Let's Test Balance

[FoeOfTheBee]

Could someone make a script that placed random arm and core units worth in total the same amount of metal and energy at random spots on a map, give each side a large set amount of energy, and see what happnes? This could let us know if xta is really unbalanced for either side, especially after a few repetitions.

I think any nerfing should be based on a test that is somewhat objective, rather than a few vocal people who haven't figured out goliath defense.

[Raxe]

I SECOND THIS MOTION MWAHAHAHA

[Gnomre]

There's no real way to be objective, because there are far too many variables in play--some units are more effective against particular enemies, terrain plays a massive role, positioning is important, line of sight, radar... there's no real way to test this sort of thing like you describe. It just takes play time, play time, and more play time to figure out how to slot things together.

That's the main reason UH was so popular back in the day.

[mongus]

well, who cares bout noobs crying the goliath thing?

anyhow, a good way to run tests interests me.

but we must define a good measurement metodology...

the equal cost rule may be usefull sometimes.

but the infantry/ranged mix is important too.

Basic balance tests may be feasible, but its a bit hard to run advanced, or very accurate tests.

Missions, with fixed energy/metal assigned for the non ai player can be more usefull (with a set of test players)...

[FoeOfTheBee]

Terrain should benefit each side equally on average with random positions, so the terrain effect will be a irrelevant after multiple repetitions.

The only two factors that wouldn't be adequately taken into account by this test are build speed and unit speed. If the build speed and unit speed per metal and energy expenditure are the same for arm and core, these factors also don't matter for balance.

[Min3mat]

tbh i agree play time is the only thing that can test balance! too many variables for example enforcers vs searchers if microed correctly the enforcer CANNOT HIT the searcher whilst the searcher can easily hit the enforcer from just inside its range.
However if the AI did this test it would show the enforcer winning.
balancing units with a test like this would make the game more unbalanced or worse less fun

[Doomweaver]

This makes no sense because: Cheaper units can also be put into play faster, unit combinations can work really well when there is an intelligent player controlling them, some units don't work well in hordes, some do, some units are good for lonh range sieges but not for direct combat, and about a million other things that I can't think of. The only way to test if a side is hugely unbalanced is to be a pro at the game, and even, its still only opinion.

[Torrasque]

A good way to see if it unbalanced, is to have centralized end statistics.

Like that we can see that for example 74% of the begginner player who make gollies win...but only 33% for experienced player etc...

But it technically really hard. an example : (http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/repor ... sage.shtml)

[IMSabbel]

Hm.

The only real problem i see is in the high tech endgame...

Core as the ability to break through almost any defenses (krogoths&goliaths), while you can have scores of bulldogs, ,merls and penetrators perish when going against a few immolators and vipers...

[SinbadEV]

Okay... I think we should focus our developement efforts on making a time machine, it would only have to send people back in time about 6 hours... we could send a couple pros back in time and have them play against themselves... obviousely we would also have to figure out a way to erase their memories of the previouse round for it to be fair... but that would be easier after we get the time machines working and people can just travel to a point in the future when it's been developed already...

[Aun]

I concur! To the power tools!

The problem with players testing balance is the obvious inbalance of player skills.

[hrmph]

There is no real way to test this. Just the way a player micros his units makes all the difference in battle. We all know that the goliath and krog are too strong, and that the Arm don't really have any units that are equal counters. (IE: No super units, both sides can do gunship rushes, and the mobile penetrator hardly balances against multiple krogs)

[PauloMorfeo]

... arm and core units worth in total the same amount of metal and energy at random spots on a map, give each side a large set amount of energy, and see what happnes? ...

Me and a mate (ramiro/ramirovski/PT_fode_mancebos ) tried something similar. As a note i was happy with the general balance.

When we select a unit, the game presents us with a value of cost. I don't know how it calculates it but it's not the metal cost, and, must be a combination of metal, energy and BT. But i doubt of the accuracy of that number since the energy and BT seem to count very little to the outcome of that "cost" value.

Based on that cost value, we did the testings. Some results:
- Don't try peewees versus ... any lvl-2 fighting unit.
- In the direct confrontations, the assault units always win over the other units. (assault units are, for example, Buldogs and Zeus)
- Mental note to, next time, one of us go Core.

...
But it technically really hard. an example : (http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/repor ... sage.shtml)

It would be really nice if the game stored that kind of info so we could have access to it...