EPTMap Balance - The Worst of the Worst - Page 10
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
ckw
United States1018 Posts
| ||
|
vlaric
United States412 Posts
| ||
|
VelRa_G
Canada304 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/Schmyesh/Neo-Kulas20.jpg) As for IZ, I think a lot of problems could be solved if the map was scaled up in size, so that all the features were the same but it was, say, 30x30 bigger. Also with the middle lava pit removed. DO needs some minor changes a) to the rush distance, maybe relocate the ramps so that the 2 and 7 o clock naturals were guarded by the ramp and the uppermost 12 and 6 o' clock terrain was impassable. | ||
|
Therapist
United States97 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 31060
3788 Posts
On June 19 2010 22:07 Artosis wrote: to address a few of the stupid posts in here before it gets too gross: 1) I said that I cannot address ZvP balance on Desert BECAUSE EVERYONE RUSHES. Lots of you decided that I said it was Protoss favored. Can't even begin to fathom how you decided this. 2) This is "The Worst of the Worst" FOR ZERG. That's what I said, that's what it is. To call it whining is ignorant. 3) IdrA and I have been practicing a bit with Terran. We might switch back. We might not. We'll see. People who "call me out" on made-up biases are out of line. come on, you titled the article "SC2 Map Balance Part 1 - The Worst of the Worst" and then only discussed map imbalance against zerg. How do you think the masses are going to interpret it? | ||
|
Mania[K]al
United States359 Posts
I don't think a thread like this is even needed. There's a reason why Iccup thrives off Kespa maps. | ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
On June 20 2010 04:10 Prometheus2011 wrote: On a more serious note, I believe the fact that we are seeing several top tier players disagree about balance issues on maps means that they are likely more balanced than we realize. Very very interesting point here.... On June 20 2010 04:44 Sunyveil wrote: come on, you titled the article "SC2 Map Balance Part 1 - The Worst of the Worst" and then only discussed map imbalance against zerg. How do you think the masses are going to interpret it? Again a good point. I still refuse to believe that DO favors anything but Zerg. I mean expanding on that map for anyone not Zerg is impossible. Far away form main? Check Completely open? Check Have to leave main open to defend natural? Check Insanely short air distance for free maphack? Check. Again I can agree with Kulas and IZ having issues but I think if there's an issue with DO it should be it favoring Zerg. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
what would be awesome, a state of the game podcast discussing the current map pool and resource balance with people of equal understanding rather than putting it in an article. as for desert oasis, its not a good map if you plan to go roach hydra for your midgame. | ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
On June 20 2010 04:50 Madkipz wrote: what would be awesome, a state of the game podcast discussing the current map pool and resource balance with people of equal understanding rather than putting it in an article. Actually I was going to organize this today with top players across the world. Expect something about this soon....  | ||
|
Fefnir
United States50 Posts
High level play =/= quality post High post count =/= quality post Arbiter, Nony, I see so much more constructive activity from them than Idra's blind rants... | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On June 20 2010 04:50 iCCup.Diamond wrote: Actually I was going to organize this today with top players across the world. Expect something about this soon.... how sweet of you guys, hope the people you invite will have different pov's to lead into interesting discussions. ;D | ||
|
Deleted User 31060
3788 Posts
These types of articles are unwarranted; DO and Kulas were made before any top-level players had a crack at the beta, along with most of the other maps, so Blizzard really had to make a shot in the dark to try to come up with good maps. In my mind, they did a pretty good job, making several maps, each with a significantly different feel to it, and as it turns out some of the maps played much better than the others for competitive play. If the game comes out, and the ladder maps are horrid, then I think we should start complaining. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On June 20 2010 00:30 Fyrewolf wrote: Since the style of SC maps has always been symmetrical for both people, I don't believe in map balance. I don't believe the maps are the same, they play differently and different things are stronger than others. But every player knows the map at the beginning and it doesn't ever change. Hence, it is always balanced because both people can do the same things. If one person started in a base with a smaller choke, then you could talk about map imbalance. but the map is the same for everyone, and everyone can use it to their advantage. Some races might be able to take air faster (or range, or any other advantage you want to insert). That's not a map balance issue. It should factor in to your plan of what your opponent might do on a map suited to it. Part of the game is preparing and realizing everything that the enemy can do. Thanks for actually reading my post. If you had actually read it, you realize that I do talk about maps making certain things not as good. Yes zerg units are worse on low ground because of less ranged units. Yes units do fare slightly better on high ground with micro. Yes some units outrange others. The point is that with the map you already know this, it's not sprung on you in the middle of the match. The cliff doesn't move forward at will like a unit. I talked about changing build orders to suit the map and taking the map into account in every game. I make the point that the map only changes what styles are strong or weak. That was the entire point of my post. Thanks for completely ignoring the point, then trying to point out my point that map balance is the biggest thing that changed players styles. warning: I have not moved on in the thread past this post, so this may be completely unnecessary now... This post is really ignorant, and shows that you have never watched brood war progames enough to understand how important map balance is. "Adapting your strategy" is always possible; of course; but strategies are made standard for a reason. If you make a map with no natural expansion, Terran will win nearly every TvZ - they simply won't be able to survive a 10 marine 2 medic 2 firebat push from a 2rax tech build. No amount of zerglings is gonna save you, and turtling on one base is suicide. Obviously this is an exaggerated example, but at the highest level, there are so many things that sway the balance of the map that you really need to watch a lot to understand. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
I would be more interested in reading how a top zerg player feels about how map design interacts with zerg gameplay, what race becomes stronger or weaker, which strategies are more pronounced, and why that is so, some critical thoughts on what works and doesn't work with the current map set etc. The article comes across to me too much as a declaration of things Blizzard needs to fix, and it's hard to assess properly because of that. | ||
|
Ecto
Denmark54 Posts
| ||
NonY
8751 Posts
Imagine chat channels existed (it's a stretch, I know) and you happened to join one with Artosis and IdrA in it. You're a Zerg player and you've been wondering how the different maps change how Zerg works. You get up the courage to ask these people for their opinions... and to your surprise, not only do they answer you, but they write 1000's of words on it. That kinda stuff is pure gold to a ton of people. It's not about proving which map is balanced one way or the other. It's just that in their thousands of games played, Artosis and IdrA have noticed that some maps are very good for them as Zerg and some are pretty bad. That's interesting. It's the first step in understanding how certain features of maps are going to favor particular races. This forum is for discussion folks, not critiquing. Evaluating and judging OP's like this is a waste. Engage in the discussion and grapple with the ideas. | ||
|
SiN]
United States540 Posts
Sure, there are maps that favor one race or another, but when it comes right down to it, the player who is more skillful will win, regardless of the map. Note that it is nearly impossible to make a perfectly balanced map. The only map that was actually imbalanced to the point where it directly affected who would win was Incineration Zone, and that got removed. All of these complaints are biased. Not one of them talks about a matchup other than ZvP and ZvT, and it happens to be coming from Zerg players. I can't understand why you would call these map "imbalances" the worst of the worst because they don't affect play significantly enough that you can actually say "I lost because I played on this map!" Saying that map balance is specifically for top level play is also wrong. Top level players are capable of dealing with these so called imbalances just fine. It would actually be mid-level players that would stand out, because they would have a harder time dealing with whatever "imbalances" there are. For example: A few weeks ago, in PvT, Voidrays was very difficult to stop for medium level players because getting a few Voidrays and microing them required less skill than countering them. Marines were outranged, and Vikings were nearly useless if the P got something other than Voidrays. However, if a higher level player got Voidrays, the Terran player would know what to get to counter them, and be skillful enough to handle any situation early on. Though this isn't a map issue, the same idea still applies. I could post a similar article saying that I have difficulty on maps such as Blistering Sands and Metalopolis cross positions against Zerg and therefore they are imbalanced. However, I realize that when I lose on these maps it is simply because I am being outplayed, not because the map is working against me. If the other release maps ARE indeed imbalanced, then they will be banned from tournaments and people will take them off of their map preference list. | ||
|
italiangymnast
United States246 Posts
On June 20 2010 05:23 Liquid`NonY wrote: I'm not a fan of map discussions without stats. But that's just me. People should take this for what it's worth. A ton of people are undervaluing this and some are overvaluing this. Imagine chat channels existed (it's a stretch, I know) and you happened to join one with Artosis and IdrA in it. You're a Zerg player and you've been wondering how the different maps change how Zerg works. You get up the courage to ask these people for their opinions... and to your surprise, not only do they answer you, but they write 1000's of words on it. That kinda stuff is pure gold to a ton of people. It's not about proving which map is balanced one way or the other. It's just that in their thousands of games played, Artosis and IdrA have noticed that some maps are very good for them as Zerg and some are pretty bad. That's interesting. It's the first step in understanding how certain features of maps are going to favor particular races. This forum is for discussion folks, not critiquing. Evaluating and judging OP's like this is a waste. Engage in the discussion and grapple with the ideas. this would be true, nony, except that artosis has been ranting about how underpowered Zerg is since like 2 weeks into the beta. Not only is the game goin to evolve still but it all seems pretty even on most maps( save insineration zone). It's too early to say which maps are imbalances and especially to take it from someone who is so biased. He has written many articles on how Zerg is underpowered yet they are doing fine in tournys and such. I love artosis and all he does for the community, don't get me wrong. I just can't take his balance critiques seriously. | ||
|
shynee
Canada180 Posts
On June 19 2010 22:13 Artosis wrote: "If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads." Thank you, Mr. 74 posts, for coming here and letting everyone know that I am biased and withholding interviews due to conflicting opinions with myself. "And zerg definately has teh advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map." ah ok, thanks, IdrA and I got it wrong. All makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation. I find it hilarious how Artosis likes to name drop "Idra" whenever he's trying to defend himself .. or when he's trying to shut someone up. Learn how to adapt to each map my friend.. without whining and throwing Idra into the mix. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On June 20 2010 05:06 Pokebunny wrote: warning: I have not moved on in the thread past this post, so this may be completely unnecessary now... This post is really ignorant, and shows that you have never watched brood war progames enough to understand how important map balance is. "Adapting your strategy" is always possible; of course; but strategies are made standard for a reason. If you make a map with no natural expansion, Terran will win nearly every TvZ - they simply won't be able to survive a 10 marine 2 medic 2 firebat push from a 2rax tech build. No amount of zerglings is gonna save you, and turtling on one base is suicide. Obviously this is an exaggerated example, but at the highest level, there are so many things that sway the balance of the map that you really need to watch a lot to understand. I would like to think I'm not ignorant, considering I've been playing Starcraft since long before Brood War even came out. You seem to think that a single solid build is the only way to open. While preferable, it is used because it is decently strong against everything, but not as strong as it could be against individual openings. If through your scouting you see an opening that is vulnerable and you adapt yours to be less balanced but stronger in the early game against his specific build, you can gain advantage. A solid build isn't the only build, it's just better because it's solid. Also in SC2 it's easier to have many openings lead into the same midgame safe standard.. Starcraft 2 is not Starcraft Brood War, please don't talk like it is. Adapting your strategy isn't only "possible", it's essential to high level play. On June 20 2010 02:59 captainwaffles wrote: Its not "cheesy" or "gimmicky" to use the map to your advantage, the idea of playing "straight up" all the time every game, regardless of the map seems a little absurd to be honest. It's really interesting how big of a deal everyone is making about map balance. The maps may or may not favor a race slightly, but your gameplay is supposed to work around this. None of the maps have "no natural expansion". The maps aren't so ridiculous that it hands the victory to a certain race. Every single player can take down his destructable rocks on Kulas to keep from being cliffed at the natural. There are multiple ways for every race to deal with the issues every map throws at you. Can't get a flank? Use air/drops. Big area to defend? Nydus/creep/warp in/ sensor towers. Maps affect play STYLE. Any player with any race can play multiple STYLES, Zerg does feel less diverse, mostly due to lots of melee units and no one using varied air. But bitching about a maps features doesn't help anything, and doesn't improve your actual playing. It's one thing to look at Kulas and say I can't defend my natural well, it's another to actually use what you have to DO something about it to make defending it easier, like knocking down rocks or taking the high ground expansion instead, | ||
| ||
