Should Scramblers get a buff?

[OutwittersFan422]

Ive never played starcraft so i cannot comment on what that even is much less how it works and while I dont disagree that there would be drawbacks about my plan I think it is the only absolute way to eliminate racial imbalance. As it is, I dont think there is really a need to change any of the races or maps but simply to achieve balance through map type. My numbers clearly show certain races perform better on certain types of maps and they are rather convincing when looking at the entire picture.

If I were OML it would be part of a whole series of things id do differently when it comes to the mechanics of the game and the business model of how it has been sold BUT i digress. I think an integral part of any changes to this game or future iterations of this game is a robust and thriving population of players. That is and of itself is the only thing holding it back at this point.

[Gf!sh]

I think there's only one proper solution to this.

Kill Reaper.
Kill it with fire.

[TheGoldenGriffin]

Why? Scrambler can just scramble what ever unit is at the back door if you spawned him the turn before.

[ElPared]

(06-10-2013 06:52 PM)QuantumApocalypse Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 06:44 PM)Gf!sh Wrote:  I remember Harti saying something about scrambler actually scrambling with full HP in its first beta build. It WAS very OP.

Indeed it was. During the beta, there were builds where scrambler had both higher health and full-HP scrambling. If they were balanced, you'd probably be playing with them now; you aren't, so go figure

This was before Veggienauts with attacking thorns and a slew of new maps and strategies, though.

honestly, even if scrambling gave you the unit at half HP rounded down I'd be happy. I'd rather have a Heavy at 2 HP than 1.

I noticed the rest of the thread kinda turned into a debate over Reaper. I honestly don't have many problems on this map, especially not with Scramblers. It's one of the few maps where I feel like Scramblers are strong.

I guess I'll just have to be satisfied with taking a lot more risks as Feedback though. I hate having to gamble so much but I suppose that's how they are.

[TheGoldenGriffin]

Thats whats so fun about Scrambler, his uncertainty and unpredictability

[ElPared]

that's also the least fun thing about them

[TheGoldenGriffin]

That can be used against your opponent very easily. Thats the fun part. But if it dies before you could use it, thats the disappointing part

[Szei]

(06-11-2013 04:52 AM)OutwittersFan422 Wrote:  I think banning maps would be a bad idea. In theory I understand what you are trying to achieve but in practice not only do i not think that it would work but I also think it just isnt a good door to open. Should Federer be able to avoid playing Nadal on Clay?

That analogy does not work. You are comparing teams to players when in reality the analogy is Outwitters teams to tennis equipment. A more applicable analogy would be stating that a particular set of equipment is too much of an advantage (OP) for players to use in tennis on a particular surface (map), and that it should be banned on that surface. Not that a player is too "OP" on a surface (which is the idea which your analogy regarding Federer and Nadal conveys). No one is trying to say that poweewee or Alvendor are too good on certain maps (surfaces in your analogy) so they should be banned... We're saying that certain teams (tennis gear) may be too advantageous on certain maps (surfaces).

Quote:Essentially what would happen is that people would simply ban maps that they werent as successful on. I entirely understand that certain maps are "less fun" due to the differences between races and in particular race vs race battles on certain maps (SvS on P).

There is potential for that, but with 11 maps I don't see this as a problem. So what if people are allowed to ban 3 or 4 of the maps they find make for boring or imbalanced games? They still need to play on and master the other 7 or 8. I suppose there may be a slight downside if I try to view it from your eyes, but I feel that the pros far outweigh the cons. The game is well enough balanced (perhaps with the exception of Veggienauts), that most of the problems now come down to certain maps. Allowing the players to self correct for this instead of having all the burden fall onto OML creating 11 equally, well balanced maps would help a lot.

Quote:I am about 1000 games into an experiment I am doing and the numbers clearly show that each race has maps that they preform far above the average rate on than they do on others. So if I look at my numbers and decide ok Im going to go on a run with Feedback for example I look at my list. I see which maps Feedback perform poorly on and I simply eliminate those with my vetoes. Then when I switch to Scally I switch my vetoes accordingly.

This sounds perfect!

Quote:ts an artificial way to prop up win % no different than P1 quitting when a certain map pops up.

It's entirely different.

Veto System
Basically, some maps are favored for particular teams to great enough an extent that they can be considered imbalanced. Vetoing allows you to decide which maps you think are unfair and ban them. However, you can only do this with 3 maps. This means that you still need to master 8 maps. It is still in your best interest to try to master the vetoed maps if possible so that you can replace one of those vetoed maps with another map you dislike (if one exists). There's always an incentive to be comfortable on as many maps as possible so that you have more flexibility regarding about which of the 3 maps you wish to veto (if any, vetoing isn't a requirement).

P1 Quitting
P1 quitting is broken and should be removed. It allows players to pick and only master 1 or 2 maps instead of the 8 maps that need to be mastered under the veto system. Furthermore, there is no incentive to get better at any maps other than the 1 or 2 you already are good at with P1 quitting whereas with the veto system it is always beneficial to master as many maps as possible. Finally, P1 quitting gives you an unfair advantage over players that don't use the exploit whereas the veto system doesn't involve abuse of a glitch and instead puts all players on equal footing.

---

(06-11-2013 05:03 AM)Mag!cGuy Wrote:  And I also disagree to the veto. I already find it quite unfair on starcraft (again), cuz if you are a no-skilled cheeser you just veto the 4 spawns map and make a cannon rush being sure where your opponent is, if you aren't comfortable on a map you veto it

Two points.

1. I don't agree with your assessment regarding the veto system and Starcraft. Sure, there are a small percentage of players who cheese all the time and do this (more prevalent in lower leagues), but they ultimately will hit a roadblock when they reach higher levels. As you say, these players don't improve themselves and will suffer for it. The point is, the benefits of the veto system outweigh the potential cons. Map imbalance is always going to exist. It is impossible to have all maps be well balanced in all matchups. The veto system simply helps achieve balance by allowing players to correct for the worst offenders when it comes to imbalanced maps. I address this in more in my response to OutwittersFan above.

2. Starcraft is also different in how it is managed. It's a game constantly in development with balancing patches always in mind. Honestly Blizzard could probably afford to remove the veto system. However, in Outwitters where OML have made it clear they have moved on, having a way for players to self balance by vetoing a few broken maps in certain matchups would be a good compromise. OML just needs to implement this system once and let the players do the rest of the work for as long as Outwitters remains online. The veto system is flexible so OML wouldn't have to intervene like Blizzard does with balance patches, the players can just determine which maps they find are imbalanced instead. Another great aspect of the veto system is that everyone doesn't have to agree. This is a huge pro. When it comes to balance I think we've all seen how many different opinions there are in any game. By allowing players to "self balance", it avoids the kind of backlash that arises from overarching balance patches which will please some players while simultaneously upsetting others.

[ElPared]

I like the idea of the term "veto" as it implies a soft ban rather than a hard one.

I think in addition to the Veto each player should get a separate list of 3 Favorite Maps too where the matching system will try to pair that player with games on those maps more often.

Then, when a player's favorite map is vetoed by the other player, the game does a coin flip. If the Veto wins another map is chosen, if the favorite wins, the veto is overruled.

More complicated, yes, but probably more balanced.

[OutwittersFan422]

@Szei

I see what you are saying and simply put I disagree. I respect what you are saying and again in theory I understand what you are trying to achieve but I think you are not looking at the entire picture.

First as for the tennis analogy, I suppose my comparisons werent clear. It was more that Federer was Adorables and Nadal was Feedback for example and if Nadal(Feedback) performs far better than average on clay then its not fair for Federer to say I dont want to play on clay thus negating the advantage that each race has in certain cases.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The races are not perfectly balanced. I think as a whole it is clear that A are the best for reasons that need not be delved into here. That said there are a series of maps that Feedback are not only competitive but are arguably better than Adorables. Same for all the races (Veggies less so MAYBE but thus far my numbers are not yet complete with them so Ill reserve judgement).

I think working out a system that better distributes games equally among maps and turns would be a great start because all 4 races break down pretty predictably along the original 8 maps for a rather uniform set of reasons. Beyond that I still say that randomly assigning race would also better this problem because again it negates all of these issues entirely. And yes i know that doing that would essentially violate the implicit purchase contract with all previous buyers and cant/wont happen but im just saying.

The point is that each team in every game or sport is built a certain way. They are built to facilitate their strengths and to diminish and hide their weaknesses. Baseball teams with a really big field are built more to operate with hit and runs and less so on power hitting home run balls whereas parks like the Yankees have are built with teams that can hit the ball out 1-9. This is a reality of any competitive challenge. With football (american football for those non americans) until recently when a big part of defense was legislated out of the game, teams that played in cold weather towns were built heavily to run the football whereas teams that played in warmer weather or in domes were more geared towards the pass attack and able to take advantage of fast surfaces. But all that being said I simply dont think its fair for a home run hitting team to say that we don't want to play any teams on fields that are harder to hit home runs on simply because thats not the way we are built. If thats the case just play friendly games and stay out of the competitive league all together. The league itself should be tailored to find who is truly the best at the game and I think in the truest sense of the word best, it means mastering all teams all maps all turns everything. And there is only one way to do that.

I think looking at teams and teams alone yes you can make the argument that one team is better than the other. That is true no argument here. But when you take into account the different qualities of the sets of maps balance becomes less of an issue. Between the variables of race, turn, map, # of spawns, # of wits i think its pretty much level playing field. If every single map was as big as Thorn Gully for example then yes Id say things need fixing. But when you add in maps like Glitch where the small size and proximity to the spawn point Feedback becomes highly effective.

The matchup system essentially tries to drive everything towards 50%. So in theory if you are winning at 50% and are matched perfectly eliminating your 3 worst maps thereby artificially upping your win % to lets say 60% flies in the face of true competition. As I said there is a place for that and its friendlies.

I dont know I suppose the point is moot since all development has been ended and i now realize ive written a short book here. But thats just my two cents