State of the Game: IdrA vs. Day[9]

[SpikeVorador]

mmm maybe its just me but... for some reason it appears to me that this Idra guy thinks that if a Zerg wins a match against P or T is because the guy -¿him?- playing Zerg is a better player and/or the other guy was a bad player, and if the Zerg player lose is because the Zerg have balance issues?

O.o thats a weird way to think xD.


btw... why zerg dont send 2 overlords to the terran base from opposite directions?, at least one of them could get away... i think xD.

[JackhammerIV]

mmm maybe its just me but... for some reason it appears to me that this Idra guy thinks that if a Zerg wins a match against P or T is because the guy -¿him?- playing Zerg is a better player and/or the other guy was a bad player, and if the Zerg player lose is because the Zerg have balance issues?

O.o thats a weird way to think xD.


btw... why zerg dont send 2 overlords to the terran base from opposite directions?, at least one of them could get away... i think xD.

Two overlords is a bit of a sacrifice but realistically that might become a norm in a few years from now. No one really knows at this point.

[Twilice]

Ok, I understand what you mean now after playing it through a bit. But this only means on close position imo. On larger maps, there is always something you can do. But close position something definitly must be done.

[JackhammerIV]

Ok, I understand what you mean now after playing it through a bit. But this only means on close position imo. On larger maps, there is always something you can do. But close position something definitly must be done.

Just block close positions like they do on Shakuras. But Blizzard already says they want some "short maps".

[protoswarrior]

Great post Jackhammer !

Also, I sort of agree with close spawns being an issue with Terran rushes or all-ins on 1 base. But, even then I feel that Idra may be exaggerating his plight with emotionally charged articulation of a simple point: scouting as zerg is hard.

But, going so far as to say that it is impossible is a bit of a stretch. Day 9, being more sensible and dispassionate about the whole thing only tried avoiding an argument at all. But, essentially his points are right about Idra being vague when talking about imbalance w.r.t zerg.

[silencbank]

Instead of changing the overlord and how fast it is, or how much it can see, or change when you can get the upgrade; Change how big the main bases are instead. I mean you do not need to make them as tiny as a natural expansion, but if you make them smaller so that a single overlord at the current speed can check out MOST of the base before being denied it will have the same effect as changing the overlord speed.

One thing to keep in mind is the impact of the future instead of fixing just "the now". Imagine that the overlord speed is increased now and the state of map making turns into making the mains smaller as the game progresses. At that point an increased overlord speed would make zerg be able to scout EVERYTHING instead of just most of it. Hiding tech IS a major part of the game, but there is a big difference from being able to not see anything (like most zerg players tend to think it is now) and what it COULD be (where there is absolutely no repercussion for trying to scout). Scouting is meant to cost. Be it in game resources, (gas, minerals, larvae, supply) or out of game resources (time, knowledge to use what was scouted for your favor).

And this, in a nutshell, is a fundamental difference on how Day9 and IdrA depict "balance" and "imbalance". They both want this game they play to be fair for everyone, but Day9 seems more hesitant to call something imbalanced because there are many outside gameplay influences that could make changes unnecessary. Imagine playing the current ZvP on an older map, like Steppes of War or even Incineration Zone. I can guarantee that most, if not all, Zerg players would personally punch every Blizzard employee in the face for making them play on those maps.

The point that I am getting across is that even I, a Protoss player, do seem to think that scouting very early game for Zerg is much more difficult than it should be. I just want everyone to keep in mind that any changes made will last long into the future and will affect more than the current State of the Game. (see whut i did there?!?!?) So the next time you say something is OP or too weak try to think if the reason the unit feels that way is not how the unit works, but if it was made stronger or weaker due to something else. You may start to think about ways that will make that OP unit feel weaker, or find a hidden strength to that weak unit that you once discarded.

The ebb and flow of the game will continue for years. Instead of changing the flow by trying to put rocks into the center of the river of the current game state to change "imbalances", try putting rocks on the banks of the river and see the game flows then. Sometimes drastic measures ARE needed, but sometimes changing a few rocks is all you need to do. GL HF everyone.

[JackhammerIV]

Nice idea to try to adjust for the zerg scouting problem with map design. Might have some promise. However don't forget terran scans. If the main is small enough that an overlord can see most of it, then it's likely one scan in the middle of the main can see everything.

Makes hiding tech harder. Perhaps creating more vulnerable locations because you place buildings in awkward locations simply to avoid being seen by one scan.

Not really sure about your rock analogy. Needs to be a pretty big damn rock(s) ro change the flow of even a small stream. I would perhaps say SC2 and its balancing is more like bonsai cutting than a rock(s) and flowing water.

With bonsai you know what you want it to grow to look like (future balance). You cut here and there to achieve that (Blizzard imposing their will with balance patches). But the tree chooses where it wants to grow (metagame if you will ). Sometimes it's better to see which direction the branches grow before unnecessarily cutting it. [LOLZ. Almost sounds poetic but I suck at poetry.]

[Genopath]

Instead of changing the overlord and how fast it is, or how much it can see, or change when you can get the upgrade; Change how big the main bases are instead.

Change every single map for a balance concern? This is not viable. Furthermore, that does not guarantee anything. A good Terran player is not going to reveal his tech by building near the cliff edges. Marines can deny complete overlord scouting not partial.

But, even then I feel that Idra may be exaggerating his plight with emotionally charged articulation of a simple point: scouting as zerg is hard.

I don't see how it is emotional and I don't think it's hard. Under a good Terran player, on most maps its impossible by using one Overlord. 3 Marines do approximately 20 damage per second. Overlords die in less than 10 game seconds.

But, going so far as to say that it is impossible is a bit of a stretch. Day 9, being more sensible and dispassionate about the whole thing only tried avoiding an argument at all. But, essentially his points are right about Idra being vague when talking about imbalance w.r.t zerg.

Day9 is simply avoiding the issue. He can be sensible and dispassionate but that doesn't mean he is right. If you want to avoid an issue or be sensible and dispassionate that's fine but don't try and judge anyone, especially IdrA who is clearly one of the best Zerg players in the world. Being vague? How is this vague:

There are simple, very specific problems: Is that Zerg can't scout early. It's has to be a defensive race but the units we have to make in order to defend stuff can't be used aggressively so if we overcommit at all to the defense, then we are behind like all the games like sC vs. Losira. He made enough lings. He recognized that sC was going to be aggressive so he made enough Zerglings to repel the attack, so then he made too many, he defended the attack easily and still ended up behind because those Zerglings could do absolutely nothing because it's very hard to be aggressive vs. Terran or Protoss army early game.

[Gifted]

Geno, I may be doing a quote/response with you, but I'm near the same level, don't think of this against ya buddy ^_^

Changing map "base design" for resolving the problem:

I'm more or less agreeing with Geno on this one. Changing map philosophy for a race is not a fully acceptable option in this case. Changing the size of maps, which has been tweaked and understood since BW, affects so much more than scouting. Going with the core mentality of drops/blinks/space usage between races alone you'll see the metagame change drastically based on these changes. While I agree completely with Day9 that metagame will ultimately be an equalizer, it doesn't change the fact that this change isn't confirmed and will possibly be changed or even reverted back after a large effort.

This may be a trial and error process, but this suggestion is a trial that has a low reward/cost ratio.

Overlord scouts concerns:
Some random thoughts - Silenc, while what you say is relevant across skill levels, the example of this conversation (speaking D9/Idra) is directly related to master+ skill levels. At that level, it's metagame simply denies overlord scouting at all. I'm not saying EVERY GAME, but the odds of an overlord getting in base are slim to none as it's good practice to keep them out and that practice is utilized often. I know you know this man, but I'm more commenting on it to help steer the conversation to what the SOTG cast involved and to keep others on track.

Random thoughts:
- The high end metagame doesn't incorporate overseers as much as I'd like to see them in terms of scouting. This doesn't change early game scouting concerns though
- While Zerg may not have the ability to scout/predict opponents build processes, they maintain the best consistent scouting/overview of the game if played right. Between burrow/overlords they can maintain knowledge of the map in any way possible outside of the enemy base.

Day9 is simply avoiding the issue. He can be sensible and dispassionate but that doesn't mean he is right. If you want to avoid an issue or be sensible and dispassionate that's fine but don't try and judge anyone, especially IdrA who is clearly one of the best Zerg players in the world. Being vague? How is this vague:

At this point, I don't think he's avoiding it. He holds a belief much like mine that it's hard to have a conversation about something with a time limit that won't allow it's full scope to be discovered. The issue ultimately is that you have a person who has dedicated his sc2 career to evolving the mentality of the entire game and it's understanding... versus a person who has a history of isolating concerns in his own race to a fault. I'm not insulting Idra with this, but Incontrol had the PERFECT point regarding Idra's history regarding balance rage.

I believe that instead of "avoiding the subject" he was "picking and choosing" his battles, and I don't think Idra has a compatible enough personality with Day9 to ever have it be productive. I think Day9 was recognizing that before it started. Let's face it, it would have taken probably 2-3 hours for them to actually have that conversation and get to some relevant issue.

Bottom line: Pick and choose your battle when your limited on time.

Random thought on Idra's side:

Geno, while I know you were talking about how Idra was being specific on some points, it was also incredibly vague on others. Many of his terms he was using was terms that were generalized by idra and could be perceived differently by any person to meet their own desires. For example:

"Better player" or "person who deserves it more". This implies that people who practice more will always deserve something better. But this is a perception. What happens if it's a person who's been in a game much more than another? What happens if it's the person who respects their opponents much more? What happens if it's a person who shows no mercy? This term, in it's specific nature, is also incredibly "vague".

He also has a belief that the "better person should always win" but Day9 tries to say "the only direct ratio we have to work with is win/loss ratios". I think Day9 just didn't have the right mentality to proceed with it.

Ultimately, Idra think in terms of people.. Day9 thinks in terms of games. What Day 9 was trying to get across was that "It's not about who's the better player, it's about who played the better game." It doesn't matter if all the tournaments are beating out veterans with new players. What matters is that those new players utilized skill in games that won over their opponents.

This does bring up the counterpoint that Idra was trying to say. "Solid gameplay" isn't what's winning in some cases, it was people who could utilize qualities of the game, and win a game with less skill used than his opponent in that specific game.

Ultimate issue thoughts and a solution:

A solution that should come in heart of the swarm is a way to avoid "front doors blocks". Right now, that should either be an option to allow a zergling to get in easier... which all options that should work wouldn't be balancable at teir 1 (such as wall climbing or building hoping), improvements in the roach to move/see information, which would be opposite it's role. Improvements to the overlord, such as another tier 1 morph that improves it's scout ability without utilizing gas, or adding another odd mechanic to zerg, such as a teir 1 parasite. This may not be much, but if they can pull off early game parasites, it might be worth the cost. (A zerg sentry of sorts)

Just some random thoughts.. but mostly because I hate coming forward with complaints on problems without my thoughts on a solution.

[Genopath]

Oh you know I love these discussions Gifted

While I agree completely with Day9 that metagame will ultimately be an equalizer, it doesn't change the fact that this change isn't confirmed and will possibly be changed or even reverted back after a large effort.

This may be a trial and error process, but this suggestion is a trial that has a low reward/cost ratio.

Talking about metagame is something is analogous to talking about perfection. I believe complete perfection in balance design, even in StarCraft 2 is achievable but we aren't there yet. Consequently, I understand Day[9]'s concerns of why talking about balance design might not be a very productive discussion.

With that being said, it is a discussion that needs to happen. The thing about imbalance is that professional players are the guys that take the most advantage of it. So it's something that has a very large effect on eSports. This effect is less present on ladder because matchmaking takes into account race imbalance.

Therefore the discussion is useful because people's earnings depend on it. In my opinion a player who spends more effort, which has a correlation with skill, into improving his tactics should be the better player. I don't think the race a player choose should factor into this. Of course, I'm exaggerating a little here but this small effect makes competition less fair. Less competition means less players and less people watching. It is bad for business at then of the day too but some people don't see the big picture.

- The high end metagame doesn't incorporate overseers as much as I'd like to see them in terms of scouting. This doesn't change early game scouting concerns though

Precisely, hence the whole point of IdrA focusing on early game:

IdrA: There are simple, very specific problems: Is that Zerg can't scout early.

- While Zerg may not have the ability to scout/predict opponents build processes, they maintain the best consistent scouting/overview of the game if played right. Between burrow/overlords they can maintain knowledge of the map in any way possible outside of the enemy base.

This is true. Although, I believe the focus IdrA is trying to make is early game. A longer game is less subject to strategic imbalance than a shorter one. A cannon rush is much more dangerous than a Carrier rush because of the adaptability factor.

At this point, I don't think he's avoiding it. He holds a belief much like mine that it's hard to have a conversation about something with a time limit that won't allow it's full scope to be discovered.

This is well said, I believe I should have phrased it like this. Damn your rheotrical :P

The issue ultimately is that you have a person who has dedicated his sc2 career to evolving the mentality of the entire game and it's understanding... versus a person who has a history of isolating concerns in his own race to a fault. I'm not insulting Idra with this, but Incontrol had the PERFECT point regarding Idra's history regarding balance rage.

That is true but this doesn't change the fact that there are concerns. Everyone talking about balances gets flamed to some degree, including Blizzard balance designers. IdrA is very direct and sometimes offensive with his comments but a few months ago when Zerg was in trouble again, Dimaga also spoke about it and it Zerg's concerns were better perceived:

You are not going to believe it, but it is true. I am seriously considering changing my race. This is, however, understandable: you must realize that I have not only moral responsibility to my fans, but a much more real, financial responsibility to my employer.

I do not just play Starcraft 2 for fun, it is my JOB. The image and the popularity of the team depend on my results, and so I must do whatever is necessary to make my team the best. Unfortunately, in the present balance situation regarding Zerg, I cannot achieve good results for my team. Blizzard's inaction only further fuels the fire.

Because of these reasons, unless there is at least an announcement of the new patch after GOM TV Global Starcraft II League and IEM Global Challenge Gamescom, I am going to switch from my precious Zerg to the more successful Terran.

I really want at least a small balance change, but so that your game does not have to depend solely on the mistakes of your opponent. I want fair play. Hopefully, I will not have to take such extreme measures.

I believe that instead of "avoiding the subject" he was "picking and choosing" his battles, and I don't think Idra has a compatible enough personality with Day9 to ever have it be productive. I think Day9 was recognizing that before it started. Let's face it, it would have taken probably 2-3 hours for them to actually have that conversation and get to some relevant issue.

I believe you are right here. He was picking and choosing his battles. However Day[9] indrectly brought the subject up by mentioning:

how unbelievably hard it is for the Zerg race to win everything, except championships.

I think Day[9] should have dropped the subject but instead he tried to make it a matter of players instead of a race.

"Better player" or "person who deserves it more". This implies that people who practice more will always deserve something better. But this is a perception. What happens if it's a person who's been in a game much more than another? What happens if it's the person who respects their opponents much more? What happens if it's a person who shows no mercy? This term, in it's specific nature, is also incredibly "vague".

True, I think think IdrA should have commented at least on what makes a better player. He didn't say who deserves it more. I just coundn't find a better way of censoring:

Hidden Content:

fuckin' retarded

I just edited the transcript and changed it to **** instead to avoid further confusion.