game. Even pros who had a vested stake in arguing that the game was a legitimate E-sport have been vocal at times. To not conclude that the game was imbalanced or even broken after watching games or looking at various metrics would be as put in a famous article be "blind."
When was BW considered balanced by Bliz? Not in 1.00 but in 1.08.
There have been better arguments citing BW's long run trends as an example of waiting for metagame shifts rather than balance issues.There are multiple issues with this line of argument. For my part, I like the marketing one which can be found in my sig. If a pro like Bisu though that then imagine what a refined Korean audience which you are trying to attract must have thought.
Oddly timed post. Figured by now most have kind of settled on the quality of the game. I suppose the discussion might be interesting so at least the op sounds goodish
1.08 was 20+ knee jerk changes, and was made back in 2001. Blizzard never had an opinion on whether or not the game was balanced after that patch. They just didn't care about making balance changes to it anymore.
|
Your right, discussing balance isn't beneficial for ones own mindset and internal game. Unless you think your race is overpowered :D
|
@RedDragon571: you doubt we will see many repeat GSL champions??? how about nestea, 3 time champ, mvp 3 time champ, mc 2 time champ, MKP multiple GSL finals. if this is not proof that the top players can stay on top then idk what is.
|
On January 11 2012 08:39 Sinensis wrote:Good post. A good balance discussion post a that. Good effort. I am reminded of this game from the recent Team 8 vs KT in Brood War proleague. + Show Spoiler +
Ugh that game was painful
EDIT: I really loved the OP. It was a refreshing look at a very overly rehashed subject.
|
On January 11 2012 10:55 wrags wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 10:49 Sabu113 wrote:
When was BW considered balanced by Bliz? Not in 1.00 but in 1.08.
how many 'balance' patches were there after that patch? that's his point
patches were far less frequent in sc1
the overwhelming majority of changes were withheld and deployed all at once during brood war
then after brood war there were some major sweeping global changes to high tech units and a huge nerf bat swung at the 4pool
do we have an expansion pack yet?
|
Definitely agree. People should stop looking at their losses for imbalance and instead should be faulting their own gameplay.
There's a really great example in the history of sc2 that really highlights what the OP is saying.
|
Thread misses a major point: "balance" is as much about the feel of a game feature/mechanic/strategy to the designers as anything. While they hopefully are well-informed and benevolent, they are ultimately opinions.
|
I think it's funny that people can't seem to tell the difference between slightly off balance and completely off balance. That's why it's called "balance" and not "auto-win."
Comments like "it's not imbalanced if it's possible to beat it" kind of miss the point. Take something like 2 rax in ZvT this past summer--even before all the build time tweaks it was possible to hold off a 2 rax. But it was pretty hard and required such a commitment of resources or such a non-economic opening that you would most likely die to a well-executed different opening that simply faked 2 rax pressure. This is an imbalance. Is it a game-destroying one? No, of course not. You only needed to be say 10% better than your opponent and you'd be ok. But over the long run, statistically, Terrans were mostly beating Zergs at the highest levels. So it got tweaked and anyway BFH came along.
The point is it's possible for the game to be mildly out of balance. Right now it certainly seems to me that T is a little dominant, Z is pretty good, and P is a little weak. But just a little. Not so much so that no Protoss can ever win in Code S, but enough that by the time you get to the Ro16 you're probably looking at over 50% Terrans.
|
On January 11 2012 14:55 psychotics wrote:
@RedDragon571: you doubt we will see many repeat GSL champions??? how about nestea, 3 time champ, mvp 3 time champ, mc 2 time champ, MKP multiple GSL finals. if this is not proof that the top players can stay on top then idk what is.
I understand that, I am asserting that in the future as the game becomes more mapped out, and most styles are solved, the differing factor in player skill will be mechanics. Which I think the skill ceiling may not be near as high as brood war. I think as the game is figured out, Repeat champions will become more and more rare.
|
On January 11 2012 12:44 Rkie wrote:This is a bit off topic, but I practice "counting" units in images I see or certain points in games just to get better at knowing numbers. In the marine scv tank image + Show Spoiler + I noticed something. Try counting the number of marines. Even at a glance. Tanks are easy. 5. But the marines and SCVs just glob together. There is no real coherence at a quick glance which is really all anyone can afford in the middle of a game. I then counted them one at a time and got 25 or 26, I can't tell without having to go back a third time. You could guess 20 marines, or 25 marines, but if it happens to be 5-10 more or less than what the actual number is, you may have over- or underreacted, which could potentially set you behind and/or lose you the game. I know there is another thread on this topic but I feel like unit clumping and pathing definitely plays a role in balance.
This is actually a problem with the human brain - we have difficulty recognizing numbers over eight (possibly ten) just at a glance. :O
|
Good read, sadly you cannot change human beings 
|
On January 11 2012 11:03 Aristotle7 wrote:
Way to bring politics into Starcraft 2. Please keep RL politics away from Sc2.
He's not bringing politics into it he's making an analogy.
|
This is such a good point, I never considered the fact that newer players will instantly be discouraged to play+watch if there's talk of imbalance all over the place.
Personally I've been close to GM level for a long time but struggle with motivation because of my view on the game as poorly designed and unfair, and how Blizzard has done a poor job putting out balance patches (in my opinion). I would love it if someone wrote an extensive article on how to get over these mental blocks.
|
I really liked the article, however I would give it a 0/5 for the unnecessary political crap and 5/5 for the SC2 part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Lovedrop/tsl3/finals/g2p1.jpg)
