It’s not a niche private discussion per se. You just don’t have any idea what you’re talking about (likely parroting some other voices). I’d rather speak with people who know the game that’s all. If you have an opinion on game design, that’s one thing, but balance? No. Can’t really say it nicer than that - no hard feelings.
1 Like
Premier tournaments are generally good, the bad ones are NA premiers,it is basically a three player tournament,Neeb,Astrea,and Scarlett,all of them kinda low level considering the average top players level. Its the major tournaments the label that is hard to define,some of them are really stacked while others not,perfect example the last asus rog, had a really decent prize for the winner and it had lots of good players,the reason it wasnt premier was because the prize for most of players was not very high.
But Inwould say that most players would agree on what tournaments are good or not tonconsider them legit in terms of high level and competition.
I think you have a point. I understand balance at the highest level is what matters the most but fun for players in lower elo should also be considered. In fact, for a healthy game, game quality at lower elo might even be more important for viewership and what not.
2 Likes
Ye, go on insulting, don’t worry.
How would one measure imbalance?
What outcome counts as actual prove?
In retrospective it’s easy. It was buffed/nerfed so it was not balanced. But how to determine what is to begin with?
Let’s say a race is imbalanced. How would you know it?
At this point… I’d prefer the question of which units or mechanics are imbalanced, because all races seem to have their share of the imbalance cake… Terran, Zerg, Protoss are all pretty nuts.
He’s not insulting you though. I understand your point and college’s point of view but he really isnt insulting you at all. He’s saying you lack game knowledge to argue about balance which is honestly right.
The thing is you arent arguing about game balance but rather about game design (a race being easier is a design issue, not a balance issue)
Statistics… why I never use them, because you can shape them as you like. Take the winner alone only and you ignore that every time the adversary was protoss. Ignore playoffs whereas finals has place for 2 race and you get a completely different picture, never mind that playoffs may be 6/8 protoss (we have seen that last year or so in some cases).
This year things look fairly well distributed in playoffs. I cant take winner alone if it is one player over and over, maybe he is that good? Yet everybody was whining that Maru won 3 GSLs in 2018, again statistics ignores HOW. Proxy every game is not proof of balance OK.
But if you take statistics… all they care is the race of the win not how, not why and who.
That’s why I see it in presence and OP may not be exaggerated nowadays but ‘easier to play protoss v terran’ certainly isnt.
Proof? I have been posting so many times some 70 APMer (remember APM > EPM) protoss A mover noobs getting away with skytoss, cheese 1 trick etc. Race is full of that. And on top of that Terran was with cut wings in 2018. That plus all apologism from trolls like goba was enough to change the attitude to such forever. Another example from recent times - the gandhi guy who not only is low apm and doesnt control his units right, complains about much better playing terran. Im not saying every time the protoss wins is based on gimmick but happens a lot, the only matchup I’ve seen so helpless.
But it’s all good, we don’t care about the game much anymore, I certainly don’t just my 2cents from time to time. Maybe that’s why I can waste hundreds of money on playing mobile action strategy… because there is just no proper PC of sc2/war3 caliber game to play. Such a failure, war3 reforged, sc2’s lotv designs.
There are rules in statistics and you either follow those or you’re considered a clown. There are no “opinions”. The sampling of data must be effectively random, there are ways to collect data to accomplish that and test the data to make sure you accomplished it, and if there is enough data then the correlations in the data are valid. It’s literally that simple. Now if you are working with biased data, and want to clean the data up, then that gets extremely complicated really fast. But the moment you start saying “I am going to exclude this and keep this” without even having shown the relevant tests/measures means you’re a total clown and have no flipping clue how data analysis works. The only thing you are doing, at best, is introducing bias and, at worst, catering data to your conclusion. 
The data in sc2replaystats is numerous and effectively random. The data is auto-uploaded by apps. Users aren’t picking and choosing which things they want to upload. The matchmaker makes sure that at least 50% of the people in those replays are selected at random. The correlations in sc2replaystats are valid. Protoss is definitely overpowered across the whole ladder.
ClownWings is legit the dumbest person on these forums. All he does is shouts things he believes but he can’t articulate why he believes them. There is seriously something missing with that guy. And yes, he does insult people because he can’t compete with their arguments. I did the most comprehensive analysis of pro performance. It took over 10,000 lines of code using algorithms he could never hope to comprehend. I could legit make it my PhD thesis. This was his response:
ClownWings is a fantastic example of how low IQ people can be so obnoxiously arrogant. He has no flipping clue what he is talking about. That’s not necessarily a problem. There are MANY great and wonderful virtues other than brains. Some people who are like that will realize they don’t know and will defer to the expertise of smarter people whom they trust. This guy is too arrogant and egotistical to do that. The combination of stupidity and arrogance is a nexus of complete and utter disaster. This guy, I 100% guarantee, is a walking talking hurricane of destruction in real life. Everything he touches will be ruined and he will blame everyone else for his failures.
I’ve had to deal with a lot of people like that. I was brought on to take care of a mess that this lady created. She was building a triplex and had no flipping clue about anything related to construction (which frankly is mind blowing considering how simple construction work is). Anyway, everything she touched was a complete disaster. She hired people just as dumb as she was. She was convinced the plumber she hired was the best plumber in existence. The guy forgot to vent a toilet and toilet water would back up in the kitchen sink after the toilet was flushed. That was discovered AFTER people had moved in. That was ONE of his mistakes. People like that are like a bulldozer running over everything else and leaving complete destruction in their wake.
3 Likes
Let’s see what some people with game knowledge think in 2021…
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSGAQpSJjKc
I think denying this situation so hard is getting is childish at this point.
1 Like
K asking pro player on the show can say all to hype so there no valid
Like I said, the answer is so obvious it’s really a matter of if you have the IQ to read graphs. The protoss bar is so massive on every chart that can be generated that it’s plain delusional to say otherwise. So there are two categories of people who disagree: 1) troglodytes who can’t read graphs and 2) hyper-biased clowns who are lying through their teeth. There are no other options.
Make a list of every person who got the wrong answers. They are permanently on the list of irrelevant voices. If you can’t get the answer right this time, you will NEVER get it right.
1 Like
3Rd type you can set statistic to your viewe it same no valid
I see it in two ways: there’s big picture interaction and small picture. In the big picture, you usually look at winrates from a large sample of games played. In the small picture, you look at what units tend to cause the most upset in a match or vacuum space (widow mines, disruptors, swarm hosts). It’s a tough question. The goal of this thread is to get people thinking and prove that many of the trolls here are crying for attention.
The key is to take a large enough sample to represent the population. If you trust me to look at what you give me objectively, I will give an answer to the best of my abilities. Like I said, if you approach the discussion rationally, I will reciprocate. One of the goals of this thread is to get rid of all the cherry picking that is taking place on both sides. Hopefully there is a way to consolidate tournament data in one place.
This is a low level game design issue and it’s understandable. It’s easier for anyone to think “just tech to skytoss and ez win” than to either mass enough bio to push through or make vikings and micro them to target fire carriers. However, both races have the tools to deal with skytoss - this is evident at the top level.
I can summarize your entire existence in a few lines:
BatZ: makes up nonsense
Me: brings up valid counterargument
BatZ: talks about himself - quote below
Literally a walking contradiction. Just go back to any one of your past posts and you will see me pointing out a contradiction you never address. In fact, I might just dig them all back up if I can find your old banned accounts just to show once again that you are just a child that starts crying whenever things stop going your way.
1 Like
Ooooooookay.
So according to protoss players, opinions below pro level aren’t valid because they aren’t pro. And pro opinions aren’t valid because they are pros.
I think we have a proof by contradiction here.
1 Like
Please explain to me how Protoss can win more in GM by a 15% margin and yet you can call this “balanced”. Balance has a very definite definition: “arranged in good proportions”. A proportion is “a part, share, or number considered in comparative relation to a whole.”
So it is simply a fact that Protoss does not meet the definition of balanced. It does not have “good proportions.” Their proportion of wins is 15% higher than Zerg’s. Their proportion of GM representation is, at times, almost double of Zerg’s. Their proportion of tournament wins is 3x larger than Zerg’s. These facts cannot be described as “balanced” by the definition of the word “balanced”.
1 Like
Game race cant play by own need a player you may agree it player in good shape
I’m going to get ahead of myself and start linking all the contradictions here:
I could go on with how many times I and others have taken down all your points. We have a huge history that you keep denying for obvious reasons.
I seriously don’t get how you keep saying this, and then say this:
As for this:
As far as I know, 100% of the replays that go into that website are submitted by players. I want to ask the rhetorical question: “need I say more?” But you will take that as a challenge and say something even crazier than before. If you can contradict the very description they put in their website, I am all ears.
Kid, this is VERY simple. Does a 3 to 1 proportion classify as “balanced” by the definition of the word “balanced”? This is a true or false question. You can pick “true” or you can pick “false”. Those are the only two options. Is 3 to 1 “arranged in good proportions”? That’s what the word “balanced” means. This is a VERY simple question.
1 Like
Do you want to argue with your “enemies” on the internet? Nobody cares anymore. It’s like arguing against someone who thinks the earth is flat.
The guy you are talking to IS the flat earther and he’s on a mission to prove the earth is flat. His conclusion is so radically detached from reality, he must resort to reversing the definitions to words:
1 Like