[ToR.Arnor]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Chess is balanced if it's in real time.

Do the world a huge favor mate and NEVER reproduce

*EDIT this isnt in reply to the above comment but to all the comments youve made since you slithered out of your mothers birth canal

[syfChadMann]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

If it is turn based? probably not as the player making the first move would suggestively have the advantage.

In a dancing sense? Perhaps...

In a real time sense where you both make your moves at the same time and dance... probably.

Okay - So now Chess isn't balanced -_-

Try Go.. that game is the closest thing to balance.

[AtlasMeCH]

It is balanced and it is symmetrical

and it is balanced because it is symmetrical

You can start playing asymmetrical maps then and start seeing how much people complain imbalance.


There as to be A DEGREE of symmetry for there to be balance worthy of taking seriously.

[Meatex]

lets look at baduk (also known as igo)
its a board game involving placing black or white stones on a board to surround empty space (territory)
In an even game black will go first - to offset this advantage white player gets around 7 points
Hundreds of years of testing has lead to the conclusion that first move advantage is worth 7 points or so and the game is balanced.

You are completely ignoring game design offsetting advantages with disadvantages.
Warping building doesn't require worker after the action - this is offset by needing a pylon
You are systematically ignoring good points people make with childish and ill formed rebuttals

Truth is truth

Just because you say it is so does not make it truth. You have provided no evidence to anything you have said and cry foul at anyone who disagrees with you. You are not welcome in this community if you are going to continue such blatant trolling/attention whoring
Check your attitude or leave

[mGGDaedalus]

Originally Posted by FaDeMeatex

lets look at baduk (also known as igo)
its a board game involving placing black or white stones on a board to surround empty space (territory)
In an even game black will go first - to offset this advantage white player gets around 7 points
Hundreds of years of testing has lead to the conclusion that first move advantage is worth 7 points or so and the game is balanced.

dude I bought this game on iphone and I gotta say, it makes starcraft seem like a walk in the park lol, makes my brain hurt.

Also, back on topic, in many ways the mirror matches to me seem at least as hard (if not harder) to balance as the other matchups, which kind of goes against the theory of achieving complete symmetry between the races. Balance is not only about giving the different sides the same options, it's about making sure that each race has viable options to deal with anything thrown at them so that all races have a chance of winning.

To say that starcraft dev team threw together starcraft design with no philosophies in mind is both inaccurate and ignorant I think.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Hey, thanks Atlas, I'm now a Hellion.

As for the balanced because it's symmetrical, there have been massive balance discussions surrounding Chess for years and years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-m...ntage_in_chess

As people get better it seems like it's getting harder and harder to win as Black in Chess, though it's getting easier to force a draw. This would suggest that the game is not balanced.

Go check out a couple of balance articles on sirlin.net. This guy was the guy that re-balanced Super Street Fighter II Turbo when he created HD Remix (with the help of a dev team of course ). He has every balance decision he made documented, how they came up with the different ideas and all of the failed balance attempts as well. Street Fighter is an incredibly asymmetrical game, but he managed to achieve a fairly good balance. You'll notice that when he talks about different match-ups, he doesn't talk about symmetry or inversion, just about what tools each character has and what they need added or taken away to give the other characters a fair go.

[Bendy]

I get the feeling OP has recently taken a class in design and learned some new words...

You're speaking on such a high level of abstraction it's hard to comprehend what you're actually arguing.

[Tom]

I am experiencing deja vu with this chess discussion.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by Tom

I am experiencing deja vu with this chess discussion.

Sorry, Tom, I just thought it was pertinent to the current discussion.

[Satu]

Well, I think the main problem in this thread was that no one agreed with your points or the conclusion of the changes that should be made. But I stumbled across something that could possibly be a better change in the game than what you've said. Here, you won't believe it...

You Tube

You Tube

Giraffes are going to save esports. Thankyou Atlas, we will be forever greatful that you led us down the path of finding this most intelligent solution.

(Its a joke...)

[Cyanide]

Originally Posted by satuspr

well, i think the main problem in this thread was that no one agreed with your points or the conclusion of the changes that should be made. But i stumbled across something that could possibly be a better change in the game than what you've said. Here, you won't believe it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyl-vube9o

giraffes are going to save esports. Thankyou atlas, we will be forever greatful that you led us down the path of finding this most intelligent solution.

http://i.imgur.com/v8l77.jpg

(its a joke...)

nooooooooo jimmmmmmmmmmyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!

[Cyanide]

ZvT ZvP TvP ZvZ PvP TvT

This game is balanced 50% of the time. Close enough.

Quick Comments

xGKingdelete:

[Dox]

**** YOU INTERNET. Why do you give people like this a voice?

[syfChadMann]

Originally Posted by Dox

**** YOU INTERNET. Why do you give people like this a voice?

Everyone should be permitted to have an opinion.. this guy is just misinformed noob that needs to learn the game before he becomes a balance designer.

Quick Comments

Dox:

I don't think you realise which person I was referring to. ;)

[syfMiley]

I don't EVEN know where this thread is going now.

[ToRDeathsFang]

hmm, 100 posts in just under 8 hours. I declare this a new record.

In my opinion, i think everybody who posted about balance in this thread and got pissed off at this guy just got 'd extremely hard.

[TABjornbrandr]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

What seems to have been overlooked in Sc2 and just starcraft in general, do not ask me how, is that in order to have 3 unique race designs that are balanced, symmetry is a necessity...

By definition, if the races share an absolute 3 way symmetry, they cannot be unique.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But now there is the issue of achieving an optimal uniqueness of design between all 3 races.

Optimal uniqueness is not a term; to be unique is to be different to everything else. You'll looking for the ideal variations of mechanics and playstyles between races.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Achieving symmetry between two unique races is simple, you just make the design of each race in opposition to each other by inverting the design and then you have two totally unique races but maintain balance.

This is not at all correct; mathematically, with n and 1/n being reciprocals, they are not symmetrical. If you plot f(n) and f(1/n) you will find that the two functions do not share symmetry.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

3 races is more complex because you can not have 3 totally unique designs, they can now only, at best, be partially (50% unique and 50% similar) to one another.

Again, you cannot be a percentage or fraction unique. By definition, you are either unique or not. As for mechanics, qualitatively a similarity/difference comparison is acceptable, but quantitatively one would have to ascertain the magnitude of the change in performance that different mechanic and unit variations would provide. In short, just because you've changed x/10 mechanics for race one, x/10 mechanics for race two and x/10 mechanics for race 3, not all races have been changed to an equal magnitude, due to the varying interactions between the changes of design.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

This yes and no principle can be referred to as a paradox.

Incorrect; a paradox is an occurence that requires the end product to initiate the original component in order to result in the final product. Being sort of like x race, but not quite like x race, is not a paradox.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Paradoxi have been a major root theme to the field of philosophy itself, and this mathematical concept of 3 unique bodies generate paradoxi so purely, it can be used as solid evidence that philosophy has an intimate relationship with math via the number 3.

Mathematically, not philosophically, you will find the number three interesting when you consider co-dependant variables in pure mathematics or competing equilibria in chemistry, or simultaneous equations when solving for three unknown variables, but there is nothing inherently philosophical about the number three. Of all the numbers, 1, 0 and i are probably the most 'game-changing'.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But because only partial uniqueness between 3 races can be attained, generating an opposite design from one race to the next by a means of inversion becomes somewhat obscure and unclear.

Again, you're completely misunderstanding the mathematical application of inverting a function. A reciprocal function is a reciprocal only to the original function. The original function is a reciprocal to the reciprocal function. That is all there is to it mathematically. You are attempting to use a qualitative analysis for a quantitative response; it is not the same thing and cannot be treated as such.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

In starcraft, the terran and protoss races produce offense linearly separate from their main base which also produces linearly. Neither economic unit is permanently lost when making defense.

Zerg does not produce linearly, but SHARES production between offense, economy, and overlord...

This is supposed to be made up for by having non linear production, and they do to a degree.

However, when it comes to macro, defensive structures are essential when you are in the "economic" (non warrior) mode of production.

This point here is where you shall have to forgive my relative lack of experience compared to the higher and much more accomplished players in the region/world, but my points will stand none-the-less.
The Zerg economy is based around the concept of inject cycles and changing between varying degrees of drone and unit production. Defensive structures are essential to any race when defending something of a magnitude that cannot be held off without said structures, such as spore crawlers to help against cloak banshee when still on hatch tech. However, when not facing a composition that demands a particular structural response, the best way to drone up is to maintain map control. One can just as easily argue that for the Zerg to drone up, they must have sufficient units to command the progression of the game. This is the format I subscribe to and I believe most/all professional players will tell you the same thing. Just because you cannot drone non-stop does not mean that you must have defensive structures in order to drone up.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

The problem is that you simultaneously must be sacrificing a drone permanently for that defense structure when you make it.

What has been overlooked, is that in order to have symmetry, balance, and beauty, zerg's defense structures, spore and spine crawler, should have produced linearly from the hatchery itself.

It should have always been this way... it should have been this way in broodwar, the sunk and spore colony producing linearly from the hatchery itself.

The first issue here is that you're equating the loss of the drone to being able to build defensive structures from the hatchery. However, the important point to note is that these structures have ZERO larva cost from your total 200/200. Whilst you lose your drone, you free up the opportunity to reproduce that drone. For a race that is larva centric, the current system is essential in producing a respectable balance.
Furthermore, by producing from the hatchery, one may find insufficient time to place spines for holding off an all-in attack without pre-producing, a concept that directly contravenes the reactive play-style of the Zerg race. This pre-production would also gimp the economy to a greater magnitude than the current system.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

It utilizes the inversion principle for generating uniqueness between race designs while retaining symmetry.

No, I'm afraid that simply isn't true. There is no inversion principle at work here at all. Again, you are using the completely wrong term for what you endeavor to say.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Terran and protoss produce offense linearly.... zerg produces defense linearly...
Protoss can suddenly warp in mass amounts of defense...
Zerg should not be able to because they have no need to due to being able to generate offense so quickly.

Zerg does not produce defence in a linear fashion. Please do not use a term that you cannot comprehend.
The Protoss warp-in mechanic is a 'burst production' that provides relatively immediate reinforcement. Similar to the Larva Inject of the Zerg. Similar to Reactors (to a lesser extent) from Terran. That is why Zerg doesn't have a warp-in mechanic.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But someone "thought" they were creative when they would give zerg a so called "Defensive" unit (queen) and have it produce from the hatchery thinking that it would be the perfect solution to zerg.

it is simply not, and the fact that the queen costs 150 minerals compared to the 100 mineral spine/spore crawler is sheer insanity.

The queen offers mobility with defense that cannot be achieved with spore/spine crawlers. I'd rather have two queens to kill a void ray than 2 spore crawlers. Perhaps you're just using the Queen in the wrong way. Keep in mind the Queen also provides the macro mechanic for Zerg, as well as creep spread; a highly important component in base defense - another thing you are selectively ignoring. Creep provides a huge defensive boon due to the extended mobility and vision.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I also want to add one more VERY SOUND piece of reasoning to support my point.

Through out the game of starcraft, you can notice a pattern of design which exists as 2 similar, 1 different, or 2 same one different.

For example, the barrack and the gateway both cost 150 while the spawning pool costs 200.

Or how the zergling and the zealot are both melee while the marine is missile.

Or how the zergling and the marine are both small while the zealot is medium sized.

There is a concept design for each race. Each race is given a Tier 1 unit. In order to maintain balance, the arbitrary qualities of melee/ranged must be balanced by a mathematical constraint; that is the build time of the production facility, the built time of the unit itself, the cost of the production facility and the cost of the unit. These constraints arise because of the inherent design of the units, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Then the question is perhaps, "What do the zealot and the marine share that the zergling does not have?"

Here you are reading into the situation far deeper than you should, keep in mind what is said above about the arbitrary qualities determining the constraints for unit production.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

You can see this 2 same 1 different pattern woven through out the game, but when it comes to the economic functions of each race

There is no apparent 2 similar 1 different pattern implemented... Why doesn't blizzard adhere to the 2 similar 1 different design pattern on such a basic yet critical level?

Just for the moment I will pretend your argument has weight and simply say "Protoss and Terran build workers from the main building one at a time, Zerg doesn't." There's your '2 similar 1 different' pattern that you wanted.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Protoss: Warp
Terran: Contruct (Momentary economic loss)
Zerg: Sacrifice (Permanent economic loss)

Note that the 'permanent economic loss' for Zerg also results in free larva. This free larva creates a surplus of supply and therefore overlord production is lessened, thus resulting in a reduction in cost for maintaining supply - not an economic loss when considered to the full extent.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Now.... if the spine and spore crawler produced linearly at the hatchery, or even the spawning pool... you might say "how does this adhere to the 2 similar 1 different pattern as opposed to drone sacrificing for defense"

Simple.... In the same way that that an scv is occupied for a period of time when constructing a building... zerg would pay the price of having to produce split defense "anti air defense (spore) or anti ground defense (spine crawler)" in a linear fashion from a single building.

The consequence SHOULD NOT be the sacrifice of drone because zerg's defense is already split between anti air and anti ground....

This creates a time constraint for the Zerg player in addition to the constraints arising from the Terran or Protoss unit production; as such, if these constraints create a window for a 'build order loss', you are in fact disadvantaging the Zerg player to a greater degree than the lost drone.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

While the marine, although has to fill a bunker, the bunker can be quickly dumped and also repaired.

The bunker also cannot move.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

The marine also has natural defensive ability, but this makes sense because it fits terran's theme.

As does the drone that you spent on the spine/spore crawler. Drones are a huge economic and military gain - by producing drones you strengthen your army by allowing for a quicker reinforcement due to the Zerg Larva Mechanic: This is the point you have selectively ignored

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

The truth is and has always been that zerg's design functionality is Critically Flawed and has a MAJOR impact on the game despite being subtle enough that it isn't easily noticeable.

This is personal opinion and has not been proved to the slightest in what you have said above.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Message 3:


An argument to this might be that zerg, with their multiple hatcheries would be able to match terran and protoss' offense with defense at any given time... thus making the macro of the game stale.

Or the Zerg has creep spread as well as Overlord placement and as such can identify when the opponent is likely to push and respond in the correct manner to the opponent's play.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But remember, zerg is still splitting between ground to ground and ground to air defense, Plus, when teching to lair, this would interrupt the defensive production.

Not all defense is from buildings; the best defense in SC2 is to know your limitations, respond to your opponent and have enough to just kill his army when he attacks; not to be able to thwart any attack with purely defensive structures.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But now that zerg have the queen which already produces at the hatchery, it would be too much to have the spine and spore crawler also produce there...

The only and ultimate solution to this would be to have the spine and spore crawler produce at the spawning pool in a linear fashion.

This is the most absurd deduction you have made so far. There is nothing inherent with the Spawning Pool design that makes it an ideal applicant for producing defensive strucutres. This is still ignoring the fact that the current system works and is, lest I say it, balanced.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Zerg already gets a slight yet insignificant ground to ground defensive edge with the queen.

If it's insignificant, then please do not bother mentioning it in your arugment. The Queen is, first and foremost, a macro enabling unit that provides mobile early-game defense, unit support and map vision via creep spread.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But if the spawning pool could be zerg's one building, besides the hatchery, that could be placed anywhere on the map, and had its own creep, and could produce spine and spore crawler in a linear fashion, it would make things ridiculously interesting...

Consider dropping Overlord creep for NesTea spine crawler rushes. Also, money spent on a spawning pool is money that could be spent on other facets of the Zerg player's set-up.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

It would

A.) Give zerg an aggressive proximity element to their options...

Overlord creep.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

B.) You would be able to place your spawning pool in your allies base which would make abandoning a hatchery that your opponent is focusing on, and still be capable of surviving (by moving your workers to a second base) more viable as your spawning pool would not be stuck at your main... easily being the next building to be taken out.

Also limiting building placement of your ally. Keep in mind that a clutch save with your spawning pool singular defensive structure production would require knowing that your opponents would be attacking at least however many seconds it takes to get the drone there, build the pool and make sufficient defensive structures to hold off that attack. More than enough time for you to just build units and your ally to build sufficient defense himself/herself

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Final Message:

As a final conclusion my suggestion is a host of changes to the spawning pool and the creep to make this idea the best that it can possibly be.

- The spawning pool can be built anywhere.
- The spawning pool has its own creep
- Creep, now slowly eats away at any structure it comes in to contact with (Just to have its own perks considering it's not as fast as proxy cannon)
- Each spawning pool comes equipped with one creep tumor, creep tumor is removed from the queen.
- The spawning pool can uproot and crawl so that it can potentially be saved as it crawls back to your base and you try to protect it with lings.
- The spawning pool has an upgrade similar to the reactor upgrade for the barracks that gives it 2 slots of production for defense... Spine and spore crawler.
- When a spine/spore crawler is produced from the spawning pool, it emerges from the pool itself already uprooted... The time duration is now applied to uprooting while rooting is now instant.

Ignoring completely the absurb suggestions, please take into account that all that you wish to achieve with the above can easily be achieved with the current Zerg design. Furthermore, whilst your argument is for symmetry, I cannot see anywhere in the terran and protoss designs that there is an aoe based damage resulting from building placement relative to other buildings, nor bunkers and cannons that are built from arbitrary buildings that can place themselves wherever the want with no time penalty.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

-Remember, zerg would now no longer be able to make defense structures with the drone, but this is ideal because sacrificing drones for defense structures is not intelligent design function.

Please read what I posted with regards to the lost drone; your argument is not only incorrect, it is stupid.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I personally feel like that these changes are the only way to function my idea with blizzard's current design functions...

But I feel like it is truly the best Idea that you are going to find out there in regards to correcting zerg.

No.


All in all, not sure if trolling or just stupid...

Quick Comments

	neon:	well written :)
	Tjalnar:	^
	bswhunter:	Nice work. Pretty much agree with all your points.
	:	You deserve rep for your effort :)
	Daboo:	Wow, you actually took the time to read all his posts and reply?

[crAzerk]

Oh man that link from bugalugs is so interesting! (sirlin) I wish SC2 had someone like that writing about the balance process, these things are always fun to read (are there such existing stuff? I know WoW blue posters always do it)

as for the present discussion, domislong beat me to what I wanted to say- it seems like the OP is speaking in an unnecessarily abstract manner which merely distorts and dilutes what he is trying to say. Often I've no idea what his point is.

[Cyanide]

Originally Posted by crAzerk

Often I've no idea what his point is.

The point is, he's trolling. Got really obvious when he starting going on and on about colours.

[syfMiley]

Stop feeding this guy, he is obviously getting off on it.