[crAzerk]

How to discuss Balance By crAzerk

DISCLAIMER: As much as I seem to state all these definitively, they are obviously just my views. Feel free to debate.

+ [Read more] +

3 sections:

• 2 Questions to determine if it's a balance issue
• Why we shouldn't discuss balance for lower level players
• What is not a balance issue?

2 Questions to determine if it's a balance issue

Balance is a favourite topic of discussion among SC2 players. Are banelings balanced? Are FFs too cheap? Are stimmed marauders ridiculously strong? etcetc.
It is the natural instinct to say something ELSE besides what you are using is imbalanced, especially after you have lost to it.

However, is this fair? Is this even logical to do so?


Whenever we look at a particular race mechanic/strategy and want to argue if it's balanced or not, I think we need to ask 2 questions:

1) Is there a reason why they NEED this mechanic/strategy? (If not, they would be severely disadvantaged against other races)

2) Is there a way for other races to overcome this mechanic/strategy with comparably reasonable means? (Or does it have no reasonable counter whatsoever)
*(Just to explain what this means, 'comparably reasonable means' refers to being able to counter it without excessive effort. For example, if there's something I can do with 1 click that you take 10 clicks to counter, something is wrong. However, if it just requires 3 clicks from you, it's still reasonably even)

Only if the answers for these are both No will we have an issue of balance.

I will do 2 case studies on 2 possible topics of debate about balance to illustrate this.

NOTE: I am not interested in debating whether these are legitimate balance issues or not; these examples are just to show you what I meant by using the 2 questions as a framework/pre-requisite for discussing balance.

----------------------------------------

Case Study 1 - Forcefields


WHAT: FFs have long been criticized as being imbalanced. Being able to manipulate terrain, split armies in two, delay pushes, etc. These all seem so crazily strong! They need an energy reduction! Unfair! Too cheap!

Hold your horses cowboy, let's ask ourselves the 2 questions now.

1) Is there a reason why they NEED this mechanic? (If not, they would be severely disadvantaged against other races)
Let's just look at the point about positioning, and look at the other races:
Zerg has creep spread, which gives them no doubt a significant advantage in positioning and for flanking.
Terran have stim to quickly reposition and get a good concave, or utilize medivacs to drop around another's army even.
If Protoss did NOT have Forcefields, or they cost too much to the point where Protoss cannot utilize it effectively, they WOULD be severely disadvantaged in terms of army positioning every single fight.

2) Is there a way for other races to overcome this mechanic/strategy with comparably reasonable means? (Or does it have no reasonable counter whatsoever)
Zerg: Baneling drops, Ultralisks stomping, using superior movement speed to get around.
Terran: With greater mobility, they can try to get a better concave before engagement. EMPs! Prevention is better than cure, as they say.

(You may then try to argue 'Wait wait but these require high tech, while Sentries are tier 1! imba!'
But you should also agree that it is not until the middle-game when Protoss can have sufficient Sentries (with enough energy saved out) to utilize FFs in the way you deem imba. This is more than enough time to get out the potential counters)



Case Study 2 - Zerg reproduce too quickly (i.e. 300 food Zerg army)


WHAT? : Zerg's ability to re-max out quickly after they lose their 200/200 army is commonly criticized as being imbalanced and unfair and wtfwhydoeshehavesomanyunitsdidn'tIjustwipehimout?

Is it really that unfair? Let's look at the 2 questions again.

1) Is there a reason why they NEED this mechanic? (If not, they would be severely disadvantaged against other races)
It is commonly agreed that a Zerg army of equal food against any other race will be outmatched. I will ignore irrelevant points like 'How about 100 food of corruptors vs 100 food of colussus?', I'm obviously talking about relatively even compositions (e.g. roach/hydra/corruptor vs stalker/sentry/colussus/(voidrays))
(Also not talking about like 200 ultralisks vs 200 marines, etc)

With relatively even compositions and even micro, Protoss/Terran armies will be able to wipe out Zerg armies more easily - if they COULD NOT remax out quickly, wouldn't this mean Protoss/Terran can easily win every game just by turtling till 200 with a 'safe' unit composition and just crush Zerg in one fight?

Zerg needs to reproduce fast simply because they die fast. If they could not, they'll just get steamrolled by their Terran / Protoss counterparts.

2) Is there a way for other races to overcome this mechanic/strategy with comparably reasonable means? (Or does it have no reasonable counter whatsoever)
Clearly, if you keep up with the Zerg's macro, you should be able to reinforce your 'winning army' which just cleared the Zerg's with more units, and you wouldn't be at a severe disadvantage.
Also, there may be underlying problems too - Zerg macroing too easily without your harass (thus they have enough resources to remax so quickly),

And it's not as if Terran and Protoss cannot replenish their armies after losing them relatively quickly in the mid-late game - multiple production facilities! Though obviously not as quickly as Zerg can, and already explained why Zerg needs to above.


And another point that I think needs to be addressed:
Is there any purpose in talking about whether something is balanced 'at lower levels'?



A common argument brought up when discussing balance is that Blizzard is ignoring the lower tier players (BSGP leagues) when making their balance changes, how can they do this, they are paying players too, etc etc

However, let me suggest why balancing for lower level players is pointless.

Other issues besides race mechanics
The obvious reason as to why complaints about balance from lower level players may not be valid is this - There may simply be other issues they have that are causing them to lose and hence have that idea of racial imbalance.

I remember very distinctly one of my friends complaining to me 'Zerg is too imba! They always overwhelm me with so many units because they can produce far too quickly! How the heck do I match their economy?!' (he is Terran)

So I watched his replay to find out what was wrong, and I realized he
- Consistently had high energy on his CC and didn't use for MULES
- Had too little production facilities, so he was inefficiently queuing up many units at a time
- Didn't rally units to the battle while the Zerg did

As you can see, his perceived 'imbalance' of the Zerg race stemmed from his own mistakes and incompetence at the Terran race. It is clearly an invalid comment, at least in this situation.

For instance, you may be lacking this mechanic, so I balance the game for you.
A few weeks later, you have improved and you are proficient at the mechanic. Won't the game become imbalanced again?


Difficulty for lower levels =/= balance issue
There seems to be a misconception that if something is difficult for lower level players, it is imbalanced.
For example, some people have complained the Zerg is too hard to play at lower levels, and thus this is unfair as there's lower room for error for them as opposed to other races.

People need to understand that having varying difficulty between races is not an issue of balance that needs to be adjusted. It is variety.
What makes Starcraft 2 awesome is that the 3 races have different strengths and different skill curves, to suit different individual's preferences. Just ask any player why he chose the race he plays, and he'll be able to give you some basic reasons at least.

As long as the task in question is reasonably difficult that you don't have to be a pro that practices 12 hours a day to acquire, it is not imbalanced. This is quite similar to the 2nd question above that states 'comparably reasonable means'.

For instance, it may be harder to pick up the macro mechanics of Zerg, but once you can inject pretty consistently and spread creep well, your strength as a Zerg suddenly shoots up considerably, and it'll be other races having problems with you.


What is not a balance issue?




Insufficient knowledge/skill =/= imbalance
Question: Name me a strategy that is easy to execute but difficult to defend.
Many of you will immediately blurt out the strategies you have lost to - 2 rax, 4 gate, roach/ling all in.

Firstly, all of these have reasonably adequate counters to them - pull Drones, spine/roach/ling, simcity till cannons. (Won't go into detail)
Low level players may consistently lose to these strategies but that's because they haven't learned how to beat them, and they lack scouting, etc. These are not balance issues, as already mentioned above.

Next, I know you will say 'but it's unfair because it's much easier to execute them than it is to defend them!'
Is it really? I'll quote what I said above:

Originally Posted by crAzerk

2) Is there a way for other races to overcome this mechanic/strategy with comparably reasonable means? (Or does it have no reasonable counter whatsoever)
*(Just to explain what this means, 'comparably reasonable means' refers to being able to counter it without excessive effort. For example, if there's something I can do with 1 click that you take 10 clicks to counter, something is wrong. However, if it just requires 3 clicks from you, it's still reasonably even)

Let's just use the simple example of 2 Barracks+bunker rush against Zerg.
Yes, it needs slightly more micro on the Zerg's part to know what to focusfire while Terran just scoots and shoots.

Terribly unfair advantage? No.

If you want to insist that it's unfair, how about banelings vs Marines? Is it fair that Terran need to do marine splitting (which requires more delicate micro than countering a bunker rush) to counter your A+move banelings?



Conclusion - So what is a balance issue?

To conclude, I'll sum up as succinctly as possible.
A balance issue is when a race has a particular strategy or mechanic that gives them a superior, unfair advantage over other races.

Also, an observation I've had is -
There is no such thing as perfect balance.

You can tweak the mana costs, the mineral cost, the movement speed of every little intricacy of every race, in trying to achieve that ideal balance state, where the only thing that determines match results is player skill.
However, being humans, we are always seeking to improve, and to find that particular thing to exploit to give us the edge in games. And thus, new strategies/exploits will continually be discovered, and the balance will seemingly shift once again.

What we can do, as sound-minded individuals, is to not hastily suggest imbalance, but try to adapt to the ever-changing metagame of our beloved game of Starcraft 2.

~~~

I am genuinely interested in what other people think about this, so please do leave your comments.

However, if you're going to be an idiot and try to flame me or respond in some ridiculous manner, (e.g.

You really have a spine up your butt about me don't you.

I won't even bother reading your comment.

As they say, don't bother arguing with an idiot. He'll just take you down to his level and beat you with experience.

+ [Liked this? (Dont click if you didnt)] +

I'd greatly greatly appreciate it if you could click here (this basically opens this post up in forums view) and +rep for me! Thanks alot!

Quick Comments

	Apth:	Well thought out, logical, nicely presented. Overall badassery.
	Satu:	1a2a3a'd my views on balance discussion (obviously you're protoss)
	TAXanT:	Great read.
	EveJeonSa:
	Cute:
	Zanderax:	A cool headed look at balence
	QuestionMark:	^^
	TcaTX:	Thank you! Summed it up extremely well!
	ToRDeathsFang:	Crazerk you sexy beast
	pikk0n:

[Paroxysm]

You have literally taken everything that I have been thinking recently and put it into words. Kudos to you! Good job yet again!

[Satu]

This is one of the best articles I've seen, definitely your best.

IMO, I dont think any player can actually discuss balance while wanting to achieve something out of it, such as game changes. 99% of this game is currently based on player skill to determine wins currently, imo. Time is better spent improving yourself rather than the game, because even if there is a game change that you want that is implemented due to constant ranting, the time you've invested into that will mean that you will probably not have a skill level high enough to beat usual strategies. Although that would depend on heaps of time-based issues.

So, its basically not worth it for any players time-wise.

[crAzerk]

Don't quite get your rep comment Zergtastic but thanks!

Yea, was getting quite frustrated with the comments about balance in the other thread which Tom started, so I decided to write this piece.

Thanks for all the +rep guys! you all!

[Next_rim]

e.g. roach/hydra/corruptor vs stalker/sentry/colussus/(voidrays)

I don't think this example quiet illustrates your approach. Stalker sentry colossus is a counter to roach hydra corruptor. Nobody needs fast production to reproduce a bad army comp. Zerg needs larva-based production to make their army more cost-efficient. Let me illustrate on a simplified example:

Left side - Protoss and zerg on 1 base, who just want to make zealots and zerglings (most basic unit). Right side - protoss and zerg want to double production rate (and double economy to support it). Check out % change of variable cost to fixed cost. The more production zerg has, due to designed mechanics their units become relatively cheaper. For protoss to double production, it costs more in investment into structures. If mid game roach/hydra corruptor ball would lose to protoss deathball, in late game it can actually win, because zerg has inherently more abundant resources. It has nothing to do with RATE of production, just the implied COST of having the POSSIBILITY to make 200/200.

FC = Fixed cost = cost of production facilities
VC = Variable cost = average unit cost

Attached is jpg screenshot of an excel table i just threw together, in zip (cuz can't upload xls or jpg this big on forum). Sorry for inconvenience, I can't host it anywhere from work.

[crAzerk]

Stalker sentry colossus is a counter to roach hydra corruptor.

Not quite, I think they basically counter each other assuming equal micro,just that zerg units would probably dissipate faster. Zerg was using this unit comp vs the deathball for ages (before the latest infestor/bling trend) and succeeding so not quite sure what you meant?

I'm sorry I don't get what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase the main point of that please?

Like for instance

If mid game roach/hydra corruptor ball would lose to protoss deathball, in late game it can actually win, because zerg has inherently more abundant resources.

What's the different between mid/late game? Are you referring to the fact that 300/200 Zerg beats 200/200 Protoss? This doesn't really rebut my point right?

Thanks for the feedback next_rim but need more clarification

[aztecx]

Thumbs up if you clicked the button down the bottom without actually liking the article!!!!!

Quick Comments

	Aean(::	u were wrong. so thumbs down
	holyforker:	i did like it...

[Next_rim]

I was trying to say - The more production zerg has, the cheaper his units become, because zerg prodcution structures are cheaper. The later into the game it is, the cheaper zerg army becomes.

This means that zerg ability to rebuild FAST has nothing to do with 300/200 vs 200/200 issue. What is really behind it is the COST of setting up such production. In other words, those who whine about zerg building 200/200 with 1 click don't know what they are talking about. Now, let me rephrase your case study #2

Zerg ability to rebuild CHEAPER army in LATE game is imbalanced.

1) Is there a reason why they NEED this mechanic? (If not, they would be severely disadvantaged against other races)

I'm actually not sure I can answer this question. I don't have a solid understanding of cost efficiency in a macro perspective. But a dynamic cost curve definitely plays into zerg's hand. Thus all the variety of macro styles, and people unwilling to play early game agressive zerg. Do zerg NEED it? It's part of the race design, for sure. Otherwise, how can you play a swarm of zerg if you can't afford it?

2) Is there a way for other races to overcome this mechanic/strategy with comparably reasonable means? (Or does it have no reasonable counter whatsoever)

The only two general approaches to this - kill zerg before zerg gets out of control, or cripple his economy enough to...break even in cost efficiency. Still, sounds discouraging to me

[BordZ]

Once again I disagree about the lower levels, they paid for the game as well and therefore also have a vested interest in games balance through there level to and including the upper tiers. Its not the low to mid tiers fault that the top tier has the potential to earn a living from SC. However it was a nice article and I do see your perspective so we will have to agree to disagree (on no. 2 at least).

*I added rep, cause it was a good article and not just someone trying to shut down noobs without any logic or reason

[nGenLight]

I would gladly fight a 800 food worth of Hydra/Roach/Corruptor with 200 food of Sentry/Stalker/Collosus. That is hardly the point. I really doubt your understanding what Protoss at the higher level are complaining about.

Nevertheless, good fundamental assessment of the advantages/necessity of the Protoss/Zerg race.

[crAzerk]

@ngenlight & @next_rim & everyone talking about the roach/hydra/corruptor / 300 food Zerg example:
I think you all are missing the point of this. The examples were just used to illustrate what I meant by asking those 2 questions. Whether they are legitimate balance problems at the high level (do pros really complain about FFs?) is NOT what I am interested in discussing.

I could have just done without the 2 case studies, but I wanted to make the point clearer - I was just providing a framework for thinking about and discussing balance. If you want to contend what I have written, you are actually saying 'No, those are wrong, irrelevant questions to ask when talking about balance', then we'll have a discussion, and perhaps you can enlighten us on more relevant questions to ask.

Hope you understand what I'm saying here.

@BordZ don't see the rep
Ok but seriously, if you still say this:

Once again I disagree about the lower levels, they paid for the game as well and therefore also have a vested interest in games balance through there level to and including the upper tiers.

I don't think you quite understood what I was saying in the article!

I totally agree with you that ALL players have a vested interest in game balance, including lower tier players. DEFINITELY. No doubt. It seems unfair to exclude lower tier paying players from the balance equation.

HOWEVER, what I have been trying to bring across is that the 'struggles' that the lower tier players are NOT balance issues. They are merely a problem of insufficient skill and mechanics, which doesn't make any sense trying to balance for them.
For instance, you may be lacking this mechanic, so I balance the game for you.
A few weeks later, you have improved and you are proficient at the mechanic. Won't the game become imbalanced again?

If you were actually contesting the 2nd point in the 'lower levels' section about difficulty not being a balance issue, then I can't really argue much, because I have already presented my points for that in the article, and I know it is definitely a controversial issue in which different views simply cannot be changed.


I'll make edits to the article to try to accentuate these points more clearly. Thanks for the feedback guys!

[nGenLight]

I'm not saying you are wrong, and I think you wrote a great article. I just didn't think the second case study is that relative important as opposed to the more staggering issues that is generating balance talks such as case study one.

[crAzerk]

And I thank you for your comment once again sir, and I'll just repeat what I have edited in the post so that people who don't re-look at it will see it:

NOTE: I am not interested in debating whether these are legitimate balance issues or not; these examples are just to show you what I meant by using the 2 questions as a framework/pre-requisite for discussing balance.

[nGenLight]

I'm sorry, the only reason I'm associating this as a real balance issue is because of this comment "Yea, was getting quite frustrated with the comments about balance in the other thread which Tom started, so I decided to write this piece.".

Just felt like you had a vendetta against the Protosses who are suggesting the possibility of imbalance, my bad.

[Next_rim]

The examples were just used to illustrate what I meant by asking those 2 questions.

You can't illustrate a framework with a badly formulated question, that's what I've been trying to convey. Case #1 is fine, it did what you intended, and everyone got the main idea of the article. We are just nitpicking it, so the website attracts high-caliber players, as well as other community members, with thought-through content.

[crAzerk]

@ngenLight - Oh no, whatever comments I have about the whole issue of possible Protoss imbalance can be found in that thread (lengthy ones too) which I hope you have read.
The 'comments about balance' I'm referring to weren't entirely talking about the Protoss issue, but just absurd comments in general. I think if you browse through that thread you'll find out what I mean.

You can't illustrate a framework with a badly formulated question

Badly formulated... question? Or example?

If you did mean question - the questions ARE the framework. So you don't think they are good questions to ask?
But anyway, what does the strength of my argument have anything to do whether the framework is good? They are irrelevant. Do you get what I'm saying?

But I do understand that of course, it would be good if I had a better example to provide in the 2nd Case Study. Basically adds more credence to the article. Any suggestions here?


Yup, I've no problems with your nitpicking don't worry, I do make edits based on feedback as you can see. Thanks for it Keep it coming!

[Meatex]

I am genuinely interested in what other people think about this, so please do leave your comments.

However, if you're going to be an idiot and try to flame me or respond in some ridiculous manner, (e.g.
Quote:
You really have a spine up your butt about me don't you.
I won't even bother reading your comment.

As they say, I know never to argue with an idiot. He'll just take me down to his level and beat me with experience.

Thanks, will i get an "Idiot" achievement?
good to know that you're right and i'm always wrong despite me providing some evidence to my arguments and you just saying im wrong. You are free to disagree with me and provide counters to my arguments. but please don't use your "position" as writer to disrespect me. Its unprofessional and bm
good job on the article none the less even if i don't agree with some points - see what i did there

[crAzerk]

YOU are talking about respect? Go through your previous posts and see if you showed any.

good to know that you're right and i'm always wrong despite me providing some evidence to my arguments and you just saying im wrong.

No idea what you're saying here, but I disengaged from the discussion there because I was tired of dealing with your attitude.
In fact, I even wrote a big portion of this article in response to what you said about lower levels. And of course, please do read the big red 'DISCLAIMER' at the start. I never said that I'm right for sure.

+ Show +

And in case you were wondering, I didn't publish this on front page news to abuse any 'position' I have. I posted it as a thread on the General forums and nirvana moved it because supposedly it was good.
Thus, I don't see how I have 'used my 'position' ' in any way to disrespect you. What I really do is behind the scenes work in coordinating the scene recaps + articles that you see. I won't publish my own work though, it just seems weird.

I don't engage in flame wars, and I think comments like the one quoted in the article are idiot-worthy and don't deserve a reply. It has nothing to do with whatever 'position' I have. Anyone would feel similarly about it.

Thanks for your comments, regardless of whatever ill-feeling you may have or the sarcastic undertone.

(edited the concluding statement of the article, if you felt it was directly attacking you)

[Next_rim]

Badly formulated... question? Or example?

Example that is.

For case #2, might want to do a "mules r imbaz" example. It is much easier to understand, than zerg cost efficiency curves over time. Try "Mules taking 0 supply is imba", and you will earn all protoss respect you possibly can

[Meatex]

Disengaged? I do believe that was the second and last post I made in that protoss thread.
I was just noting how you are so much more antogonistic towards me than any other posters. Maybe I felt wrong just like you feeling that my having a problem with the way you phrase your comments towards me is idiot worthy.
You are meant to be a writer so I think its fair to believe everything you wrote was carefully considered so perhaps you can see where I am coming from. (I would hope so at least)
Thank you for admitting the final comments were directly attacking me and editing them out at least.

And about my comment regarding abusing your position... It says under your name head article writer. That means you have a responsibility to represent the community in any and all posts you make. That means in future you should be a little more thoughtful in the beginning of the comments you make. So you don't have to edit it out later.
I will go ahead and assume you will be editing in the future...