|
So Daybreak is getting in... That's great. But I have one question:
In the TL Map Contest, Blizzard specifically indicated to the contest organizer that the bases should each have 8 mineral fields and 2 gas to avoid confusion for players at the lower levels. Some of you may remember the small controversy around the change from GSL Tal'Darim Altar which had its third at 6m1g. When it was added to ladder, it became Tal'Darim Altar LE and saw the third changed to 8m2g with the addition of destructible rocks. This was a pretty significant change, one that the map's creator LSPrime had not intended in it's original design (and one that if memory serves, he was pretty chapped about).
If Blizzard continues to follow the protocol that they have in the past, all non-standard resource bases will be changed to 8m 2g. It's pretty fair to say that Daybreak is one of the most exciting and brilliant 2p map designs we've seen yet in competitive SC2, but changing the forward expansion to 8m2g has some pretty significant effects. Now players can start taking that expansion as their 4th, positioning their armies in such a way that makes it very easy to defend everything (centered around the Xel'Naga Tower nearby).
Daybreak isn't an awesome map because of how defensive it is. It's awesome because of how much action it creates. The basetrades that occur because of the rush distance and the rocks in the middle path forcing players to cross the map in opposite directions often missing one another's army entirely. The strategic placement of armies and map control around the high ground pods & expansions at the 12 and 6. The action packed game that when doesn't end in a 2-base timing attack usually leads to an all-out war of attrition as players whittle each other down. All to that last forward base with 6 minerals and one gas.
Please Blizzard. Please don't fix what's not broken. When you add Daybreak, don't change the expansion <3
Signed,
prodiG
Mapmaker & Commentator for ESV
Edit: Going to post some of my fairly long-winded responses in the OP as well
Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
 
|
Additional: Add the ESVSpaceShark to this map.
Other than that, I totally agree.
|
On February 29 2012 11:45 Duckvillelol wrote:
Additional: Add the ESVSpaceShark to this map.
Other than that, I totally agree.
Crux Daybreak isn't an ESV map! Crux can get their own trademark doodad mascot guy!
|
I am thinking that Blizzard is understanding that the great maps are community made and we want to play on the same maps that are used in tournaments, so I don't think they'll change it.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Come on, it's Blizzard. They're going to add at least 2 destructible rocks & change the middle expansion into full ones. It's what they do.
|
I'll be so sad if they change it  one can hope.
|
On February 29 2012 11:48 aebriol wrote:
I am thinking that Blizzard is understanding that the great maps are community made and we want to play on the same maps that are used in tournaments, so I don't think they'll change it.
In the past, Blizzard has been pretty conservative with how they want their ladder maps to work. The problem here is that if they continue to follow suit with what they've been doing in the past, they'll drastically goof Daybreak to the point where it's just simply nowhere near as good of a map as it is right now.
|
United States33281 Posts
I dunno, I really dislike how three-base-turtle Daybreak is, it's probably the least aggressive map we've seen in a tournament pool in... forever. Even more so than terminus or crevasse.
I guess that's unrelated to your argument, but I just wanted to hate on daybreak ^_^;
|
On February 29 2012 11:54 Waxangel wrote:
I dunno, I really dislike how three-base-turtle Daybreak is, it's probably the least aggressive map we've seen in a tournament pool in... forever. Even more so than terminus or crevasse.
I guess that's unrelated to your argument, but I just wanted to hate on daybreak ^_^;
Oh cmon wax - Calm Before the Storm - aka "20 min no rush plzkk" takes that honour! 
|
United States33281 Posts
that's why it's GSTL only, I imagine
|
On February 29 2012 11:54 Waxangel wrote:
I dunno, I really dislike how three-base-turtle Daybreak is, it's probably the least aggressive map we've seen in a tournament pool in... forever. Even more so than terminus or crevasse.
I guess that's unrelated to your argument, but I just wanted to hate on daybreak ^_^;
I think the 3-base turtle stage often comes after some 2-base timings where the players try to secure an advantage for the later game (see this all the time in the Korean Weekly). After that it's not a map that's about running balls of units into each other and seeing who wins, it's about making sure your army is always in the right place at the right time. The only other map that's regularly used that I can confidently say does this extremely well without making it very easy is Cloud Kingdom
|
Yeah, if they're gonna add it to ladder and want 8m2g then they should just remove the middle bases..
|
At the end of the day, Tal'Darim changed in a way that was still acceptable by the addition of the rocks/changing the base. However, this will break Daybreak because that expo is purely a positional one. It is not meant to be used as money, more as putting your foot down, gaining control of the central/other expansions. With the advent of PFs, cannons, creep and spines, that is what this base is there for. Not for money, for other advantages.
|
On February 29 2012 11:59 DYEAlabaster wrote:
At the end of the day, Tal'Darim changed in a way that was still acceptable by the addition of the rocks/changing the base. However, this will break Daybreak because that expo is purely a positional one. It is not meant to be used as money, more as putting your foot down, gaining control of the central/other expansions. With the advent of PFs, cannons, creep and spines, that is what this base is there for. Not for money, for other advantages.
Exactly. Adding rocks on the Daybreak expansion and making it 8m2g is not an appropriate change in the slightest, nor is just changing it to 8m2g.
If Blizzard was to make a change to the map and take the stance of "We will never have maps on ladder that don't have 8m 2g on every blue expansion" then even removing the expansion entirely takes away from what is already a brilliant design, although that choice would be better than an 8m2g imo.
At the end of the day, if Blizzard adds it I really hope they just leave it exactly the way it is.
|
I didn't know ladder games went up to 4 bases ^_^
But yeah, Daybreak is a great map. I'm not sure what will happen with 8m2g but I will take ESV's word for it. I do like their justification but I don't buy it. It's nice making the game easier to understand, but then why do you put destructible rocks and smoke screens and double cliffs vs single cliffs? IMHO those take more getting used to than a 6m base.
|
Signed.
Please don't ruin a good thing Blizzard.
|
|
|
On February 29 2012 11:54 Waxangel wrote:
I dunno, I really dislike how three-base-turtle Daybreak is, it's probably the least aggressive map we've seen in a tournament pool in... forever. Even more so than terminus or crevasse.
I guess that's unrelated to your argument, but I just wanted to hate on daybreak ^_^;
I don't think Daybreak is that great either but this is about the ladder map pool not a tournament map pool. I don't think games on Daybreak are all that exciting to watch but it must be a fun map to play on if so many people like it.
|
On February 29 2012 11:54 Waxangel wrote:
I dunno, I really dislike how three-base-turtle Daybreak is, it's probably the least aggressive map we've seen in a tournament pool in... forever. Even more so than terminus or crevasse.
I guess that's unrelated to your argument, but I just wanted to hate on daybreak ^_^;
I feel the same way as this. I love long, epic, macro games. But, I don't like it when it's clear 3 minutes in that there won't be any aggression of note for the next 8. Daybreak is the single biggest reason I end up skimming through games to get to my favorite players. It just kills my patience.
That being said, I don't think I'll mind playing it as much as watching it. At least its a good excuse to really focus on my macro 
|
I feel like Daybreak is too hard to attack on actually. If you just protect the center of the map you can insure yourself against pretty much any type of harassment almost with stationary defenses around your main and expansions due to no space behind mains at all to fly in mutas or drops. If they fixed that I would be much happier, because as it stands it's really not leaving much chance to players that like to play with multipronged attacks, and my own games on it often end up in massive turteling. I'd also say it's only fair if they change the center expansion to 8m 2g. I feel like it favors Zerg too much the way it is now seeing as how it's really easy for a Zerg to defend the a bit further out expansion with very little creep to connect it, while it can be quite a bit harder for T or P with more stationary armies.
|
Agree!
also plz back Tal'Darim Altar. ver.GSL
|
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
|
United States33281 Posts
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:
|
You should probably post this on the actuall Blizzard forums. Knowing blizzard it would probably become a gold base.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Daybreak is the most balanced of the currents maps, iirc, at 50% w/l for all MU ?
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)
|
Eagerly awaiting one of the most important decisions Blizzard will make this year:
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!
|
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 States25550 Posts
It's actually fairly important that the front expo be as it is not be turned into a normal expo (or god forbid some horrible rock-blocked monstrosity). For what it's worth, you have my support. I hope blizzard doesn't change this map.
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!!!!
|
Setting some standards is not entirely bad through as SC2(Unlike broodwar) is balanced with other tools than simply map adjustment. It is getting patched. Individual nerfs and buff is applied to units lots of stuff is happening. I am not from blizzard but i am sure they have certain map mechanics they just want to work, and make certain unit adjustment to make said things work.
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 States25550 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.
|
i hope they don't change it but i do think that tal'darim LE is better than GSL imo.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I'm not sure why blizzard wants to stick with the 8/2 standard.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
Why does Blizzard always try to cater maps to "lower league" players? Even if it somehow confuses them, someone in Bronze isn't going to give a flying fuck about how an expansion has different amount of minerals/gas.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On March 01 2012 08:18 nonsequitur wrote:
Why does Blizzard always try to cater maps to "lower league" players? Even if it somehow confuses them, someone in Bronze isn't going to give a flying fuck about how an expansion has different amount of minerals/gas.
I think your average bronze player won't be terribly confused by a 6m1g setup. He'll look at it, say "oh there's less stuff there" and proceed to play as normal. It's not like being in the bottom 20% of players somehow prevents you from making basic observations. Does blizzard think that the bronze league players will be like "hey man where are my extra 2 mineral patches and vespene geyser? This has ruined my entire game!" no I think people just don't give the lower league players enough credit. Having weaker mechanics / game sense won't prevent you from dealing with a nonstandard resource layout, especially if you've played the campaign, which had several nonstandard resource layouts.
On March 01 2012 06:03 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The ladder data may be useful, but I don't know why anyone would use it in lieu of an analysis of top-tier professional play. An obvious example here is Ghosts in TvZ-- they aren't really a problem at the lower level and on most of the ladder because most people don't have the mechanics to use it. It's pretty clear Blizz took a look at professional play and instituted a change.
On March 01 2012 06:03 Sumadin wrote: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.
Even if that's true, that doesn't mean they should meddle with something that works. Blizzard doesn't have more info about how people react to 6m1g than the mapmaking community does because Blizzard has never put such a map on the ladder. Daybreak as it stands is a balanced and baller map, and I don't think it needs to be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
While I do hate Blizzard for many reasons, most of which have to do with fucking around with SC2, I do have to give them props, for the people that are talking about rocks. Korhal Compound and Cloud Kingdom only have rocks to narrow chokes, not to actually block paths. This is a HUGE deal, and Daybreak already has those rocks in place. In my opinion, that is about the only thing they can be given props for, apart from adding actually decent maps, concerning maps. I think they also go about balancing incorrectly, don't listen concerning LAN, and can't figure out how to make a good UI to save their lives. Oh and they are trying to whore for money. Yay.
/rant
|
On March 01 2012 15:42 Hossinaut wrote:
While I do hate Blizzard for many reasons, most of which have to do with fucking around with SC2, I do have to give them props, for the people that are talking about rocks. Korhal Compound and Cloud Kingdom only have rocks to narrow chokes, not to actually block paths. This is a HUGE deal, and Daybreak already has those rocks in place. In my opinion, that is about the only thing they can be given props for, apart from adding actually decent maps, concerning maps. I think they also go about balancing incorrectly, don't listen concerning LAN, and can't figure out how to make a good UI to save their lives. Oh and they are trying to whore for money. Yay.
/rant
I think you could MAYBE also give them props for like... making the game we all love so much?
|
so they changed it. the pocket bases have 8m2g. Thats kinda shitty especially since all the voting was done with( and even the loading screen is still showing) the 6m base. Its like they pulled a quick switch and hoped nobody would notice until after the season started rather than have the complaining start right away.
I notice they also got rid of all neutal supply depots again and also changed the creep tumor to rocks on metropolis. None of these changes are reflected in the so called LE pictures or loading screens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://us.media5.battle.net/cms/gallery/UBPXF82ROS8P1330144210373.jpg)
