|
I agree with you Starlight I would just add remember that blizz today is not blizz that made Starcraft. Some/a lot of the past dev team has left, their attitude towards making games has changed quite a bit notably since the merging with Activision, and it's difficult to know if they still have a solid understanding of the game so that if they were to touch it, they would do it in a good way with respect to the qualities of the original design.
I think discussing balance maybe or maybe not could lead to interesting ideas coming up or at least identifying some problem or limitations that many would agree on. EG for me, 1 base openings in PvZ, non-muta openings in ZvT, and ZvZ I would call imperfections of the game that came up after a long time of figuring things out (ZvZ kind of always known I guess). These actually contribute to me not coming back as often (for competitive 1v1), at least the pvz. It could be an approach but it is different than trying to come closer to "50%" in MUs by making small changes to some things, which is closer to the DK method btw and I don't think I like it. Though there are a lot less problems in BW so it does make more sense to proceed in that way... I think never forgetting to think of the consequences of any change in terms of qualities, not just quantities. Not just nudge stats to lead to more win %, that's too superficial. It matters more how interesting the gameplay is, so it should be thought of at the same time at least. I personally don't mind having 5% more chance to lose in PvZ, if I have broad and interesting strategy options to play and not too much unfair things. It depends what it is that produce the 5% disadvantage. If the MU was 50% but I would have to make FE into double stargate into mass goons every game, I would probably not want to play.
Anyway. I'm not sure how many really want to discuss balance.
|
PvZ has always been a bane of many progamers. But realistically, unless they interview everyone who was in ASL and get their input then nothing should be changed. Definately not a good idea to listen to a bunch of D rank players. zzzzzzzzz
|
On January 29 2017 01:34 MyTHicaL wrote:
PvZ has always been a bane of many progamers. But realistically, unless they interview everyone who was in ASL and get their input then nothing should be changed. Definately not a good idea to listen to a bunch of D rank players. zzzzzzzzz
Who is D rank ? Not that their opinion is not interesting to me.
|
I really dislike the argument "you shouldn't have to cheese to win you should be able to play standard every game and have a chance". In almost any competitive other game if you did the predictable thing every game your opponent would be heavily advantaged, and while one of the beautiful things of BW is that there are fewer hard counters and more wiggle room to make strats work than these other games, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be lots of value to keeping the opponent honest and guessing every game.
"Playing standard" is a lazy shorthand for "doing a stock opening and playing a long game". We refer to it as playing standard because we've seen it so many times and it makes for drawn-out, entertaining games, but if doing it almost every game puts you at a disadvantage it shouldn't be the standard at all!
Maybe the standard pool of openings needs to involve lots more strategic play, cheese, hidden tech, and the like. Protoss as a race already has a lot of flexibility in their opening builds, yet we consider all that "standard" play for some reason, even when they're doing something extremely risky like DT or Reaver drops that put them way behind if they fail.
Furthermore, consider that much of what people consider "standard" play was only standard because coaches often forced players to use set, known builds and restricted innovation due to sponsor expectations and lack of knowledge about the game. This has been a common admission from ex-pros in interviews, and really means we should take a step back from the openings we consider "smart" and realize players were not actually playing to optimize their win%s.
It's a bit like American Football and how teams punt on 4th down the majority of the time. Punting is, statistically, almost always a bad move, but it's considered "safe" and helps avoid high-variance blowouts and embarrassing situations. When a team goes for it on 4th down, most people consider it gimmicky and needlessly risky - but it turns out that the more a team goes for it on 4th, the higher their expected win percentage climbs.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying that BW is perfectly balanced or that innovation can/will fix all balance issues. I am saying that there are still undiscovered builds and untuned "rotations" of builds that maximize win percentages against expected opponent openings. 5rax +1 is an example of a new build that players didn't utilize in the Kespa era. There's bound to be others. And what if, say, Zerg finds a rush opening that beats 5rax +1 70% of the time and starts integrating it into their "standard" pool of openings against T? This is still unexplored territory.
|
On January 29 2017 01:56 tedster wrote:
I really dislike the argument "you shouldn't have to cheese to win you should be able to play standard every game and have a chance". In almost any competitive other game if you did the predictable thing every game your opponent would be heavily advantaged, and while one of the beautiful things of BW is that there are fewer hard counters and more wiggle room to make strats work than these other games, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be lots of value to keeping the opponent honest and guessing every game.
"Playing standard" is a lazy shorthand for "doing a stock opening and playing a long game". We refer to it as playing standard because we've seen it so many times and it makes for drawn-out, entertaining games, but if doing it almost every game puts you at a disadvantage it shouldn't be the standard at all!
Maybe the standard pool of openings needs to involve lots more strategic play, cheese, hidden tech, and the like. Protoss as a race already has a lot of flexibility in their opening builds, yet we consider all that "standard" play for some reason, even when they're doing something extremely risky like DT or Reaver drops that put them way behind if they fail.
Furthermore, consider that much of what people consider "standard" play was only standard because coaches often forced players to use set, known builds and restricted innovation due to sponsor expectations and lack of knowledge about the game. This has been a common admission from ex-pros in interviews, and really means we should take a step back from the openings we consider "smart" and realize players were not actually playing to optimize their win%s.
It's a bit like American Football and how teams punt on 4th down the majority of the time. Punting is, statistically, almost always a bad move, but it's considered "safe" and helps avoid high-variance blowouts and embarrassing situations. When a team goes for it on 4th down, most people consider it gimmicky and needlessly risky - but it turns out that the more a team goes for it on 4th, the higher their expected win percentage climbs.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying that BW is perfectly balanced or that innovation can/will fix all balance issues. I am saying that there are still undiscovered builds and untuned "rotations" of builds that maximize win percentages against expected opponent openings. 5rax +1 is an example of a new build that players didn't utilize in the Kespa era. There's bound to be others. And what if, say, Zerg finds a rush opening that beats 5rax +1 70% of the time and starts integrating it into their "standard" pool of openings against T? This is still unexplored territory.
Those are good points, but remember that cheeses/unconventional plays often rely on the element of surprise in order to be effective. So, once you start using cheeses/up's extremely often, any good player on the other side of it will come to expect it, and scout and build appropriately to minimize it.
Remember that OSL Finals where Jaedong 4-pooled Flash twice in a row? First time it worked, second time it died to Flash's D, and third time Flash early rax'd to shut it down entirely if he did it again.
Cheeses/unconventional plays are great, but only get you so far. At what point does unconventional play become conventional/expected, because you use it so often that it's no longer a surprise?
Personally, I like how Flash does it, where he cheeses *just* often enough without it being too often that he manages to catch the other guy flat-footed a lot of the time. Plus, he has such strong standard play that you're not necessarily expecting it anyway.
|
On January 29 2017 01:56 tedster wrote:
Maybe the standard pool of openings needs to involve lots more strategic play, cheese, hidden tech, and the like. Protoss as a race already has a lot of flexibility in their opening builds, yet we consider all that "standard" play for some reason, even when they're doing something extremely risky like DT or Reaver drops that put them way behind if they fail.
Great post overall but, haha, I had to laugh hard there.
"Let's give these few brave lonesome daredevils a medal."
|
On January 29 2017 01:34 MyTHicaL wrote:
PvZ has always been a bane of many progamers. But realistically, unless they interview everyone who was in ASL and get their input then nothing should be changed. Definately not a good idea to listen to a bunch of D rank players. zzzzzzzzz
If we want a good balance and design patch, listening to high ranked players isnt the way to go. Listening to arguments is the way to go. Come on, just because someone uses some words like "pvz" is imba wihtout the context, wtf, some selfawareness please, its not the words one should go on, its the context and argument such as WHY!
I think discussing balance maybe or maybe not could lead to interesting ideas coming up or at least identifying some problem or limitations that many would agree on. EG for me, 1 base openings in PvZ, non-muta openings in ZvT
1base tvp aswell, also if possible slowing down the must get fast expansion strategy overall, might go hand in hand with fixing 1base play.
|
I really dislike the argument "you shouldn't have to cheese to win you should be able to play standard every game and have a chance". In almost any competitive other game if you did the predictable thing every game your opponent would be heavily advantaged, and while one of the beautiful things of BW is that there are fewer hard counters and more wiggle room to make strats work than these other games, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be lots of value to keeping the opponent honest and guessing every game.
Cheesing is complete bullshit in a competive game, no matter the genre. So is all-in attacks.
I dont want to see some build order gamble win.
Standard is great because it revolves around skill, and is a great challenge thorughout the game (potentially)
And playing standard isnt even close to meaning you play one style purely. It can have many variations and different strategies invovled. That initself isnt someone just one can hardcounter blindly.
"Playing standard" is a lazy shorthand for "doing a stock opening and playing a long game". We refer to it as playing standard because we've seen it so many times and it makes for drawn-out, entertaining games, but if doing it almost every game puts you at a disadvantage it shouldn't be the standard at all!
Nope, its not a lazy shorthand for what you call it.
You cant blindly counter something if the player play standard in various ways.
Standard doesn mean long game, not even close to meaning that. So just because two players play standard, it doesnt mean its a long game incoming.
I think you might confuse this with how broodwar is designed. You need expansions in this game and fast as possible.
Its a long buildup for the game to start in some mus, such as tvp. You build economy, camp, wait for high tech and then the game starts, pretty much.
Maybe the standard pool of openings needs to involve lots more strategic play, cheese, hidden tech, and the like. Protoss as a race already has a lot of flexibility in their opening builds, yet we consider all that "standard" play for some reason, even when they're doing something extremely risky like DT or Reaver drops that put them way behind if they fail.
People that know what standard means doesnt call cheese builds or allin builds standard. Only people that dont know what it means do that.
It doesnt add any strategy if you add cheese and hidden tech and what not to the game, in fact it becomes the opposite and people would stop like the game if blizzard patched it that way.
I think its worth to mention that some cheeses might be to strong even. For example if protoss have a very hard time to scout zerg, those hidden hydras can be so powerful. So a cheese can infact be OP which is not good for the gameplay. You might think so because it brings some action some games here and there but in the long run i think one would understand that this isnt really skillbased, and more about rng or abuse. (if this example was true).
|
United States2186 Posts
This thread is a great example of an sc2 mentality (where such thinking may have been justified) being mindlessly applied to BW (where it is not justified). BW's balance was incredible for a decade, but now suddenly it's supposedly worse than it was in 2011?
I guarantee the people complaining about ZvT balance aren't aware of the innovations that Savior made (tactically in his prime, and strategically after his prime), and aren't aware that there are some very strong ideas that when they have been haphazardly applied in the 2009-2011 era, led to decisive ZvT victories against players like Flash (i,e Effort/Flash HBR). Just because people don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This isn't SC2 where the game is too strategically shallow to innovate further out than 6-12 months after a patch
|
I am more interested in strategic options limitations than win rates (especially if they are below 5-10%~ difference), and the quality of games, not being too repetitive, room for creativity, etc. And I agree all-ins only add to strategic options if they don't depend heavily on luck. The depth of strategic options is what makes them interesting and involve more decision making skills, and all-ins are kind of an end to the depth of a strategy. It can be a correct winning move/attempt if you have gathered an advantage. Or a surprise opening with possible follow ups. When luck is the most important factor... you are playing a gambling rather than a strategy game.
|
On January 29 2017 07:09 Ver wrote:
This thread is a great example of an sc2 mentality (where such thinking may have been justified) being mindlessly applied to BW (where it is not justified). BW's balance was incredible for a decade, but now suddenly it's supposedly worse than it was in 2011?
I guarantee the people complaining about ZvT balance aren't aware of the innovations that Savior made (tactically in his prime, and strategically after his prime), and aren't aware that there are some very strong ideas that when they have been haphazardly applied in the 2009-2011 era, led to decisive ZvT victories against players like Flash (i,e Effort/Flash HBR). Just because people don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This isn't SC2 where the game is too strategically shallow to innovate further out than 6-12 months after a patch
What actually makes SC2 so different from BW when it comes to strategic depth? Couldn't you say the same thing about BW just before Savior showed how to play ZvT?
|
On January 28 2017 11:03 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 08:41 [[Starlight]] wrote:On January 28 2017 08:36 ninazerg wrote:On January 28 2017 08:06 [[Starlight]] wrote:On January 27 2017 11:10 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 07:08 [[Starlight]] wrote:3- The person who offers earnest but obviously bad, game-breaking balance ideas, such as, well... name one. Bad, not well-thought out balance suggestions are everywhere.  4- The guy who might actually have good balance ideas but thinks his ideas are the ONLY good ones, and argues in an angry, non-constructive way with everyone else until they (he hopes) roll over and accept him as the second coming of Rob Pardo or whoever. So, you can get why some ppl hate balance discussions so much. But, they are still interesting, and some ppl do have good ideas... that will likely never be implemented.
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
I'm sure if I did, you would pooh-pooh it/pick it apart. So you're saying that ideas might be criticized by me? That's... horrifying. Well, silly sarcasm aside Nina... constructive criticism is always a good thing, and I'm pretty accepting of it. But there's constructive criticism, and then there's 'I just want to shoot down everything you say because I've already made up mind' criticism, which isn't really useful. And I suspect that's where you're going with this, not just by your tone (sarcastic), but also by your answer below... Rather than going down that very obvious path, let's instead ask YOU, Nina, if there are any balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial. I'm guessing the answer will probably be "no"... even though in other threads, I do remember you saying "nerf tanks."  But you might've been joking, I don't know.
It depends on what you mean by "beneficial". The game is fun. If it wasn't fun, I'm not sure what patch I could do to fix that.
...where you seemed to dodge a pretty straightforward question on the basis of semantics. Kinda reminded me a bit of Bill Clinton during that infamous deposition, where he asked what the meaning of "is", is...  Tell you what, Nina... YOU go ahead and define beneficial any way you like, within reason. That dispensed with, the question remains, "Can you think of ANY balance change, any change at ALL, that you would deem beneficial or positive to BW?". We'll wait. I'm not the one making any balance proposals. You're the one who, apparently, has the ideas to fix Brood War. Why would the impetus ever be on me to think up a balance change when you're the person who is making the proposal? Furthermore, I specifically asked what you meant by "beneficial", and you went to the most extreme example of lawyering with the 'is is' example. You asked a vague question, and I asked you to be more specific, and now you've refused to do so, and somehow are pointing at me and saying, "You're dodging the question." Also, if I gonna put forward a proposal, it would definitely be to make a tank in siege mode shoot a nuke that does 99999 damage. Dodge, dodge, dodge. We get it Nina... you got nuthin'. Or don't want to. Disappointing, especially since you're a smart and articulate person. But yeah, a bit close-minded. It happens. One last chance. Here, maybe this'll help: ben·e·fi·cial
ˌbenəˈfiSH(ə)l/
adjective
favorable or advantageous; resulting in good. All I asked was for you to clarify what you meant, and now you're being condescending for no reason. You could've just said, "I just meant the dictionary definition of beneficial, nothing specific." and we could go from there. Now you're being silly, throwing down ultimatums like "LAST CHANCE", as if I care about how many chances I have left. Also, when you say "we get it", do you mean you identify as multiple people, or what? + Show Spoiler +Or, let me guess... wē/ pronoun pronoun: we used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together. (who else are you speaking for?) + Show Spoiler +
Wait, let me guess...
us
əs/
pronoun
pronoun: us
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people as the object of a verb or preposition.
Hey, did you know something? Rmbr the game, "Chess"? It's a turn-based two-player strategy board game played on a chessboard, a checkered gameboard with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid. Chess is played by millions of people worldwide, both amateurs and professionals. Each player begins the game with 16 pieces: one king, one queen, two rooks, two knights, two bishops, and eight pawns. Each of the six piece types moves differently, with the most powerful being the queen and the least powerful the pawn. The objective is to 'checkmate' the opponent's king by placing it under an inescapable threat of capture. To this end, a player's pieces are used to attack and capture the opponent's pieces, while supporting their own. In addition to checkmate, the game can be won by voluntary resignation by the opponent, which typically occurs when too much material is lost, or if checkmate appears unavoidable. A game may also result in a draw in several ways. (Definition stolen from Wikipedia dot org) As it turns out, Chess is fucking imbalanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chessYou wanna know why I wouldn't change Chess? Because I'd take it for what it is. The same applies to my approach to StarCraft: Brood War. It's a great game. In my opinion, it really holds up for many, many reasons. So, in regards to "favorable or advantageous", as gameplay changes, basically anything that benefits me personally would be beneficial. So if I played Protoss, I would advocate for anything from unnoticeable and nigh-on worthless buffs to unreasonable game-breaking advantages. In regards to "resulting in good", the game is already good, so any change I made could potentially result in more good, but, the act of making zero changes would also result in good, so the easiest course of action would be to make no changes. My personal preference would also be to make no changes. You could say "OH, YOU'RE SO CLOSE-MINDED. DON'T WORRY. IT HAPPENS." but that means absolutely nothing, because you yourself would also be close-minded for not accepting that the game is fine as it is, and refusing to believe that no changes are necessary. Here has been the conversation so far: Me: Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance. You: I'm sure if I did, you would pooh-pooh it/pick it apart. ["No."] Me: So you're saying that ideas might be criticized by me? That's... horrifying. ["A good idea will be able to survive my criticism."] You: Rather than going down that very obvious path, let's instead ask YOU, Nina, if there are any balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial. Why would I ever do this? The only thing I can think of is that you thought that I was saying that I had better ideas than everyone else in this thread to change the game's balance. Which I wasn't saying. I was saying the balance ideas in this thread are bad because there's nothing that needs to be changed in the game, period, and either you don't realize that's what I've been saying, or you did realize it but are too stubborn to admit you made a mistake. At this point, I'm like " What are you even talking about?", " Why would I make a balance proposal if I'm against that?", " What do you mean by 'balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial'?" So I asked one of the questions, just curious to see where you were going with this: Me: "It depends on what you mean by "beneficial"." You: "YOU go ahead and define beneficial any way you like, within reason." Me: "I'm not the one making any balance proposals." [If you thought I had my own balance proposal in mind, at this point, you should know that's not the case.] You: "Dodge, dodge, dodge. We get it Nina... you got nuthin'. Or don't want to. " I would make no changes to the performance of any units or buildings. Which I've already stated. Numerous times. So, no, I'm not going to come up with a balance change, and for you to ask me to do so is either a misunderstanding on your end, or one of the strangest exercises in logic I've ever encountered, - OR - (and I seriously hope this is not the case) you're trying to bait me into making a proposal (why would I do this? WHY?) so you can peck at it and go, "SEE? YOU CAN POKE HOLES IN ANY ARGUMENT ABOUT UNIT BALANCE."
Wow... that's quite the novel you just wrote, Nina. When does it come out in paperback? j/k
Anyhow, it's fair to say from the length of your post and your tone, you've been triggered. All I can say is, that was not my intent... though I think we both bear some responsibility in that.
Rather than write an even much longer counter-novel to your novel (which would no doubt trigger a series of novels and counter-novels, and be a waste of my time), I'll try to limit myself to the parts of your post I found relevant:
– I'm not trying to be condescending to you, Nina... ppl who are trying to be condescending to someone generally don't call them "smart and articulate", as I did to you. If there's any snark in my tone, it's probably in response to you introducing sarcasm and condescension into the conversation first, i.e. "Oh, that's so horrifying." So, perhaps we're both at fault, and we both should knock it off.
– We all know what Chess is, why you bothered to cut-copy-paste the first two paragraphs of its Wikipedia entry is beyond me. But I agree that it's an interesting analogy, in that you seem to be comparing it to BW, while trumpeting that it's a 'great game that really holds up over time' (it is), and that it's a bit imbalanced (it is - historically, first mover advantage has given White a 52-55% 'total score', i.e. wins plus 50% of draws). Which then, by analogy, is saying that Brood War is a great game that really holds up over time, and that it too is a bit imbalanced. Which I'd also agree with.
Where your analogy breaks down is that in tournament Chess, pains are taken to have both players have an equal # of times playing Black and White. While in BW, there are no tournaments I've seen where two ppl play, say, a ZvP game, and then the two players switch races next game. And if such tournaments do exist, they're certainly very rare.
Your analogy also doesn't seem to consider the possibility that perhaps Chess could be *even better* if the first mover imba were dealt with somehow through a rules change. After all, Chess has not been static throughout its entire existence, it has indeed seen rules changes over the centuries. But still it's an interesting analogy in that you do seem to acknowledge that BW has some imba in it.
Which is why it's so puzzling to me that you're taking such pains to shoot down or at least minimize pretty much every argument and piece of evidence given showing that there is a bit of imba in the game.
– You seem to be greatly concerned why I asked you if there were ANY, even ONE, balance change that you could come up with that would be beneficial to the game. On a sidenote, your being cute with the definition of beneficial is odd.. any thinking person would reject defining beneficial as 'what helps ME and MY RACE!', since doing so is obviously an invitation to even more imba, which would degrade the game. Your need to define beneficial in the worst possible way is beyond me... it's also not an issue that ever needed to be made as complicated as you made it.
But getting back to why I asked you that question... your constant attacks on the notion of ANY changes to the game being beneficial made me wonder how far that went with you. Was it completely absolute? Well, with your response, we now have our answer... it is. Even though in other threads, I do recall you saying, "Nerf tanks". Hmm.
– I don't see myself being close-minded, or, at least as close-minded as you come across in this discussion (and I restrict that description of you to this discussion alone... for all I know, you're a paragon of open-mindedness in all other matters). This is because, in a dispute over whether BW has some small amount of imba or not in it, the evidence seems to side with there being imba. It is difficult to conceive of how a game as complex and deep as BW, a game with three unique sides, a game that has seen roughly 100 balance changes made to it by Blizzard over four balance patches, and a game whose meta has changed markedly over the past 15 years since the last balance patch, could be perfectly balanced at this date and time. Acknowledging that isn't close-minded, it's simply being realistic.
That said, I am not wholly insensitive to your position, Nina. I do sorta get where you're coming from - changes could be a bit of a gamble, and some of us just plain like things the way they are. But, it seems to fly in the face of reality to not at least acknowledge that there are little things here and there that could done that would have upside. Going after NeoB or others like him and trying to knock down everything he or they say just because you fear and/or greatly dislike change comes across as a bit disingenuous, as you do seem to know that the game is indeed, like chess, slightly imba. But yes, agreed, wonderful despite this.
But perhaps it could also be more wonderful still. If Blizzard had had your 'NO changes!!!' mentality from the very outset, we'd still be at SC 1.00 balance... and that wasn't good. The game probably wouldn't have lasted as a result.
In summation, I continue to consider you smart and articulate, albeit prickly. Try not to be too triggered by that... it's not meant in a mean way.
|
On January 29 2017 07:09 Ver wrote:
This thread is a great example of an sc2 mentality (where such thinking may have been justified) being mindlessly applied to BW (where it is not justified). BW's balance was incredible for a decade, but now suddenly it's supposedly worse than it was in 2011?
I guarantee the people complaining about ZvT balance aren't aware of the innovations that Savior made (tactically in his prime, and strategically after his prime), and aren't aware that there are some very strong ideas that when they have been haphazardly applied in the 2009-2011 era, led to decisive ZvT victories against players like Flash (i,e Effort/Flash HBR). Just because people don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This isn't SC2 where the game is too strategically shallow to innovate further out than 6-12 months after a patch
Pros were unaware of Savior's innovations, and didn't take them into account in their own gameplay? Is that what you're saying? Because if so, I'd find that hard to believe. Savior was probably the most influential Zerg player of his era. Bisu sure seemed to be aware of Savior's innovations and play style, the Bisu Build was an almost perfect antidote to them... at least for awhile.
|
On January 28 2017 22:44 GeckoXp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 18:50 parkufarku wrote:
It's been over a decade. ZvT has pretty much exhausted all options and openings. There's been thousands and thousands of ZvT matches, across different map pools, by all sorts of macro / aggressive / cheesy / greedy / standard players.
A game can only change so much. Some of you guys who say "Z should try this or Z needs to experiment more" isn't seeing the big picture. This isn't a new game with a new expansion that came out a year ago, it's a game older than my old ass car. There has to be a point where we can say, ok we've seen enough, it's time to make things more fair.
Even those of you who are unable to admit it's an uphill matchup for Zerg has to admit that the MU isn't perfect. And if you like BW, why wouldn't you want improvements? No one is saying give Zerglings ability to fly. Just small incremental changes here and there until we can collect enough data Written from the perspective of a player who only played one race for a rather short period of time.
And how do you know what I've played?
Fyi, I played Zerg and Protoss in BW, and Terran in SC2.
|
On January 29 2017 07:09 Ver wrote:
This thread is a great example of an sc2 mentality (where such thinking may have been justified) being mindlessly applied to BW (where it is not justified). BW's balance was incredible for a decade, but now suddenly it's supposedly worse than it was in 2011?
I guarantee the people complaining about ZvT balance aren't aware of the innovations that Savior made (tactically in his prime, and strategically after his prime), and aren't aware that there are some very strong ideas that when they have been haphazardly applied in the 2009-2011 era, led to decisive ZvT victories against players like Flash (i,e Effort/Flash HBR). Just because people don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This isn't SC2 where the game is too strategically shallow to innovate further out than 6-12 months after a patch
I don't think you can include a Savior example. He's been found so deeply connected to the gambling / match-making that we don't know which of his victories are real or not.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 29 2017 13:08 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 07:09 Ver wrote:
This thread is a great example of an sc2 mentality (where such thinking may have been justified) being mindlessly applied to BW (where it is not justified). BW's balance was incredible for a decade, but now suddenly it's supposedly worse than it was in 2011?
I guarantee the people complaining about ZvT balance aren't aware of the innovations that Savior made (tactically in his prime, and strategically after his prime), and aren't aware that there are some very strong ideas that when they have been haphazardly applied in the 2009-2011 era, led to decisive ZvT victories against players like Flash (i,e Effort/Flash HBR). Just because people don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This isn't SC2 where the game is too strategically shallow to innovate further out than 6-12 months after a patch
I don't think you can include a Savior example. He's been found so deeply connected to the gambling / match-making that we don't know which of his victories are real or not.
this is a joke right?
Have you even read any of the reports or suspected games? Not to mention the people implicated and convicted? How they got caught?
sure he has a big stain on his reputation for the match fixing, but to even attempt to say what he accomplished was fake and handed to him via match fixing is incredibly naive.
The savior example is actually great by itself. Legitimate evolution in the zvt match up at a time when zerg was struggling vs terran. practically innovated 3 hatch muta vs terran. Very easy to draw similarities in what savior did in zvt, and what bisu did in pvz.
|
On January 29 2017 10:53 [[Starlight]] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 11:03 ninazerg wrote:On January 28 2017 08:41 [[Starlight]] wrote:On January 28 2017 08:36 ninazerg wrote:On January 28 2017 08:06 [[Starlight]] wrote:On January 27 2017 11:10 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 07:08 [[Starlight]] wrote:3- The person who offers earnest but obviously bad, game-breaking balance ideas, such as, well... name one. Bad, not well-thought out balance suggestions are everywhere. 4- The guy who might actually have good balance ideas but thinks his ideas are the ONLY good ones, and argues in an angry, non-constructive way with everyone else until they (he hopes) roll over and accept him as the second coming of Rob Pardo or whoever. So, you can get why some ppl hate balance discussions so much. But, they are still interesting, and some ppl do have good ideas... that will likely never be implemented.
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
I'm sure if I did, you would pooh-pooh it/pick it apart. So you're saying that ideas might be criticized by me? That's... horrifying. Well, silly sarcasm aside Nina... constructive criticism is always a good thing, and I'm pretty accepting of it. But there's constructive criticism, and then there's 'I just want to shoot down everything you say because I've already made up mind' criticism, which isn't really useful. And I suspect that's where you're going with this, not just by your tone (sarcastic), but also by your answer below... Rather than going down that very obvious path, let's instead ask YOU, Nina, if there are any balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial. I'm guessing the answer will probably be "no"... even though in other threads, I do remember you saying "nerf tanks." But you might've been joking, I don't know.
It depends on what you mean by "beneficial". The game is fun. If it wasn't fun, I'm not sure what patch I could do to fix that.
...where you seemed to dodge a pretty straightforward question on the basis of semantics. Kinda reminded me a bit of Bill Clinton during that infamous deposition, where he asked what the meaning of "is", is... Tell you what, Nina... YOU go ahead and define beneficial any way you like, within reason. That dispensed with, the question remains, "Can you think of ANY balance change, any change at ALL, that you would deem beneficial or positive to BW?". We'll wait. I'm not the one making any balance proposals. You're the one who, apparently, has the ideas to fix Brood War. Why would the impetus ever be on me to think up a balance change when you're the person who is making the proposal? Furthermore, I specifically asked what you meant by "beneficial", and you went to the most extreme example of lawyering with the 'is is' example. You asked a vague question, and I asked you to be more specific, and now you've refused to do so, and somehow are pointing at me and saying, "You're dodging the question." Also, if I gonna put forward a proposal, it would definitely be to make a tank in siege mode shoot a nuke that does 99999 damage. Dodge, dodge, dodge. We get it Nina... you got nuthin'. Or don't want to. Disappointing, especially since you're a smart and articulate person. But yeah, a bit close-minded. It happens. One last chance. Here, maybe this'll help: ben·e·fi·cial
ˌbenəˈfiSH(ə)l/
adjective
favorable or advantageous; resulting in good. All I asked was for you to clarify what you meant, and now you're being condescending for no reason. You could've just said, "I just meant the dictionary definition of beneficial, nothing specific." and we could go from there. Now you're being silly, throwing down ultimatums like "LAST CHANCE", as if I care about how many chances I have left. Also, when you say "we get it", do you mean you identify as multiple people, or what? + Show Spoiler +Or, let me guess... wē/ pronoun pronoun: we used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together. (who else are you speaking for?) + Show Spoiler +
Wait, let me guess...
us
əs/
pronoun
pronoun: us
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people as the object of a verb or preposition.
Hey, did you know something? Rmbr the game, "Chess"? It's a turn-based two-player strategy board game played on a chessboard, a checkered gameboard with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid. Chess is played by millions of people worldwide, both amateurs and professionals. Each player begins the game with 16 pieces: one king, one queen, two rooks, two knights, two bishops, and eight pawns. Each of the six piece types moves differently, with the most powerful being the queen and the least powerful the pawn. The objective is to 'checkmate' the opponent's king by placing it under an inescapable threat of capture. To this end, a player's pieces are used to attack and capture the opponent's pieces, while supporting their own. In addition to checkmate, the game can be won by voluntary resignation by the opponent, which typically occurs when too much material is lost, or if checkmate appears unavoidable. A game may also result in a draw in several ways. (Definition stolen from Wikipedia dot org) As it turns out, Chess is fucking imbalanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chessYou wanna know why I wouldn't change Chess? Because I'd take it for what it is. The same applies to my approach to StarCraft: Brood War. It's a great game. In my opinion, it really holds up for many, many reasons. So, in regards to "favorable or advantageous", as gameplay changes, basically anything that benefits me personally would be beneficial. So if I played Protoss, I would advocate for anything from unnoticeable and nigh-on worthless buffs to unreasonable game-breaking advantages. In regards to "resulting in good", the game is already good, so any change I made could potentially result in more good, but, the act of making zero changes would also result in good, so the easiest course of action would be to make no changes. My personal preference would also be to make no changes. You could say "OH, YOU'RE SO CLOSE-MINDED. DON'T WORRY. IT HAPPENS." but that means absolutely nothing, because you yourself would also be close-minded for not accepting that the game is fine as it is, and refusing to believe that no changes are necessary. Here has been the conversation so far: Me: Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance. You: I'm sure if I did, you would pooh-pooh it/pick it apart. ["No."] Me: So you're saying that ideas might be criticized by me? That's... horrifying. ["A good idea will be able to survive my criticism."] You: Rather than going down that very obvious path, let's instead ask YOU, Nina, if there are any balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial. Why would I ever do this? The only thing I can think of is that you thought that I was saying that I had better ideas than everyone else in this thread to change the game's balance. Which I wasn't saying. I was saying the balance ideas in this thread are bad because there's nothing that needs to be changed in the game, period, and either you don't realize that's what I've been saying, or you did realize it but are too stubborn to admit you made a mistake. At this point, I'm like " What are you even talking about?", " Why would I make a balance proposal if I'm against that?", " What do you mean by 'balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial'?" So I asked one of the questions, just curious to see where you were going with this: Me: "It depends on what you mean by "beneficial"." You: "YOU go ahead and define beneficial any way you like, within reason." Me: "I'm not the one making any balance proposals." [If you thought I had my own balance proposal in mind, at this point, you should know that's not the case.] You: "Dodge, dodge, dodge. We get it Nina... you got nuthin'. Or don't want to. " I would make no changes to the performance of any units or buildings. Which I've already stated. Numerous times. So, no, I'm not going to come up with a balance change, and for you to ask me to do so is either a misunderstanding on your end, or one of the strangest exercises in logic I've ever encountered, - OR - (and I seriously hope this is not the case) you're trying to bait me into making a proposal (why would I do this? WHY?) so you can peck at it and go, "SEE? YOU CAN POKE HOLES IN ANY ARGUMENT ABOUT UNIT BALANCE." + Show Spoiler +Wow... that's quite the novel you just wrote, Nina. When does it come out in paperback? j/k Anyhow, it's fair to say from the length of your post and your tone, you've been triggered. All I can say is, that was not my intent... though I think we both bear some responsibility in that. Rather than write an even much longer counter-novel to your novel (which would no doubt trigger a series of novels and counter-novels, and be a waste of my time), I'll try to limit myself to the parts of your post I found relevant: – I'm not trying to be condescending to you, Nina... ppl who are trying to be condescending to someone generally don't call them "smart and articulate", as I did to you. If there's any snark in my tone, it's probably in response to you introducing sarcasm and condescension into the conversation first, i.e. "Oh, that's so horrifying." So, perhaps we're both at fault, and we both should knock it off. – We all know what Chess is, why you bothered to cut-copy-paste the first two paragraphs of its Wikipedia entry is beyond me. But I agree that it's an interesting analogy, in that you seem to be comparing it to BW, while trumpeting that it's a 'great game that really holds up over time' (it is), and that it's a bit imbalanced (it is - historically, first mover advantage has given White a 52-55% 'total score', i.e. wins plus 50% of draws). Which then, by analogy, is saying that Brood War is a great game that really holds up over time, and that it too is a bit imbalanced. Which I'd also agree with. Where your analogy breaks down is that in tournament Chess, pains are taken to have both players have an equal # of times playing Black and White. While in BW, there are no tournaments I've seen where two ppl play, say, a ZvP game, and then the two players switch races next game. And if such tournaments do exist, they're certainly very rare. Your analogy also doesn't seem to consider the possibility that perhaps Chess could be *even better* if the first mover imba were dealt with somehow through a rules change. After all, Chess has not been static throughout its entire existence, it has indeed seen rules changes over the centuries. But still it's an interesting analogy in that you do seem to acknowledge that BW has some imba in it. Which is why it's so puzzling to me that you're taking such pains to shoot down or at least minimize pretty much every argument and piece of evidence given showing that there is a bit of imba in the game. – You seem to be greatly concerned why I asked you if there were ANY, even ONE, balance change that you could come up with that would be beneficial to the game. On a sidenote, your being cute with the definition of beneficial is odd.. any thinking person would reject defining beneficial as 'what helps ME and MY RACE!', since doing so is obviously an invitation to even more imba, which would degrade the game. Your need to define beneficial in the worst possible way is beyond me... it's also not an issue that ever needed to be made as complicated as you made it. But getting back to why I asked you that question... your constant attacks on the notion of ANY changes to the game being beneficial made me wonder how far that went with you. Was it completely absolute? Well, with your response, we now have our answer... it is. Even though in other threads, I do recall you saying, "Nerf tanks". Hmm. – I don't see myself being close-minded, or, at least as close-minded as you come across in this discussion (and I restrict that description of you to this discussion alone... for all I know, you're a paragon of open-mindedness in all other matters). This is because, in a dispute over whether BW has some small amount of imba or not in it, the evidence seems to side with there being imba. It is difficult to conceive of how a game as complex and deep as BW, a game with three unique sides, a game that has seen roughly 100 balance changes made to it by Blizzard over four balance patches, and a game whose meta has changed markedly over the past 15 years since the last balance patch, could be perfectly balanced at this date and time. Acknowledging that isn't close-minded, it's simply being realistic. That said, I am not wholly insensitive to your position, Nina. I do sorta get where you're coming from - changes could be a bit of a gamble, and some of us just plain like things the way they are. But, it seems to fly in the face of reality to not at least acknowledge that there are little things here and there that could done that would have upside. Going after NeoB or others like him and trying to knock down everything he or they say just because you fear and/or greatly dislike change comes across as a bit disingenuous, as you do seem to know that the game is indeed, like chess, slightly imba. But yes, agreed, wonderful despite this. But perhaps it could also be more wonderful still. If Blizzard had had your 'NO changes!!!' mentality from the very outset, we'd still be at SC 1.00 balance... and that wasn't good. The game probably wouldn't have lasted as a result. In summation, I continue to consider you smart and articulate, albeit prickly. Try not to be too triggered by that... it's not meant in a mean way.
There is simply too much wrong with everything you wrote to go through each thing piece-by-piece. I'm not going to get into the "u seem mad"/"im not mad" thing. That being said, I am 200% triggered and have flipped my desk over.
I'm going to focus on the main things here:
First, Neobowman put forward actual arguments supported by facts to make a point. You've come up with nothing so far except for insinuations that I think the game is 'perfect' and that I'm just being a close-minded illogical person. The fact remains that you continue to bring forward nothing to support your argument that any change is necessary based on anything other than how you personally feel about the game and where it should go.
Second, I bring up Chess, because it is often reputed to be 'the most perfectly-balanced game of all-time'. Now, of course people in Chess play both black and white. There's no mechanical difference between black and white, and even if there were, that's not the point anyway. I'm saying that the statistic of white winning more is irrelevant because the better player will generally win regardless.
Third, I have never asserted that StarCraft: Brood War is perfectly balanced, or that there are no imbalances by match-up. I have said, however, that I would not want the units or buildings in the game changed. Stryker actually wrote an amazing article that shows how the TvZ match-up has changed over the years: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/94254-a-history-of-terran-vs-zerg . This analysis of the history of the one match-up exemplifies how the meta-game changes over time. Progamers are notoriously stubborn, and will stick to outdated strategies and builds long after their due date arrives. The thing that makes a build order "standard" is that it works. When it stops working, the meta-game will change as soon as the old standard is replaced by something better.
|
On January 29 2017 11:06 [[Starlight]] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 07:09 Ver wrote:
This thread is a great example of an sc2 mentality (where such thinking may have been justified) being mindlessly applied to BW (where it is not justified). BW's balance was incredible for a decade, but now suddenly it's supposedly worse than it was in 2011?
I guarantee the people complaining about ZvT balance aren't aware of the innovations that Savior made (tactically in his prime, and strategically after his prime), and aren't aware that there are some very strong ideas that when they have been haphazardly applied in the 2009-2011 era, led to decisive ZvT victories against players like Flash (i,e Effort/Flash HBR). Just because people don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This isn't SC2 where the game is too strategically shallow to innovate further out than 6-12 months after a patch
Pros were unaware of Savior's innovations, and didn't take them into account in their own gameplay? Is that what you're saying? Because if so, I'd find that hard to believe. Savior was probably the most influential Zerg player of his era. Bisu sure seemed to be aware of Savior's innovations and play style, the Bisu Build was an almost perfect antidote to them... at least for awhile.
Thats pretty much correct. It took a while for other zergs to catch on. Replays didn't get shared. Generally all people got was the caster view, which did not include supply counts. So it was hard to get timings correct. Can't say for certain if you played a osl/msl match or proleague if they let you dl and take home the replay of the game you played. If they didn't the only people who would have known and been able to do the zvt build savoir innovated would have been his team mates.
Go look at zvt win rates at the time when he was dominating. It was abysmal for zerg, Yet he was dominating.
|
On January 29 2017 01:56 tedster wrote:
I really dislike the argument "you shouldn't have to cheese to win you should be able to play standard every game and have a chance". In almost any competitive other game if you did the predictable thing every game your opponent would be heavily advantaged
This is not the case in BW. Terrans do +1 5 rax vs. Zerg every game and it's still very effective at shutting the third down.
Even soft-countering with 3 hatch lurker is not that effective because the Terran can adapt to it since they have scans, while the Zerg has no way to know what the Terran is doing.
|
BW is perfectly fine. Actually, it's perfect. Don't suggest balance changes to offset your lack of skill because that's all your doing. Look where that took SC2. Pros aren't complaining about the game so neither should you.
And you can always make your own BW mod on SC2. Please don't try to fix something that isn't broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
