Hello.
Here’s my compilation regarding the common posts relating to Buff / Nerf / Complaints that take up more than 50% (just a conservative estimate) of the threads in the forums.
I noticed that most of the time, many of these claims, though logical / well thought out, disregard the original intentions that the game developers have, while attempting to put forth the OP’s own intentions.
There is nothing wrong in doing that per se. But assuming if the purpose is to catch the developers’ attention in hopes for a change, then I do think that it will be important to first understanding the original intention of the said feature / race / unit / function, etc. From there, we can then discuss about what would be the proposed alternative on how it should be adjusted / changed.
I hope that with this post, we can then have more proper and conducive discussions about game balancing rather than just ranting (but hey, it is your right to rant too, haha).
Note that I am in no way writing this to insist that people have to agree with me. Just as I accord the respect for you not agreeing with me, I do expect that I am accorded the same respect for having a differing view. But if you are keen on discussing in depth (and properly) regarding some of my claims below (even if you disagree), I am definitely open to it.
With that, let’s dive straight into the main topic.
================================================================================
< Topics Overview >
- #1 (-insert race here-) is OP / imbalanced / needs to be nerfed / useless.
- #2 I need to do so many things more than the opponent to win.
- #3 (-insert race here-) has (-insert unit here-), but this other race doesn’t.
- #4 (-insert unit here-) is OP / imbalanced / needs to be nerfed / useless.
- #5a (-insert race here-) should not be able to (-insert strategy-)
- #5b (-insert race here-) should not be able to (-insert cheese strategy-)
================================================================================
#1 (-insert race here-) is OP / imbalanced / needs to be nerfed / useless.
Some of the claims involve:
- Data that there are more of a certain race in certain leagues / tourneys / tourneys rankings.
- Data that a certain race has higher than ideal win rates (ideal being ~50%).
- Data from specifically chosen replays.
- Data from their own personal games only.
< Definition of Balance >
Firstly, it is important to figure out what your definition of balance is. Then, see if your definition matches with what the game developers’ definition. From my experience, many times everyone has their own idea of what balance should be, but it is often different from the developers’.
This is my personal assumption (I won’t claim that this is accurate):
That Activision’s definition of balance is when every race has an approximate 50:50 win rate (against all 3 races).
This is the ideal case (when the no. of games played reaches infinity).
More games = more accuracy = closer to 50:50 win rate, and vice versa. When the win rate deviates, that is when someone will promote / demote from their league.
Don’t get me wrong, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion on that. The issue comes when players expect the game to be changed based on their own definition / opinion.
We can definitely propose this as a suggestion, but the insistence that there is only your way and no other way isn’t going to bring your argument very far. In fact, you are only going to grow more frustrated and one day just stop playing, because you didn’t have it “your way”.
< Accuracy of Data Set >
Data is great if you want to have a general idea of a hypothesis. However, they are not conclusive evidence to be used for an argument. That is because many times the data that is used is:
- Limited in the no. of games. - The fewer the games (further from infinity), the more inaccurate the numbers will be. Most of the time, people take the data from 1 tourney, or 1 snapshot in time, and claim that it is a representation of the game in whole.
- Cherry picked. - I often see people first have an argument they want to justify, then start searching for data that supports that point. That isn’t how we use data. We first obtain the data, and then we draw hypothesises about what may or may not be.
And all these are based on the assumption that the data source has integrity. This inaccuracy in data set will only getting worse because the no. of games played in a 10 year old game is decreasing. Other areas that need to be considered are:
- What about other leagues?
- What about other tourneys?
- What about other unpublished rounds in the tourneys?
- What about other replays?
- What about other players’ experiences?
For every ‘evidence’ for the case, there will probably be a ‘counter evidence’ against the case available as well. And the only way to make it more reliable is to gather more data sources (which I have yet to see anyone making an argument do).
================================================================================
#2 I need to do so many things more than the opponent to win.
Some of the claims involve:
- Data from specifically chosen replays.
- Data from their own personal games only.
< APM / Micro is rewarded >
SC2 has always favoured the player that performs more things. To share a few popular scenarios that players argue from is that:
- P can A-move their army while Z needs to carefully micro their units and casters in order to win.
- Z can A-move Ling Bane into a T bio ball who then needs to split in order to win.
- T can throw EMPs and blanket the entire P army, and they need to put Templars into Prisms to win.
Many people will say that it is unfair to the latter race. But I do feel that most are missing the key point - that the latter, if performed correctly, wins.
The counter to that strategy that lacks micro is a properly executed one with more micro. It may seem “unfair” that one side needs to “work more” but note that in all the above situations, the former either has difficulty micro-ing or will be unlikely to make a difference if they micro more against the latter who is already performing the micro.
< Accuracy of Data Set >
I won’t repeat the same explanation regarding accuracy of the data set, as mentioned in #1.
================================================================================
#3 (-insert race here-) has (-insert unit here-), but this other race doesn’t.
Some of the claims involve:
- Data from specifically chosen replays.
- Data from their own personal games only.
< Races are Asymmetrical >
This is often overlooked when people make their claims. They fail to realise that the 3 races are intended to function / perform / be played differently:
- Z has 1 main production building and has the inject / larvae system; having creep vision / speed at the cost of requiring structures to be on creep; using up drones to build buildings; gradual auto regen but low HP.
- P has warp capabilities to reinforce the front lines quickly but are generally slow moving; pylon system allowing them to build without a worker stuck to the building but risk being unpowered; shields and HP concept but pricer stuff.
- T has basic production buildings that are able to fly when required (allowing interesting strategic plays like a ‘recoverable proxy’) but being add-on reliant; ability to repair most of their stuff; base units that scale well over time.
If you noticed, they are all leveraging off different concepts.
The claim to have one race function like another is simply a flawed one because that will make 2 races the same. And if the races were to be identical, then what is the use of having different races? It would be similar to just having the same race but with a different skin. This was not the original intention when 3 races were created.
< Accuracy of Data Set >
I won’t repeat the same explanation regarding accuracy of the data set, as mentioned in #1.
================================================================================
#4 (-insert unit here-) is OP / imbalanced / needs to be nerfed / useless.
Some of the claims involve:
- Data from websites that show unit cost spent (player) against unit cost taken down (opponent).
- Data from specifically chosen replays.
- Data from their own personal games only.
< Usage of Units Aren’t Measured >
It is crucial to point out that many times, the “how a unit is used” isn’t captured in a lot of statistics collected.
My favourite example would be banelings which are theoretically the most inefficient unit there is in the game. They involve sacrificing the cost (50/25 each) in order to deal damage. If I recall, the only ‘unit’ that functions similarly (sacrificing self) would be a nuke. However, this results in banelings being deemed to be extremely cost ineffective on paper. Similarly, if you micro a BC and always repair it, suddenly it can be the most cost efficient unit in the game.
Factors that affect the numbers include:
- Micro that can result in a unit surviving or dying.
- Small skirmishes (that add up and deviate the ratio).
- Actual mistakes in game (since even pro level players screw up / misclick at times).
< Definition of Balance / Units are Asymmetrical >
This is somewhat similar to the explanations in #1 and #3, just in a different context.
Some common forms of such claims include:
- Broodlords and Carriers lose to Thors.
- VRs can kill most stuff when en masse.
- Lurkers are like burrowed siege tanks with more mobility.
The reply to this is actually that all units are intended to function differently. That is why they have different attack types, different armour types, etc.
For every unit in the game, there will be a feasible counter with another race’s unit. Though note that it is not a direct 1:1 counter (in terms of quantity or functionality). The counter may work differently from the unit itself, but it is a counter nonetheless.
For this, I would side track a little, and highly recommend that all players consider playing the Challenges segment under the WoL campaign. It may not exactly be the most updated (to current meta), but it provides a pretty good understanding regarding unit types (and armour types) that is a consistent concept throughout the SC2 history.
< Accuracy of Data Set >
I won’t repeat the same explanation regarding accuracy of the data set, as mentioned in #1.
================================================================================
#5a (-insert race here-) should not be able to (-insert strategy-)
#5b (-insert race here-) should not be able to (-insert cheese strategy-)
Some of the claims involve:
- Data from specifically chosen replays.
- Data from their own personal games only.
- Data from what they have read from the forums (the more vocal community).
< Choice of Strategy Goes Both Ways >
Imagine playing SC2 and having the game choose one of the strategy below that you have to follow:
- Full Rush
- Timing Attack
- Aggressive Push
- Economic Focus
- Straight to Air
(I got this list from the current A.I. strategy selection in game.)
Many will probably cry foul saying, “But it is my game, I should get to choose how to play how I want!” And the same people are 100% right. The only problem is that they are doing the same thing to their opponents when they are the ones playing.
Often in the forums, you will hear people complaining about how their opponents shouldn’t be allow to do this or that. But I always wonder, if their opponent is allowed to tell them how to play, will they be able to take it then? If not, then why expect the same for their opponent?
< Blizzard Endorses Most Strategies >
Some of the most popular complaints I’ve come across are:
- P should not be allowed to mass carriers.
- T should not be allowed to mass BC / Thors.
(Why no love for Z?
) - P should not be allowed to cannon rush.
- T should not be allowed to proxy / mass reapers early game.
- Z should not be allowed to early pool and ling rush.
My only question to such people is that, wouldn’t you think that after 10 years of SC2, Blizzard would’ve at least considered these thoughts once? The only conclusions that one can draw from the continued existence of these strategies is that:
- Blizzard endorses such strategies; or that
- Everyone at Blizzard is so stupid that these few players (on the forums) seem to know how the game should be played compared to them.
I think it is quite obvious that the answer is #2… no, of course I’m kidding. It is clearly #1. All strategies are viable because strategy in itself is intended to be a gamble.
The entire game is based off the struggle between being greedy vs being safe. It is up to individual players where they would like to draw the line. And when everything finally plays out, you will then look back and see whether you made the right gamble or not.
================================================================================
If you have read till the end, I’d applaud you for it. Not many people have this kind of attention span to read through something this heavy.
I will also be upfront and let you know that the original intention of this post was because I kept needing to type the same explanation over and over again when replying to some of the forums’ posts. I basically got sick of it and thought that I should just create a master post for me to link to.
This way, whenever I want to use a certain explanation, I can just post the link to this thread. Especially since the flow of many of the threads nowadays are pretty much identical, haha.
