EPTAn appeal for imbalance - Page 3
| Blogs > SiskosGoatee |
|
LastLemming
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
If you think that only glaring changes like PREVENTING ZERG FROM TAKING A NATURAL are considered innovative and not anything else that is being tried/been tried then bro, your list of "innovations" is going to be very, very small. I will agree (if that is your opinion) that it is WAY, WAY too easy for the races to get a third and fourth base on a lot of these maps. I personally think that it is a matter of DISTANCE between nat and third, not safety of third sim-city. But I don't understand the majority of your arguments dude. It seems like you flip-flop back and forth all over the place (which is fine, if that's really what's going on - I do it a lot sometimes, until I really hammer out where I stand with discourse). A map is more than one or two of its components, it's the whole put together. I don't you're representing the host of possible combinations with enough merit. It shouldn't just be the change itself that is innovative, it should be the comination of map features...the WHOLE. Shrieking Breeze is rediculous. A bit too rediculous almost, but look how much the CENTER ACTUALLY MATTERS. It matters a lot. If an army were to go around the center to attack an opponent (from either direction given travel and good scouting) the opponent should be capable of having an insane arc (HAVE YOU EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT SPACIAL CONTROL OF RAMPS AND THE POWER OF DROPS?). Thus, back to the middle. It actually fucking matters. And look at the whole main-nat-third interaction! That is incredible! I mean perhaps not to the extent that I visualize in my head (this is all just theorycrafting, yes, and a teeny bit of Protoss sim-city will do wonders against Zerg), but that is CERTAINLY something that in combination with the center produces a unique map. Several pieces have been done to death - but the combination has produced a unique and interesting whole. I've come to a new opinion regarding Polaris Rhapsody, and that is that it is a VERY BORING MAP. Outside of the lava mechanic (which occurs ONCE every FIVE minutes - not nearly enough to influence interesting backstab/positional gameplay) it demonstrates a common problem of most new maps - very easy (VERY, VERY easy - leading to horrible strategies like mech which are ATROCIOUS to watch) to take third and fourth, and even fifth! Of course, (being in the wonderful theorycraft land that we all love) this might change, but since BASE LAYOUT matters more than any other component of SC2 maps and dictates the sort of play YOU want to see, then that should always be the basis of your judging... Everyone (like you, I would assume from what I have read) is voting for it and saying it is innovative because of "oooh, lava!," without considering the far more important game dictating mechanic, which is base layout. Of your comment on "innovative constructs," this is the only claim that really holds weight in my regard and is currently making the metagame boring and extremely stale. For a race like Protoss, not having to work for a third at least a LITTLE bit INFURIRATES me (bias of course). I think there are a lot of crazy map constructions of main/nat/third that have not been tried which I would love to see done (I have been playing with them myself! But I would be teared to pieces if I posted one - maybe I might show it to Plexa!) The problem then, is and has been one of balls and league format. Eventually, PL or GSTL will use a crazy map and it will get enough recognition to be used in tourneys. But as long as tournaments outside of WCS do not make it their perogative to use a host of innovative community made maps every tournament, develop a standard of judging (perhaps even keeping two or three of the well recieved maps the NEXT tournament...) and cultivate a rich map-making culture, this part of the game, which holds the most potential for strategic growth outside of LOTV, will continue to be grossly ignored. It is wrong and it hurts me and scars my soul and saddens me every time I leave the Custom Maps forum, but Blizzard has shown over the past three years that they are doing next to NOTHING to help the mapping scene flourish and will CONTINUE to do so. So the answer has to come from all tournaments outside WCS (Redbull is using only one...how fucking sad). Fuck WCS points. New maps coupled with strong players will make your tourney more interesting anyhow. POLARIS RHAPSODY: The spoiler contains my original post! Having watched the game of TLO vs. Skyhigh, I've got to say that Polaris Rhapsody is a fucking sexy map but I'm still up in arms about how you can control 4 bases by controlling one pod (mech T_T). The importance of that position coupled with the giant amount of space in the main might make drops more prominant, though. Otherwise the execution of the map is just superb (main could seriously be a bit smaller lol) and I really really love the Broodwar style high cliff airspace. Obviously the lava mechanic is new and it is executed pretty damn well, I just wish the period was around 4:00 instead of 5:00 since that would make counterattacks even more prominant (fuck even 3:00 if you really, REALLY wanted to influence the pace of the game). | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On November 05 2013 06:26 SidianTheBard wrote: I said no such thing, I said it wasn't a reason to disqualify them.I must be confused because earlier you were saying you wanted maps that were good for cannoning or good for blink stalkers and I just pointed out the maps that would be good for cannoning or blink stalkers and you come back with it's nothing innovative or unusual. But either way, even though one strategy can work on every single map doesn't mean it is the strategy that should be used. 11/11rax TvZ was amazing on Entombed Valley and you saw that strategy so many times because of how strong it was. It also had the bunker placement spot below the natural ramp that you could park a marine behind. Pretty sure it was MVP who pulled that one out. I thought (i could be wrong on this) but after the MVP game doing that bunker rush, they ended up going back and fixing it so that bunker rush wasn't able to be done anymore. 11/11 was still very strong on the map but now was it the ideal strategy to use? It isn't, but 11/11 wasn't the strat which worked on all maps at the time, 1 rax expand was, and still is that strategy.Same goes for a game on Metalopolis with Nestea vs Alive (not positive if it was alive) but for some reason the version they played on didn't have the rocks at the bottom of the main ramp, Alive figured that out, did the bunker block on the ramp and Nestea was screwed because every other version has rocks at the bottom of the main ramp, but not this one. Again, it was immediately fixed afterwards. If bunker/pylon blocking was still available today on say 10% of the map pool, would that be enjoyable to watch? "Nestea forgot to patrol 2 drones at the bottom of his ramp, he loses 100%!!!" "Forgot to raise depot" -> loses 100% "Forgot to put zealot on hold position" -> looses 100% "Forgot to make spores against dts" -> looses 100% "Forgot stim" -> looses 100% This is the reality of the game already I'm afraid. I've always been vocally against the neutral depot because I don't consider the bunker block strat overpowered, it was never unstoppable. It was just a way of tournaments to say 'Cheese isn't a real game so don't do it, only macro is real.', just like the fetish for larger maps with more easily defended naturals at the time the neutral depot was invented. I think you also don't understand that no matter what map you play on, you will still see the same Gate > FE or Forge > FE gameplay. Of course not, you could never 1gate FE or FFE on XNC, you needed to go at least 2 or 3gate FE with sentries on XNC to secure a natural.You think just because the main only had 5m0g that we still wouldn't see a forge fe? No, I'm saying that with a 5m0g main every strategy currently used would have to be re-adjusted. We might see a completely different FFE build order or no FFE at all.If a base has a low amount of resource nodes Terran and mules play a big role since terran is very mineral heavy. They won't have to expand as often because they don't rely on as much gas. Protoss and Zerg though, will be screwed. So now, it's not a map design problem, it's a unit design problem. Now we have to go in and change mules & marines. Or the reverse happens, because T needs minerals more but it gives less minerals etc etc etc.Anyway, your argument supposes Icarus to be T favoured, that didn't happen, so yeah. How do you stop a protoss from doing a forge > fe or gateway > fe? Yeah, it was an amazing time of the game where there was actually interaction in PvZ before the 10 minute mark. I don't see the problem with forcing a player to push out and do damage. It's been well accepted these days that people complain players are playing too defensively.If the natural is not safe enough then they have to sit on 1 base for too long so at that point might as well either 1-base all-in or cheese. Well, we already see 1-base all-ins and cheese even on maps where naturals are super safe. So why force a map that will basically require it? Look waaay back in WoL with Xel'Naga Caverns. The natural was very unsafe and protoss finally found a way to make their economy not as far behind by doing the 3gate sentry expand. Only problem is you still had to push out with all your sentries and do some type of damage otherwise you were still very far behind. (Then again, if Siskos can defend a blink all-in with no bunkers and just a few marauders apparently everybody can) [/i]Yeah, everyone can defend a blink all in if they go 2rax. The blink all in 4gate build is designed as a counter against FE. It doesn't work if someone goes 2rax expand. Stalkers are actually hilariously cost in effecient against bio as we all know, it relies on hitting before T has any bio and bypassing the bunkers they use to make up for it, if you have enough bio and medivacs and stim already when it hits, which you will have with a 2rax expo, you're good to go,Blink all ins suck against 2rax, the build is entirely designed to go up against an FE. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
I've always been vocally against the neutral depot because I don't consider the bunker block strat overpowered, it was never unstoppable. It was just a way of tournaments to say 'Cheese isn't a real game so don't do it, only macro is real.', just like the fetish for larger maps with more easily defended naturals at the time the neutral depot was invented. No, it's about shitty games and has nothing to do with cheese. It's about a probe scout from a standard Forge-->Nexus build, but the probe sees that there is no patrol down the ramp or the patrol is slightly off, or of the 2 canonrush spots and the bottom of the ramp only 2 are covered by drones. And then the probe just does the canonrush and the game just ends. People don't like to watch or play against those strategies, that's why they are not allowed. If you want a metagame based upon such strategies, then you stand pretty much alone. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On November 05 2013 11:34 Qwyn wrote: + Show Spoiler + If you think that only glaring changes like PREVENTING ZERG FROM TAKING A NATURAL are considered innovative and not anything else that is being tried/been tried then bro, your list of "innovations" is going to be very, very small. I will agree (if that is your opinion) that it is WAY, WAY too easy for the races to get a third and fourth base on a lot of these maps. I personally think that it is a matter of DISTANCE between nat and third, not safety of third sim-city. But I don't understand the majority of your arguments dude. It seems like you flip-flop back and forth all over the place (which is fine, if that's really what's going on - I do it a lot sometimes, until I really hammer out where I stand with discourse). A map is more than one or two of its components, it's the whole put together. I don't you're representing the host of possible combinations with enough merit. It shouldn't just be the change itself that is innovative, it should be the comination of map features...the WHOLE. Shrieking Breeze is rediculous. A bit too rediculous almost, but look how much the CENTER ACTUALLY MATTERS. It matters a lot. If an army were to go around the center to attack an opponent (from either direction given travel and good scouting) the opponent should be capable of having an insane arc (HAVE YOU EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT SPACIAL CONTROL OF RAMPS AND THE POWER OF DROPS?). Thus, back to the middle. It actually fucking matters. And look at the whole main-nat-third interaction! That is incredible! I mean perhaps not to the extent that I visualize in my head (this is all just theorycrafting, yes, and a teeny bit of Protoss sim-city will do wonders against Zerg), but that is CERTAINLY something that in combination with the center produces a unique map. Several pieces have been done to death - but the combination has produced a unique and interesting whole. I've come to a new opinion regarding Polaris Rhapsody, and that is that it is a VERY BORING MAP. Outside of the lava mechanic (which occurs ONCE every FIVE minutes - not nearly enough to influence interesting backstab/positional gameplay) it demonstrates a common problem of most new maps - very easy (VERY, VERY easy - leading to horrible strategies like mech which are ATROCIOUS to watch) to take third and fourth, and even fifth! Of course, (being in the wonderful theorycraft land that we all love) this might change, but since BASE LAYOUT matters more than any other component of SC2 maps and dictates the sort of play YOU want to see, then that should always be the basis of your judging... Everyone (like you, I would assume from what I have read) is voting for it and saying it is innovative because of "oooh, lava!," without considering the far more important game dictating mechanic, which is base layout. Of your comment on "innovative constructs," this is the only claim that really holds weight in my regard and is currently making the metagame boring and extremely stale. For a race like Protoss, not having to work for a third at least a LITTLE bit INFURIRATES me (bias of course). I think there are a lot of crazy map constructions of main/nat/third that have not been tried which I would love to see done (I have been playing with them myself! But I would be teared to pieces if I posted one - maybe I might show it to Plexa!) The problem then, is and has been one of balls and league format. Eventually, PL or GSTL will use a crazy map and it will get enough recognition to be used in tourneys. But as long as tournaments outside of WCS do not make it their perogative to use a host of innovative community made maps every tournament, develop a standard of judging (perhaps even keeping two or three of the well recieved maps the NEXT tournament...) and cultivate a rich map-making culture, this part of the game, which holds the most potential for strategic growth outside of LOTV, will continue to be grossly ignored. It is wrong and it hurts me and scars my soul and saddens me every time I leave the Custom Maps forum, but Blizzard has shown over the past three years that they are doing next to NOTHING to help the mapping scene flourish and will CONTINUE to do so. So the answer has to come from all tournaments outside WCS (Redbull is using only one...how fucking sad). Fuck WCS points. New maps coupled with strong players will make your tourney more interesting anyhow. POLARIS RHAPSODY: The spoiler contains my original post! Having watched the game of TLO vs. Skyhigh, I've got to say that Polaris Rhapsody is a fucking sexy map but I'm still up in arms about how you can control 4 bases by controlling one pod (mech T_T). The importance of that position coupled with the giant amount of space in the main might make drops more prominant, though. Otherwise the execution of the map is just superb (main could seriously be a bit smaller lol) and I really really love the Broodwar style high cliff airspace. Obviously the lava mechanic is new and it is executed pretty damn well, I just wish the period was around 4:00 instead of 5:00 since that would make counterattacks even more prominant (fuck even 3:00 if you really, REALLY wanted to influence the pace of the game). http://www.twitch.tv/feardragon64/c/3180679 if anyone wants to watch the vod. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On November 05 2013 18:33 Big J wrote: Yeah, why not also create a mechanic that auto raises depots so Terrans can't be killed by a Zerg who leaves the depots open by a random runby. They have lings, they see the opening, they take it.No, it's about shitty games and has nothing to do with cheese. It's about a probe scout from a standard Forge-->Nexus build, but the probe sees that there is no patrol down the ramp or the patrol is slightly off, or of the 2 canonrush spots and the bottom of the ramp only 2 are covered by drones. And then the probe just does the canonrush and the game just ends. People don't like to watch or play against those strategies, that's why they are not allowed. If you want a metagame based upon such strategies, then you stand pretty much alone. If you don't want to die from mistakes don't make them. Don't expect the game or the map to hold your hand. Apart from that, there have been some notable comebacks against pylon blocks which were all the more exciting | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 05 2013 19:08 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, why not also create a mechanic that auto raises depots so Terrans can't be killed by a Zerg who leaves the depots open by a random runby. They have lings, they see the opening, they take it. If you don't want to die from mistakes don't make them. Don't expect the game or the map to hold your hand. Apart from that, there have been some notable comebacks against pylon blocks which were all the more exciting I don't expect the game to hold my hand. It's just a better game if it does in situations that have a very random nature. (e.g. early game rushes in which BOs and tiny control mistakes don't just give tiny advantages) | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On November 05 2013 21:05 Big J wrote: There is nothing random about pulling a drone in time to block. It's 3 pylons. Many maps allow cannons behind the minerals with 3 pylons, if that happens in PvP if you allow the probe to get the 3 down you are significantly behind about as much as being locked in and stopping the cannon rush will be hard. The answer is to react immediately the moment the probe plants the first and pull probes to block it, there's nothing 'random' about it.I don't expect the game to hold my hand. It's just a better game if it does in situations that have a very random nature. (e.g. early game rushes in which BOs and tiny control mistakes don't just give tiny advantages) An alternative solution is of course to probe/drone scout and see the early forge and put a worker there already. The standard opener in PvZ with a forge expand is nexus first, if P is goes forge first then P is looking to cannon, a single drone of the line is well worth it that P went forge first and didn't get to cannon. It's ultimately part of the ancient mentality that 'cheese' is not a real game and people trying to design maps to limit that. The entire mentality of hyper-safe naturals that currently exist are a function of that, except it didn't work to reduce cheese at all. The amount of cheese remained a constant, it just resulted into people opening up more greedily thereby making the old cheeses work again in spite of the more easily defensible naturals. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 05 2013 21:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: There is nothing random about pulling a drone in time to block. It's 3 pylons. Many maps allow cannons behind the minerals with 3 pylons, if that happens in PvP if you allow the probe to get the 3 down you are significantly behind about as much as being locked in and stopping the cannon rush will be hard. The answer is to react immediately the moment the probe plants the first and pull probes to block it, there's nothing 'random' about it. An alternative solution is of course to probe/drone scout and see the early forge and put a worker there already. The standard opener in PvZ with a forge expand is nexus first, if P is goes forge first then P is looking to cannon, a single drone of the line is well worth it that P went forge first and didn't get to cannon. It's ultimately part of the ancient mentality that 'cheese' is not a real game and people trying to design maps to limit that. The entire mentality of hyper-safe naturals that currently exist are a function of that, except it didn't work to reduce cheese at all. The amount of cheese remained a constant, it just resulted into people opening up more greedily thereby making the old cheeses work again in spite of the more easily defensible naturals. Nobody is saying it is hard to prevent if you just do everything right. It's just a strategy that the game does not need to have buffed, just like we don't buff early pools by making it impossible to wall off, drops/mutalisks by making air rushdistances ridiculously short or - hell - let 2players spawn neck headquarter on headquarter to see the "awesome strategies that develop if the workers are attacking each other 5seconds in the game". Basically what you are saying is that we should have everything in the game - despite noone liking it - just because it may not be broken. Strategywise it's ok, but gameplaywise it's just wrong. We don't want "any" strategies. We want fun/interesting strategies. I don't want to have the "better" player determined by him remembering every game that he has to send a worker somewhere early "just in case". That's not a showcase of skill, that's just a stupid task. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On November 05 2013 22:23 Big J wrote: Many people in fact are. People used to actually believe, and many still do, that this strat was overpowered, unstoppable and what not. My original discussion with mappers was about the pylon/bunker block where they said itw as cmopletely overpowered and "unstoppable", it's very easy to stop if you know it's coming.Nobody is saying it is hard to prevent if you just do everything right. It's just a strategy that the game does not need to have buffed, just like we don't buff early pools by making it impossible to wall off, drops/mutalisks by making air rushdistances ridiculously short or - hell - let 2players spawn neck headquarter on headquarter to see the "awesome strategies that develop if the workers are attacking each other 5seconds in the game". And the thesis of this thread is that those exact things should be buffed, just all on different maps to force variety into the game and different openers for each map. The reason you can open the same on every map is that there is no fear of cheese in this game any more.Basically what you are saying is that we should have everything in the game - despite noone liking it Speak for yourself. This topic has 4.5 stars and we all know that stars have nothing to do with the quality of writing and purely how many people agree with the thesis.I don't want to have the "better" player determined by him remembering every game that he has to send a worker somewhere early "just in case". That's not a showcase of skill, that's just a stupid task. Neither is constantly making workers but hey, it's a mechanical game. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
And the thesis of this thread is that those exact things should be buffed, just all on different maps to force variety into the game and different openers for each map. The reason you can open the same on every map is that there is no fear of cheese in this game any more. Not really. Nowhere in the OP did you write something like that. You brought up great points about the maps diversifying styles etc, not that you want canonrushing or 10min 1basing to be standard. None of the examples in your OP - Metalopolis - Scrap Station - Xel'Naga Caverns - Crossfire - Terminus - Tal'Darim Altar - Crevasse - Shakuras Plateau was known for being overly aggressive for that time/balancing. And the only real difference to todays maps is the natural layout on some of those maps - which back in the day did not get abused very hard apart from crossfire 1-1-1ing. The bottom 4 of those maps are very standard even for todays measures, apart from a few nifty differences. When I rated your post a 5, I did it because I really like this approach - having a very standard setup but with the one or other twist. Neither is constantly making workers but hey, it's a mechanical game. The difference being that skipping many workers is many mistakes. Skipping one worker does not matter a lot - in terms of mechanics it is a similar mistake to not having that worker in place against a superduper-canonspot. With the second one having the potential to end the game or to at least completely destroy your gameplan. | ||
|
ETisME
12384 Posts
The mobility and the timing it hits is really tight. If it was something else like a 2 colossus timing all in, there are rooms for the terran to prepare and slow down the push etc. I certainly can see your side of argument but when it comes to blink stalkers all in, I am not so sure. Another strategy that worked wonder and never really got countered was immortal sentries all in on ohana, even when Zerg got to counter it better on other maps. So if the strategy becomes too strong on one map, it might not lead to metagame development but a stale one with the map generally getting veto'd | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
An alternative solution is of course to probe/drone scout and see the early forge and put a worker there already. The standard opener in PvZ with a forge expand is nexus first, if P is goes forge first then P is looking to cannon, a single drone of the line is well worth it that P went forge first and didn't get to cannon. I don't see how this is interesting, though. You're basically saying that you want to add something that basically requires one patrol a worker, but which doesn't make the game more interesting. It's not like patrolling that one worker actually does anything to the metagame aside from slowing down the Zerg (or whichever) economy a little bit. The point is that it doesn't add any possibilities; if anything, it restricts them by requiring you to mindlessly patrol a worker in one spot every single game against Protoss because, if you don't, you may lose the game instantly. Unlike wall-offs, or other (more interesting) bits of required actions, patrolling a worker adds nothing to the game. Wall-offs affect a variety of things, particularly with respect to hiding tech, engaging at the natural, and so on. Patrolling a worker is seriously just something you "do" until you either see that the Protoss isn't going for a Cannon Rush or until you have enough tech to stop it from working anyway/kill the Probe. In what way is that interesting, or novel, or worth having in the game? Does having neutral Supply Depots wreck something that I'm not aware of? Cause I sure as hell haven't see anything bad come of it. | ||
| ||
