[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: