EPTalso plz back Tal'Darim Altar. ver.GSL
GSL Daybreak In Ladder: A Plea to Blizzard - Page 2
| Blogs > prodiG |
|
MildCocoA
Korea (South)129 Posts
also plz back Tal'Darim Altar. ver.GSL | ||
|
johnnywup
United States3858 Posts
On February 29 2012 14:41 MildCocoA wrote: Agree! also plz back Tal'Darim Altar. ver.GSL yes please...rocks on the third make it an auto-veto for zerg | ||
Waxangel
United States33479 Posts
pretty much said the same thing as you D: | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
| ||
|
Ubenn
Canada114 Posts
| ||
|
Grohg
United States243 Posts
On February 29 2012 15:57 Ubenn wrote: You are blowing this out of proportion. I would be willing to bet that less than 5% of ladder games go to 4 bases. It won't ruin the map like some of you are claiming. Hell 1/2 the people take the center expo as their 4th anyways because of the much better defensive positioning with the Xel'naga there. I actually have most of my ZvT and ZvP games go on to 3-4 bases. I don't know if I'm an anomaly or play a style that is conducive to longer games but unless I get cheesed and crush it, games tend to ramp up to the 20-30 min mark fairly often. Even if only a small fraction of ladder matches reach late game play on 4 bases, the map center is actually a connector to the game's flow. The Xel'naga towers do not cover the main attack paths into late game expansions. Unless you want to see a merry-go-round where two armies pass each other and base race in a high number of games, this middle expo is important. It regulates army positioning and shifts the attack pathways. Without a base there, armies won't sit in a more central location but instead will position themselves closer to the opponents bases. Due to this, it has the potential to trigger base trading at a higher rate. Maybe that's the cup of tea some people prefer but fighting static defense and buildings is hardly dynamic at any rate. Tampering this expansion and allocating more minerals and gas would encourage taking this base as a third for Terran and setting up a PF to zone off the 4th and 5th bases. It skews the balance that is currently seen on the map and potentially ruins the point of the map in the first place. Simply removing the expansion is crude patch up job and it would essentially turn the map into a doughnut in which the outsides are populated by armies and the center is avoided. | ||
|
Arachne
South Africa426 Posts
Also, i would be pretty stoked if blizzard would release league map pools and leave some maps, like daybreak as designed. and then u only play it if diamond and above, and bronze u can play novice maps (prevents scv rushes even :D) | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
Will they add Daybreak like it is, or will they fuck it up?! This will mean so much for SC2 tournament scene and mapmaking. Right now it seems likely that in the future the core part of the maps being used in tournaments will be the ladder map, cos Blizzard adds community maps to ladder. This means Blizzard gets to decide what maps we use again. Will they use their power to totally disrespect the decisions we made and change our maps to their liking and establish a very strict standard for maps? Will they restrict mapmaking to be less innovative and creative, if the mapmakers want any chance to have their maps considered for ladder/tournaments? Varying resources is an essential part of map design. In SC:BW we had mineral only bases, in SC2 those are the half bases with one (rich) gas or maybe in some cases reduced minerals. The half base on Daybreak is a prime example for a base that gives very great position and thus should give less resources to its owner. Being unable to create this balance of position <=> economical gain by varying resources would be a big limitation for us mapmakers. Even tho it seems for now that Blizzard is working together with us, we should stay wary and try to be as independent as possible with our maps. The past in both SC:BW and SC2 has shown that the best mapmakers respectively have a greater understanding of map balance and how to make innovative new maps to keep the game interesting, than Blizzard. And if Blizzard get the final decision on what maps we play and what changes to make to them, it is truly dangerous. That said, if Blizzard rly wants help community mapmaking, add our maps to ladder and only change stuff after discussing it with the mapmaker and only after he approves of the changes: All power to them! | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On February 29 2012 15:57 Ubenn wrote: You are blowing this out of proportion. I would be willing to bet that less than 5% of ladder games go to 4 bases. It won't ruin the map like some of you are claiming. Hell 1/2 the people take the center expo as their 4th anyways because of the much better defensive positioning with the Xel'naga there. I'm not blowing this out of proportion. You're completely missing the point. The 1/2 people who take the center of the expo are using a map feature exactly the way it was designed. The very defensible forward position is offset by the lack of resources. With it the way it is, there's a decision to be made that y ou can craft your playstyle on that map around: Do I take my 4th in the corner, at the forward center position or at the 6/12? You entirely remove that decision (which the entire lategame transition hinges upon in my opinion) when you make the forward expo 6m1g. Beyond that, saying ladder games don't get to 4 bases is completely assinine in my opinion. Just because some ladder games end before that is no reason in any way shape or form to butcher something, especially something that has an incredible amount of creative genius behind it (huge props to winpark). There's also the fact that tournaments tend to eventually default to the ladder version over the tournament version when significant changes like this are made. You don't see tournaments using GSL Tal'Darim Altar (with it's original 6m1g 3rd expansion) anymore, they're ALL using the ladder edition. Same goes for ESV Korhal Compound (with the original natural expansion being much tighter and easier to wall than it currently is). Cloud Kingdom's only changes were the removal of ESV Space Shark (YYYYYYYOOOOOOOOU BAAAAAASSTAAAAAAAAARDS D: ) and the supply depots at the ramp, not the end of the world but still a change that I don't 100% agree with nonetheless. On February 29 2012 15:45 Waxangel wrote: btw Gisado was answering questions on twitter, so I asked him about daybreak middle minerals going to 8/2 pretty much said the same thing as you D: Yeah man. I don't know how much clearer I can make it, a change like this would completely ruin the map and turn it into just another random predictable as fuck 2p map, alongside really setting this precedent in stone for all of the future maps. I often see threads with people complaining about how un-creative maps are asking "why?" - here's your answer. If this is going to be yet another restriction placed on mapmakers who ever want to see their maps make it to the ladder (one of the ultimate goals any relatively serious mapmaker has), then once again we're simply throwing that creativity away. As an example of these consequences, MLG strictly refuses to take dives on new maps in their map pool (I've discussed this heavily with them). They will wait until a TON of statistics confirming balance are revealed, or until the map is added to the ladder (these are the two most significant criteria that they choose to follow, with the belief that ladder maps will create the most fair play for all players since they will have more exposure to them than non-ladder maps, therefore potentially broken strategies will be more fleshed out). They may (I have no written confirmation from anyone and it's entirely their choice) choose to use the ladder version of a map over it's intended tournament version. The same can be said for the majority of other tournaments and their organizers. Why bother with the confusion? Just tell everyone to throw up a game on the ladder map and they're good to go. Differences that players may not be aware of between the ladder version and the tournament/original version can upset the players, resulting in a backlash often reflecting poorly on your event and organization. Nobody wants that, it hurts their bottom line more than having the proper map used would have helped. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On March 01 2012 04:56 prodiG wrote: Cloud Kingdom's only changes were the removal of ESV Space Shark (YYYYYYYOOOOOOOOU BAAAAAASSTAAAAAAAAARDS D  and the supply depots at the ramp, not the end of the world but still a change that I don't 100% agree with nonetheless.</3 Space Shark Will Never Die!!!! | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
These could include: Golds: Yea i am sure to get hate for this one, but really the recent mule change shows that blizzard is willing to work for it. They didn't just take the lazy way out and remove them outright, they actually applied changes and the numbers don't lie. Terrans can no longer push any more reasources out of saturated golds than they can on Blue minerals. Central expansions: Another feature that we see blizzard use frequintly. They want expansions that are central and gives control along with reassources. Antiga is the prime example of this, we have yet to see a Taldarim-style map from blizzard where all expansions are spread to the side and the center is wide open and useless. Doupt we would want all maps to be like Taldarim anyway. Blizzard has better tools to balance this game than the mapmakers, but more importantly they have better tools to determen what needs to be balanced. But if every map plays with a different set of rules it would be impossible for anyone to find out what was broken. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On March 01 2012 05:31 Sumadin wrote: Central expansions: Another feature that we see blizzard use frequintly. They want expansions that are central and gives control along with reassources. Antiga is the prime example of this, we have yet to see a Taldarim-style map from blizzard where all expansions are spread to the side and the center is wide open and useless. Doupt we would want all maps to be like Taldarim anyway. Nerazim Crypt, Lost/Shattered Temple, and Arid plateau all immediately come to mind as maps with a wide open center without expansions there. In any case, the issue isn't "will blizzard restyle this map", the issue is that the map's balance and the kind of play is generates is contingent on that expansion being good due to its location, but not a full strength expo. It's so easy to park your army there that if the expansion were a full size mineral/gas area, everyone would always take their 4th bases in the same fashion, making the game at once more turtly/less interesting and also less diverse in terms of strategic depth. | ||
|
greg19735
United States15 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On March 01 2012 05:31 Sumadin wrote: Blizzard has better tools to balance this game than the mapmakers, but more importantly they have better tools to determen what needs to be balanced. But if every map plays with a different set of rules it would be impossible for anyone to find out what was broken. Blizzard does NOT have better tools to determine balance than map makers, imo. A map maker can as easily buy GSL / MLG passes as blizzard can (within reason-- it's all fairly inexpensive) and see how the balance is playing out at the high level. I also consider blizzard to be very honest in their attempts to balance the game, but they often overdo it or don't let the game develop fully before swinging their balance hammer. The fact of the matter is that the solution to a lot of the early game problems Sc2 had in its infancy wasn't "oh, make XYZ changes to the game" but rather "uh, how about we play on Antiga Shipyard instead of Steppes of war" and "I've figured out how to hold 4gate with 1 rax FE / 15 hatch" etc. Our understanding of this game and our map pool changes have changed so much of how the game is played it's almost unimaginable. Blizzard is not god. | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
Blizzard does NOT have better tools to determine balance than map makers, imo. A map maker can as easily buy GSL / MLG passes as blizzard can (within reason-- it's all fairly inexpensive) and see how the balance is playing out at the high level. Blizzard also have the ladder data, and while you may disagree with it's validity, it still provides a fairly good idea of stuff that needs fixing. They also have people paid only to do research on what the statestics says aswell as gather opion from the pros. Not to mention the amought of work they put into testing which claims of inbalance is true and what is just community bias. Blizzard is not god. After the ghost change i couldn't aggre with you more. But i will still label Blizzard as the Judge, Jury and Executioner, when it comes to controlling balance in SC2. And i wouldn't want it any other way. | ||
|
AARONHAND
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
It doesn't make it easier for newbies to understand. Newbies don't pay attention to the number of minerals there are, so it really doesn't affect them. | ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On March 01 2012 07:57 Diamond wrote: Blizzard needs to stop fucking with maps. They are incompetent mapmakers and have no reason to mess with something made by someone that understands mapping worlds better then themselves. unfortunately, they're changing the maps to fit their image of the game, not vice versa. | ||
|
Arterial
Australia1039 Posts
On March 01 2012 07:35 AARONHAND wrote: What confusion is caused by a 6m1g base in the first place? Does Blizzard really think "lower league" players are stupid enough to not be able to figure out that "oh there's less mineral patches here, this base is obviously different"? It comes off as really patronizing. Whilst I am not a "lower league" player. I whole-heartedly agree with this. How dumb do blizzard think people are? | ||
| ||
