I will be writing several articles on the balance of various things in SC2 and I decided that the first one would have to be map balance. This will be an objective look at the theory and practice of the balance of the current set of SC2 maps in the Zerg matchups. I cannot, at this time, discuss TvP balance for these maps, simply because I haven't kept up on the matchup enough.
A big thanks to IdrA, who helped a ton in the creation of this article!
PLEASE NOTE #1: This article addresses only top-level play. Balance is impossible to properly address at lower levels because there are so many other factors to consider when looking at that level of play.
PLEASE NOTE #2: I will be ignoring Mech vs Zerg. Properly played Mech is a very powerful strategy that is not yet fully understood which means it skews map and balance analysis in general, so we will discuss non-mech balance when talking about ZvT in this article.
The Worst of the Worst
KULAS RAVINE - This map is certainly one of the worst three balanced maps out of our current map pool, and may in fact be the least-balanced for Zerg. ZvT - Zerg vs Terran on this map is a constant battle up-hill. Let's look at the various problems in the map's architecture that contributes to this.
Short rush distance, long scout distance- While Kulas has reasonably short rush distances it actually has very slow scouting for Zerg. The other four player maps have close air positions, meaning your overlord scout eliminates a base quickly, but on Kulas, this isn't the case. This makes fast expanding az Zerg much more risky, as you are less likely to see bunker rush or reaper builds in time. This is not imbalanced itself, but it puts Zerg in an uncomfortable position that makes dealing with subsequent pressure much more difficult.
Wide-open natural expansion, long distance from main hatchery to expansion hatchery- The natural expansion of Kulas lacks a single, defensible choke point. This makes spine crawlers nearly useless, especially when combined with the fact that it takes two full creep tumors to reach from the main base to the main entrance. This makes that entrance very hard to defend early on with Queens, due to their slow speed off creep and roaches, due to the width of the choke. When you put this all together, Zerg lacks a solid way to defend early rushes, particularly from Hellion-based builds.
Large ledge behind natural expansion- The ledge behind the natural expansion can cause huge problems for Zerg. The size of the ledge makes Thor drops very powerful, as the Thor has plenty of space to avoid Roaches, Hydras and Spine Crawlers, while chasing off spotting Overlords. Because of the necessity of guarding the wide open natural expansion during the early game, it's often not possible to kill the rocks leading to the high ground, leaving the Zerg vulnerable until they are finally able to kill the rocks.
Poor map circulation, no wide-open spaces- All of Kulas Ravine is cramped and tight, with high ground all over. A standard Zerg army needs a lot of room to allow for proper flanking on attacks. Army movement becomes impossible with a couple well-placed high ground siege tanks or a Marine/Marauder/Medivac ball in the center of the map, due to DPS of the Terran units and Zerg's inability to flank or surround the army.
ZvP - Zerg vs Protoss here is very similar to Zerg vs Terran. Short rush distance, long scout distance- The same reasons that make Terran Reaper and bunker rushes powerful allow to Protoss to easily two gate on this map to put heavy pressure on the Zerg's early expansion. This, by itself, is not a source of imbalance. But when taken into consideration witha ll of the other threats faced by Zerg early game, it becomes overpowered.
Wide-open natural expansion- One of the main problems on this map, in both matchups, is defending strong, early attacks. The wide-open natural makes defending a Warp Gate rush very difficult, as it allows Protoss to simply avoid Spine Crawlers and this is compounded by the multiple backdoor entrances.
Large ledge behind natural expansion- This point must be taken WITH the above point to show why the map is just so difficult in ZvP. A rush to Warp Prism provides Protoss with fast Stalkers on the Zerg's ledge. How do the Zerg defend this? They certainly can't break down the wall in time, Stalkers out-range all early Zerg units and are thus capable of preventing mining for a very long time. Using Spine Crawlers is not a real answer, because of the above mentioned wide-open natural. If your Spine Crawlers are defending your mineral line, Protoss may simply attack from another angle as soon as Warp Gates finish. This ledge is also deadly, even if you live through the early Protoss assault. A very fast Collosus can wreak havok on your expansion with astounding speed. As with two Gate and Warp Gate rushes it is possible to defend these tactics, they are not by themeselves imbalanced, it's the fact that Zerg must prepare for all these potential threats that becomes a problem.
DESERT OASIS - People have hated this map since day one of the beta. It was the first map to be taken out of many tournaments due to imbalance, as many people felt it too Zerg-favored.
ZvP - Zerg vs Protoss is a matchup that I cannot discuss in great deal on this map. The map looks like it would be Mutalisk heaven... if the game ever got to that point. Because of the map's size, the main bases' orientation and the distances from main to neutral, Protoss players almost always Warp Gates all-in on this map. Nearly every high-level game consists of Protoss attempting to hit Zerg before Hydralisks come out, force field the ramp and kill the natural. So few games have lasted beyond this scenario that I feel the actual balance of this matchup cannot be discussed.
ZvT - Zerg vs Terran on this map is hugely imbalanced, perhaps more imbalanced than on any other map. Zerg simply cannot defeat Terran here. Let's go over the reasons why.
Distance from main base to natural- This map, like Kulas, takes two full creep tumors to reach the entrance to the main base. This makes any Queen-based defense very difficult. The distance from the main Hatchery to the expansion Hatchery also makes defense against either Reaper tech or Hellion tech nearly impossible. A very fast Reaper rush OR lots of early Hellions can render your natural expansion useless or dead.
i laff at this cause imo desert oasis was the best map for zvt u cant play mech turtle cause of all the open areas and huge distances to everywhere and u cant make good timing pushes cause of the long distances
i think its safe to say all the maps r insanely imbalanced, cmon here they r blizzard maps. do u really expect the first maps made to be good at all?
mech works just like mech in sc1, u kill tons of units compared to the unit cost, short distances and small areas favors mech play, destination, stepps of war u cant play bio in tvz, so ur basically just talking about bio mech which is too little to talk about balance for imo
so uh.. this is just an article saying that zerg has a hard time on 3 maps? What about the other races? did imbalance working against them cease to exist?
Yeah... it seems like mech on Desert Oasis would get wrecked.
I mean hellions are annoying, sure, but mutalisks are so good on this map that Terran really needs to invest in a lot of AA.
I don't quite understand your reasoning for ZvP on Oasis. Warp gate all-ins aren't easy for toss with the super long rush distance and Zerg's ability to really put up spine crawlers like crazy when they see forces build up. It is so easy to get vision on this map as Zerg that losing to warp gate all-ins has to be a blunder on the Zerg's part.
And incineration zone is Terran everything. Huge cliffs make reaper harass amazingly effective, and tanks can be defended easily.
I'd love to see a write up for Scrap Station, as I have a lot of trouble on that map.
Also, any maps that are bad for terran? Metalopolis seems like the worst for them.
On June 19 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: i laff at this cause imo desert oasis was the best map for zvt u cant play mech turtle cause of all the open areas and huge distances to everywhere and u cant make good timing pushes cause of the long distances
i think its safe to say all the maps r insanely imbalanced, cmon here they r blizzard maps. do u really expect the first maps made to be good at all?
mech works just like mech in sc1, u kill tons of units compared to the unit cost, short distances and small areas favors mech play, destination, stepps of war u cant play bio in tvz, so ur basically just talking about bio mech which is too little to talk about balance for imo
Bit rich for a Terran player to comment on balance.
Terran are so utterly overpowered and broken at the moment that its pretty ridiculous for you not to be winning every single MU on every single Map.
i kinda agree that almost all of the blizzard maps in sc2 is bad, but there is always something you can do! just because kulas ravine is not good for early expanding as zerg its not impossible to win.. i had some succes with one base muta or a late hidden expansion .. but ye im looking forward to new and better maps
I agree on many points about Kulas and Incineration zone. (Even though Incineration zone does not really have to be discussed anymore. Everyone knows that it is a shit map)
Hm... I can not agree with your opinion of Desert Oasis. Imo it is a great map, maybe my favourite in all matchups. I see big concerns with ZvP, because Zerg might be too strong there unless they change the map a little (destructable rocks at the narrow choke of the natural). But how can really say Zerg can not win in ZvT there.
Thor drop: You basicly only need zerglings to hold this off, just for the minerals of the Dropship + thor you get 16 Zerglings, as long as you have some queens Terran wont be able to do a lot of damage and then your Roaches, Hydras, Mutas or Infestors will get ready. And really any of this stops thor drops.
Fast Viking: I see it as a very powerful build on Kulas Ravine, but on Desert Oasis Vikings are not really very good after the early midgame. They are so uneffecient in ground combat (do not forget they got nerfed) that it will prevent Terran from "expanding with impunity". Because of the lack of Hellion ground force, Zerg will be able to spread creep to both the 3rd expansion and the gold base around the 10 minute mark. And unless the Terran is super vigilant you can even spread creep to the middle from your main, using an overlord and a creep tumor from your main. Which suddendly gives you such a mobile army that you gain complete map control. There is almost no map better suited for Zergling Roach Infestor into ultralisk (might have to get a few hydras too if the Terran is very air heavy...)
Third base placement: I basicly covered that with my last point. Because Terran can not be too agressive with ground forces you can spread your creep very fast, making the effective distances to your 3rd and 4th base very short.
On June 19 2010 20:27 Percutio wrote: Yeah... it seems like mech on Desert Oasis would get wrecked.
I mean hellions are annoying, sure, but mutalisks are so good on this map that Terran really needs to invest in a lot of AA.
I don't quite understand your reasoning for ZvP on Oasis. Warp gate all-ins aren't easy for toss with the super long rush distance and Zerg's ability to really put up spine crawlers like crazy when they see forces build up. It is so easy to get vision on this map as Zerg that losing to warp gate all-ins has to be a blunder on the Zerg's part.
I just can't stop myself from disagreeing with this..
With mech see TLO vs SEN game 6 kaspersky cup And desert oasis is like the warpgate all-in heaven.. You have lot of places to hide those pylons on the edges..
see tlo also disagrees with desert oasis opinion. no offense here but i simply think its wrong to disregard my opinions just because im a terran user. i do think its t>z on majority of the maps but im being honest here and artosis isnt so much in shape to say how things are with the balance at the moment. dont u remember how he was in sc1 with terran? hes always overdoing these balance issues to defend his own race and thats why i cant take this interview seriously. all i see in this interview is how bad zerg is if all maps end up t>z maybe it shouldnt be a map balance article
out of the entire map pool id say only lost temple and metalopolis are half-decent, rest r just totally bogus. and i find both these maps t>z too so again i dont think we should be making map articles as long as all maps favor terran lol .,.
On June 19 2010 20:40 MorroW wrote: see tlo also disagrees with desert oasis opinion. no offense here but i simply think its wrong to disregard my opinions just because im a terran user. i do think its t>z on majority of the maps but im being honest here and artosis isnt so much in shape to say how things are with the balance at the moment. dont u remember how he was in sc1 with terran? hes always overdoing these balance issues to defend his own race and thats why i cant take this interview seriously. all i see in this interview is how bad zerg is if all maps end up t>z maybe it shouldnt be a map balance article
Artosis is baller in all but i remember one of his suggestions on tvz was.You shouldent be allowed to have ultralisk and darkswarm in the same game. That made me laugh even tho its insanely powerful and hard for the terran 2 deal with so i understand where hes coming from
On June 19 2010 20:27 Percutio wrote: Yeah... it seems like mech on Desert Oasis would get wrecked.
I mean hellions are annoying, sure, but mutalisks are so good on this map that Terran really needs to invest in a lot of AA.
I don't quite understand your reasoning for ZvP on Oasis. Warp gate all-ins aren't easy for toss with the super long rush distance and Zerg's ability to really put up spine crawlers like crazy when they see forces build up. It is so easy to get vision on this map as Zerg that losing to warp gate all-ins has to be a blunder on the Zerg's part.
I just can't stop myself from disagreeing with this..
With mech see TLO vs SEN game 6 kaspersky cup And desert oasis is like the warpgate all-in heaven.. You have lot of places to hide those pylons on the edges..
So just because Sen lost on Desert Oasis - which he did because of 2 huge blunders (not scouting proxy fax and letting hellions into his main) the map is imbalanced :/
you can so easily scout all the places on desert oasis with 4 zerglings if you aren't just to lazy to do it. And saying a map is bad for zerg because many Protoss think you can only win using an all-in strategy seems rather strange.
Doesn't anyone else think the ZvP dessert oasis analysis is flawed? I mean, when nearly every P plays an all-in strategy the most plausible explanation is that P can't win in a longer macro game on this map.
I've only read the Kulas Ravine part but have some opinions on that. I definitely agree there should be only one path leading to the natural instead of the two. However, as for long scouting distance, I'm sure other maps in the future will have bases spread far out as well. That mixes up viable strategies and changes the gameplay. People also seem to forget about the natural that is blocked off by destructible rocks. Who says zerg has to FE on Kulas Ravine to their open natural? If you're worried about the harassment on the ledge or the double choke, delay your expo enough to take out the rocks and safely mine from there.
On June 19 2010 20:55 perbarian wrote: I am a noob but can't the problem with two creep tumors be solved by using the second overlord to generate creep? Or do you need it to scout?
On June 19 2010 20:55 perbarian wrote: I am a noob but can't the problem with two creep tumors be solved by using the second overlord to generate creep? Or do you need it to scout?
Generate creep is lair tech
Doh.. now I feel pretty dumb. Though, thanks for the info!
On June 19 2010 20:55 perbarian wrote: I am a noob but can't the problem with two creep tumors be solved by using the second overlord to generate creep? Or do you need it to scout?
Overlords need Lair tech to generate creep.
As a protoss player, I tend to disagree about Kulas Ravine. I don't really like the map that much, but I feel like its almost even for ZvP, maybe just with some slight tweaking to make it completely balanced. While the natural makes it hard to defend for zerg, it also makes the protoss extremely vulnerable to zergling runbys for the same reason, although the ledge at the base is absolutely more exploitable for Protoss than for Zerg, which seems to be the only major issue ZvP from my point of view.
I barely played Incineration Zone before thumb downing it and forgetting about it so can't comment too much, but it seemed as a really poorly put together map and I didn't want to waste time on it since pretty much no one plays it.
Desert Oasis I agree with you about the warp gate all ins being so common, as are pure Void Ray rush all ins as well (although probably less common since the patch that nerfed them, not sure since I rarely used them before that anyway). However, if the Protoss doesn't resort to that, it flips the other way and the Zerg can safely macro up as the rush distance prevents Zealot harass from being too powerful and it's an uphill battle the whole game for Protoss, though not impossible.
I like your stuff Artosis, but the article does sound very much like Zerg whining, even though most of your thoughts are reasonably justified - more an issue of the writing style though.
On June 19 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: i laff at this cause imo desert oasis was the best map for zvt u cant play mech turtle cause of all the open areas and huge distances to everywhere and u cant make good timing pushes cause of the long distances
i think its safe to say all the maps r insanely imbalanced, cmon here they r blizzard maps. do u really expect the first maps made to be good at all?
mech works just like mech in sc1, u kill tons of units compared to the unit cost, short distances and small areas favors mech play, destination, stepps of war u cant play bio in tvz, so ur basically just talking about bio mech which is too little to talk about balance for imo
Bit rich for a Terran player to comment on balance.
Terran are so utterly overpowered and broken at the moment that its pretty ridiculous for you not to be winning every single MU on every single Map.
Please, give me a break. So much tears and for no good reason. Troll somewhere else.
On June 19 2010 20:27 Percutio wrote: Yeah... it seems like mech on Desert Oasis would get wrecked.
I mean hellions are annoying, sure, but mutalisks are so good on this map that Terran really needs to invest in a lot of AA.
I don't quite understand your reasoning for ZvP on Oasis. Warp gate all-ins aren't easy for toss with the super long rush distance and Zerg's ability to really put up spine crawlers like crazy when they see forces build up. It is so easy to get vision on this map as Zerg that losing to warp gate all-ins has to be a blunder on the Zerg's part.
I just can't stop myself from disagreeing with this..
With mech see TLO vs SEN game 6 kaspersky cup And desert oasis is like the warpgate all-in heaven.. You have lot of places to hide those pylons on the edges..
So just because Sen lost on Desert Oasis - which he did because of 2 huge blunders (not scouting proxy fax and letting hellions into his main) the map is imbalanced :/
you can so easily scout all the places on desert oasis with 4 zerglings if you aren't just to lazy to do it. And saying a map is bad for zerg because many Protoss think you can only win using an all-in strategy seems rather strange.
You said: 1. Mech would just get wrecked by mutas on desert oasis.. 2. It is so easy to get vision on this map as Zerg that losing to warp gate all-ins has to be a blunder on the Zerg's part
I disagree because: 1. Yes mutas are great on this map but to say mech would just get wrecked.. its not something a few marines turrets and thors cant fix and it could be pulled off by many players. I gave only one example only because posting too many links is a waste of time (BTW after the helion harrass Sen got back in the game by countering with his speedling harrass if you did not notice). 2. The point is not whether the warp gate-allin was scouted or not.. Its still strong because it gives the protoss the mobility to engage different areas and constantly reinforce their troops without worrying about rush distance and thus having advantage on this large map. By making zerg players build spine crawlers you are already damaging the zerg player by making him lose workers, larvae and minerals,,,
I dont think that the map is bad for zerg.. Actually I think it favors Z I just disagree with your points
i think this is bullshit ³³. no symmetric maps is imbalanced at all. you just have different play styles on each. longer scout distances for overlords on kulas ? OH NOOO... learn to handle it.. starcraft 2 isnt chess where you have the same gameplay each round. remember the broodwar map blaze (http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/99_Neo%20Blaze.jpg) or dire straits (http://classic.battle.net/images/battle/scc/lp/4/xd.jpg) ? i rebuild those both maps for sc2 and i wouldnt say they are imbalanced for any race. with terran on blaze you can easily drop the cliffs while you enemy have to react. so what ? it still isnt imbalanced, just a different gameplay experience. dont have to say a word to dire (island map). so please stop whining about imbaness of starcraft, couse no one of "us" has the skill/experience /authority to say something about balancing. thank you
I slightly agree, but whenever there is imbalance against one kind of play, I feel that it leaves room for new and creative tactics, for example, have you seen the nydus worm play by zergs on oasis? It Just opens your eyes because it ABUSES the idea of how far away the main and naturals are.
oh no! blizzard maps are not balanced? like in every single blizzard game that came out? no offense, but i thought thats common knowledge. i mean, its only the truth in your article but i dont think that we have to play these maps very long....
On June 19 2010 21:20 gillon wrote: Sometimes, I actually just think Artosis is trolling.
I really like him, and he's an awesome player, but as MorroW said he tends to get very onesided and defensive of his own race in balance discussions.
Seriously, this article is so biased it's insane.
I second this. It feels like you and idra just cry imba vs Zerg, and wait, you both play Zerg! Who woulda thought? Heh, if Terran is so extravagant then why don't you show us why and play them? Show us how mech should be played. /waits.
Right, i'm guessing i'll get a temp ban for this post for bashing with very little constructive criticism but i'll try my best.
I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, Artosis, but you come off with a terribly elitist attitude in pretty much every post you make with unneccesary quotes like "This article only addresses top level play" Of course it does, everyone knows it does, because every time you speak you bring up that you're the second best player in NA and EU since everyone else is terrible apart from the koreans.
Now, from what i can see, the thing you talk about second most often, is how weak zerg is. I probably should have read more than the first 3-4 paragraphs but i got the gist of it from there on out. From what i know, your reasoning behind zerg being weak is that other people playing Toss and Terran just aren't as good as you, yet they still win. Due to their races being more powerful, and the maps being in their favor? This sounds stupid and pretty immature to me, just wait, Artosis, before calling everyone else terrible. We are in beta, as people have said above me, stuff like this needs time before people can devise strategies to counter what you have talked about. You even mentioned that DesertO used to be Zerg favored, now it's not. That's how starcraft works. Counter's are devised over time, just wait patiently or even try and work out a counter yourself.
Guess i'll be back in a week or so when my bans over lol.
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.
i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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 agree on most of what you wrote. As a random player i hate getting kulas ravine as a zerg and as for desert oasis it's basically game over if you get p against zerg
Artosis it may have been more helpful to address the maps with all the matchups. With the amount of players you can contact you could have easily made a full list.
I agree with Kulas and IZ. Both those maps are just silly and you make VERY GOOD points.
Edit: I misread your OP a bit, but this shoudl still be relevant to the ZvP matchup on DO.
(Edited out). You say Protoss only rushes, it probably has something to do with it being like IMPOSSIBLE to expand for Protoss. Protoss is very immobile at the early game (unless they rush) and it's very hard for a player to have their army cover thier main and an expansion. With creative building placement however the Toss can normally wall from their ramp all the way until their second nexus (very Metalopolis like). On DO this is impossible.
So either you have to leave your natural wide open and undefended or you have to leave your main very open to Nydus worm's. Combine that with the Zerg having a free maphack with their initial overlord for a long time and it seems to be unbalanced for Protoss.
I'm not going to come in here and claim to know Terran enough to comment, but I know I hated DO for PvZ.
But I will definitely agree that all 3 of those maps SUCK and need to be removed....
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
Even if my opinion doesnt count, I agree with him that you are biased most of the time when you talk about zerg. You produced a nice effort to make your point, but you could be a little bit more objective. Then again I'm not saying I know better than you but the whole post had a feeling of whining behind it in my opinion.
And I agree that those maps suck. But not to the point where zerg can't win at all.
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.
"Because of the map's size, the main bases' orientation and the distances from main to neutral, Protoss players almost always Warp Gates all-in on this map. Nearly every high-level game consists of Protoss attempting to hit Zerg before Hydralisks come out, force field the ramp and kill the natural."
Sounds unfathomable to think you're saying Desert Oasis is Protoss favored. Seeing as apparently "super high level" game always ends with Toss winning.
Yeah, it's for Zerg, a 6 year old could understand you're making another post about Zerg's weakness. I don't think calling something what it is, is ignorant. It's more along the lines of stating the obvious.
I'd love to see you switch to Terran. I'm willing to put money up that you either switch back to Zerg, or make some posts stating how underpowered terran is.
Admittedly, i have gotten nonconstructive and as you say the post will get gross if i carry on. But i still stick to what i said in my original post, and ill stay out of ur way from here on out GL with starcraft II
@ 1: It's not like you said DO is P favored, but you said you can't address balance issues on the map because P nearly allways all-ins. The problem here is that you didn't ask yourself (or rather you didn't mention it in your article i guess) why they do all-in most of the time - which is most probably the macro game advantage of zerg on this map. So you did not say it is P favored, but you also did not say that it tends to be zerg favored if the games go longer, which you should have mentioned in my opinion.
The way I see it you just can't expect balance if you want these two things at once : 1- Three unique races + 2- Several maps with original features and with distinct "feels".
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that this thread is futile. I think that my point is that imbalance maybe isn't that evil, at the very least you could say that it's "part of Starcraft's DNA".
Fortunatly, even if general imbalance will never be cured, these particular imbalance issues will always be pushed back by ingeniousness and patches. Sometimes I just loooove chess .
artosis, hows about u chills the frack out? :> you make a thread claiming certain imbalances, dont expect everyone to agree with you, especially when they said thread is amongs other things about Z being weak on desert oasis... which is funny..to put it mildly )
Your counter-argument can never be a name, "idra" will never be a suffiecient proof that your opinion is right... I think TLO was spot on, thor drops are not that difficult to stop, and is queite all-in-ish strat to pull, you sacrifice map presence and allow nonstop drone pumpage and safe expand + all scouting information for one allbeit strong harass tool. But Zerglings + queen is enough to deal with it.
Desert oasis is my favorite map to play Z on, I can expand that creep all over the map so easily and all expansions have huuuge open areas taht benefit Zerg, and all expansions have crappy/no ledge that can be abused. I can easily controll the centre of the map with xelnagas, much easier than any P or T can atleast. The big threats to Zerg on maps like kulas ravine or incinerationzone are tanks/collosus/hightemplars, all of these units are much much weaker on big wide open maps, I dont feel qualified to make claims on racial balance atm, never won a tournament etc (yet) but I feel confident enough to claim that desert oasis is the best map for Z in the current beta.
oh and the amount of posts a person has does not reflect his value as a person or devalue his opinions, manner up.
Maps always have certain race preferences, that's part of the game. And ruling out certain strategies because they are "not played right" or "rushes" or whatever, is silly. If people play a certain way, why not account for it? For "high level play," there should be high level high level analysis. This doesn't make the cut imo.
Artosis, seriously, if you're getting this much negative feedback maybe you should look into it rather than calling posts stupid and discriminating against someone with 74 posts.
Don't forget all the maps are encircled by a huge area of impassable terrain aka war3 forest aka air is overpowered. Really none of the ladder maps can be salvaged for competitive play. Blizz shouldn't even bother trying to fix them they are so far gone. How can you make 10 maps and not a single one where you can fight in the open instead of a choke point?
On June 19 2010 22:33 yomi wrote: Don't forget all the maps are encircled by a huge area of impassable terrain aka war3 forest aka air is overpowered. Really none of the ladder maps can be salvaged for competitive play. Blizz shouldn't even bother trying to fix them they are so far gone. How can you make 10 maps and not a single one where you can fight in the open instead of a choke point?
I think metalopolis is a very good map, the rest not so much
On June 19 2010 22:33 Sunny Afternoon wrote: Artosis, seriously, if you're getting this much negative feedback maybe you should look into it rather than calling posts stupid and discriminating against someone with 74 posts.
Hey, we all know that post count clearly is equal to IQ points IRL.
On June 19 2010 22:33 yomi wrote: Don't forget all the maps are encircled by a huge area of impassable terrain aka war3 forest aka air is overpowered. Really none of the ladder maps can be salvaged for competitive play. Blizz shouldn't even bother trying to fix them they are so far gone. How can you make 10 maps and not a single one where you can fight in the open instead of a choke point?
There's a COUPLE good ones. Metalopolis and Lost Temple come to mind. But yea Blizz historically sucks at making maps. I think the issue is they need to start acknowledging the awesome player made maps like Match Point.
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
MorroW's stand was similar to Mr. 74 Post's opinions but you picked Mr.74's post to address?
So is your plan, Artosis, to switch to the race you perceive to be the best? Not to say it's a totally outlandish philosophy, but it feels like a weird way to go about things.
The thing about thor drops on Desert Oasis is the ledge behind the main's mineral line. You can vacillate between high and low ground, pretty much nulling those "12 zerglings" TLO mentioned. But that's about it in the thor department. Vikings are just really good map control. It doesn't matter what map they're on.
Kulas is a retarded map as is. It isn't even debatable. To lose over and over ZvT when you're in full control of the game to gimmicky shit is a wash. Maps shouldn't disfavor one race that badly.
IZ was bad, too. But it's out so who cares. I don't even like Steppes all that much. The good ones are Meta and Temple, and even Temple is slightly Terran favored. Metas a Zerg comfort zone but since every race can grab their side of the map fairly easily it's not the biggest deal in the world.
Tired of these short air distance maps. Scrap scrap station imo.
I honestly like a ton of maps the community has made. And we can only hope that the next ladder pool provides more balanced, more interesting maps.
it's weird how unusual situation are immediately boxed has "imbalance".
the fact that you can"t play your typical built doesn't means it's imbalance.
i remember bloodBath on SC1 (even before BW) with all zerg saying it's the map where thay can"t loose (they all 6-pool) and then player learn to use SCV do defend.. and then terran where the "best race for bloodbath". It's maybe not a great example, but my point is that even without gameplay or map change the game will evolve, because of the strategy used. I watch some of the best / entertaining match i ever seen on this two map. even with zerg winning ! =)
I think maybe people need to be less extrem with this balance point of view... too much "a cliff ! = imbalance ! Terran OP" or " a choke point : = imba ! Terran / protoss OP !" even "rush distance to short, Toss imba !"
Blizzard said that Zerg win more on Asia server, Less in US server and almost even on EU... I dont think the conclusion is that Zerg US player are bad, maybe they just need more time to adapt ? maybe they just cry louder ?
just LOL on the posts bashing on Artosis coming from <200 posts users. Artosis' viewpoit is really legit, if you want to answer to it, take Morrow as an example, a very good Terran player, and doesnt try to dispatch Artosis' writeup entirely but adds his ideas and corrections, aknowledging at least the TvZ balance issues. (ok maybe im idealizing it, but u get the point)
BTW i was a half-decent Zerg player and Desert Oasis is surely among my 3 least preferred maps, it is really hard and imbalanced. I absolutely can see why terrans and protosses say the same thing, the map's features favor some builds, strategies and tricks, has a tone of abusable stuff on it, almost every player in every matchup can blame the map when he loses, cuz the other one just menaged to abuse it more.
it is really fun to watch though cuz players lose from huge advantages or win with unusual cheeses, but to play on it on high level it is a pain in the ass
I really dislike that the balancing is done based on results on terrible maps, because if you could somehow menage that the winrates would reach 50:50 in every matchup, the game still would be quite broken, because on normal maps (which will be made as soon as professional leauges and competitions begin) most of the stuff wont work with which players win a tones of games, thus screwing up the statistics.
Many ppl say Metalo and LT are the 2 best maps in the pool, i agree with it, but we have to admit that we say it cuz they are the most BW promap-like. So more new style maps with strange terrain features shouldnt be excluded, but the current ones are really bad, and the game wont be balanced when it comes out, in a huge part because of this.
On June 19 2010 22:45 Geo.Rion wrote: just LOL on the posts bashing on Artosis coming from <200 posts users. Artosis' viewpoit is really legit, if you want to answer to it, take Morrow as an example, a very good Terran player, and doesnt try to dispatch Artosis' writeup entirely but adds his ideas and corrections, aknowledging at least the TvZ balance issues. (ok maybe im idealizing it, but u get the point)
BTW i was a half-decent Zerg player and Desert Oasis is surely among my 3 least preferred maps, it is really hard and imbalanced. I absolutely can see why terrans and protosses say the same thing, the map's features favor some builds, strategies and tricks, has a tone of abusable stuff on it, almost every player in every matchup can blame the map when he loses, cuz the other one just menaged to abuse it more. .
again with the post count..what does that have to do with _anything at all_ ? the amount you hang on TL equalls your skilllevel, is this what you are implying here? in that case you are sadly misstaken... you can take your 26xx posts and think you are a progamer because of it but it doesnt mean you are better than anyone with say..127 posts.
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
Maybe he has - I don't see how pure mech is even viable on desert oasis? There is NO WAY to safely take a 3rd without opening yourself up to counter attack, and the distances are HUGE.
Seriously, explain what pure mech you are using on desert oasis to make it imbalanced...
I don't get how viking builds are hard to defend on DO, I find them way weaker there than on Scrap Station.
"There's a COUPLE good ones. Metalopolis and Lost Temple come to mind. But yea Blizz historically sucks at making maps. I think the issue is they need to start acknowledging the awesome player made maps like Match Point."
blizzard maps are soo much better than most of the iccup crap that gets churned out. every single iccup map is the same. each starting base has an expo or two perfectly defendable by 1 easy choke/ramp. then add a little python or decal in the middle and bingo another sick map. seriously all iccup maps are macro-fuck-orientated and end up playing the same every game. i think early in the beta many were complaining that blizzards sc2 maps were "made too well." ...................... i would like to see more maps like "desolation" and "breaking point" maps that actually were fun to play.
On June 19 2010 20:52 Prog wrote: Doesn't anyone else think the ZvP dessert oasis analysis is flawed? I mean, when nearly every P plays an all-in strategy the most plausible explanation is that P can't win in a longer macro game on this map.
That's exactly what he meant, he made it pretty clear imo that Protoss are forced to play an early all-in warpgate strategy or they will quickly fall behind.
And for everyone saying Artosis is biased and defends Zerg all the time, isn't that how it should work? I mean, that is his race, he can only make claims about this race since this is the only one he is focusing on. This is supposed to be a discussion, in this case Artosis felt there was a map imbalance for his race, he makes an article and people can agree / disagree and voice their concerns. Top Terran players can make their own arguments here as to why they feel something is inaccurate.
The game is still very "young" so no one can't possible be "right". All you can do is discuss how you perceive the game and talk about what you think and voice your opinions. Zerg players will have opinions from a Zerg viewpoint, obviously. It might be a bit arrogant when he says "IdrA can back me up" but you have to realize that the results speak for themselves. They ARE two pro-gamers at the top of the division that have dedicated their lives by moving to Korea and playing SC / SC2. It seems that so many players get offended by this.
I just feel so many posts are trying to discredit Artosis on a personal level, which does not belong in any discussion. Look at TLO's post, he simply had a counter argument about the article and did not get angry or frustrated at Artosis himself.
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
Maybe he has - I don't see how pure mech is even viable on desert oasis? There is NO WAY to safely take a 3rd without opening yourself up to counter attack, and the distances are HUGE.
Seriously, explain what pure mech you are using on desert oasis to make it imbalanced...
seriously intressted in this myself, every time I tried pure mech on this map I was beaten down so hard because of the open terrain and vast distances. When I took home a win on this map against a high lvl player Z , it was in 99.9% of the cases with a composition of infantry with a few tanks sprinkled in there. Like gretorp also agreed with the fact taht open spaced maps favor MMM ball while closed of narrowchoked ones benefit mech play, seems only logical.
blizzard maps are soo much better than most of the iccup crap that gets churned out. every single iccup map is the same. each starting base has an expo or two perfectly defendable by 1 easy choke/ramp. then add a little python or decal in the middle and bingo another sick map. seriously all iccup maps are macro-fuck-orientated and end up playing the same every game. i think early in the beta many were complaining that blizzards sc2 maps were "made too well." ...................... i would like to see more maps like "desolation" and "breaking point" maps that actually were fun to play.
You do realize that iCCup does not make the SC1 maps right? That's KESPA.
Learn some more about SC before you some in here bashing iCCup.
Maybe people hate desert oasis as PLAYERS, but honestly it is the best SPECTATOR map Blizzard has at the moment. By far the closest in feeling to a Brood War map, and has produced the most exciting games from top players.
I think a lot of the map balance problem is really a race balance problem that can be traced back to the lack of options and general blandness of zerg. When maps diverge from the default layout design, the relative balance of units, abilities, and strategies shift. Races with more units, abilities, and strategies are more likely to have one of their options shift to be very powerful in a particular map layout.
The map pool is shitty atm. Too many possible cliff abuses, or just small maps with proxy written all over it. WTB SC2 version of destination.
1 thing though. I cant even get how someone can say DO is not zerg favored. True, hellion harass is that much stronger on it, but any 1 base into muta play from the zerg completely negates it and sets you up for some pretty strong mid/late game play. Mech is horribly slow, zerg are horribly fast, and DO is the largest map: I dont get what better map you could wish for, seriously.IT IS my favorite map as a zerg. The only one with decent large open spaces and flank possibilities. I just cant wait until they make more maps as large as this one, while fixing some obvious imbalances like the large open natural.
ZvP doesnt even need to be discussed: artosis is right, anything other than early all ins pretty much sets up the toss for a serious rape. Z can litteraly go only lings all the way up to hive tech and not even worry about losing.
I miss bw maps ._. If there is one thing Blizzard can't do, it's making great maps..
Where are all the epic maps like Andromeda and Outsider?
And why oh why does almost every map have either rocks with only 2k hp going into the main OR an undefendable choke to the nat? Sigh... It's as if Blizzard only want to see cheese..
Yep, maps are a huge issue, they are garbage, i totally agree with you, except LT and Metalopolis. We really need new and good maps.
On June 19 2010 22:58 OneFierceZealot wrote:
"There's a COUPLE good ones. Metalopolis and Lost Temple come to mind. But yea Blizz historically sucks at making maps. I think the issue is they need to start acknowledging the awesome player made maps like Match Point."
blizzard maps are soo much better than most of the iccup crap that gets churned out. every single iccup map is the same. each starting base has an expo or two perfectly defendable by 1 easy choke/ramp. then add a little python or decal in the middle and bingo another sick map. seriously all iccup maps are macro-fuck-orientated and end up playing the same every game. i think early in the beta many were complaining that blizzards sc2 maps were "made too well." ...................... i would like to see more maps like "desolation" and "breaking point" maps that actually were fun to play.
"There's a COUPLE good ones. Metalopolis and Lost Temple come to mind. But yea Blizz historically sucks at making maps. I think the issue is they need to start acknowledging the awesome player made maps like Match Point."
blizzard maps are soo much better than most of the iccup crap that gets churned out. every single iccup map is the same. each starting base has an expo or two perfectly defendable by 1 easy choke/ramp. then add a little python or decal in the middle and bingo another sick map. seriously all iccup maps are macro-fuck-orientated and end up playing the same every game. i think early in the beta many were complaining that blizzards sc2 maps were "made too well." ...................... i would like to see more maps like "desolation" and "breaking point" maps that actually were fun to play.
Uhm, honestly, the SC1 pro maps are significantly better than the current set of Blizzard SC2 maps.
That isn't even a poor reflection on Blizzard - how the hell are you going to make a truly good map for a game that hasn't even entered beta (at the time the maps were made)?
They did a good job all things considered, but some of the maps are ridiculously imbalanced.
"Learn some more about SC before you come in here bashing iCCup." oh my bad... i forgot when i bought StarCraft on the back of the case it came with an instructions on KESPA and their role in the StarCraft universe. sorry just found it. its really interesting. btw i fixed your post + Show Spoiler +
While I have great respect for Artosis and Idra and their skills, this article really makes me want to follow MorroW's, reaction. The whole concept behind the article is completely irrelevant. This isn't Warcraft 3, Zerg units don't get a slight nerf on this map. Every unit costs the same and performs the same, and BOTH players are susceptible to the terrain. There is no such thing as map imbalance!
I play all three races and I actually prefer to play on all of these maps as zerg, Kulas Ravine is very tactical, which is fun with zerg units because you generally have multiple forces. Desert Oasis is great for early zerg play, but it is much more difficult for me as terran, even though they are my main race. If you constantly lose to someone breaking down a back door, you might learn to put a supply depot/pylon nearby. Any race can do this. Every race also has several map control mechanics(zerg's being the best), in addition to the Xel-Naga Towers. Losing on these maps to another player taking advantage of the terrain has nothing to do with balance (or map balance, which is a misnamed and non-balance issue), it has to do with your Strategic Gameplay.
The problem might be that you are getting too greedy as zerg (possibly spoiled by BW's 3hatch before pool greedy styles). The majority of zerg play that I've seen in the opening has been fairly one-dimensional builds that involve fast expansions, with or without speedlings first, though I would very much like to see other openings too. A map like desert oasis however does not favor such a build. Maps shouldn't play exactly the same, but that does not mean imbalance. Everyone can take advantage of the terrain, even zerg. While I don't know if your style is such, here is a good example in your article of being greedy.
On June 19 2010 20:07 Artosis wrote:
Viking openings-
Viking builds are also very popular on Desert Oasis. Again, the distance between bases makes the great mobility of the Viking a huge problem for Zerg here. Zerg cannot have a four gas economy and Mutalisk tech up in time to deal with one base Vikings.
You want to have both Air AND a second base with gas, at the time when he has 1 base air. That is greedy, wanting to not only be on equal footing in army power but be a step up in economic power. Not to mention that this is vs Vikings which can be reactored. Terrans are SUPPOSED to be able to produce a lot of Vikings fast. 1 base vikings starts fast, but loses steam and Vikings are frail. This is like when people suicided ultras into units that kite and scream imba, and then flanked with the ultras and obliterated them.
I do agree with the points you have made. I do think these are terrible maps (except Kulas). These maps do have easy to assault naturals, ledges, rocks, etc. This does affect your race somewhat no matter which you choose. But the races aren't one-dimensional. If you have a difficult to take 3rd expansion, try playing a less resource intensive composition. If it's a lot harder to expand, you have to adapt that into your build. Every player has an easy to assault natural, so complaining that yours is easy to assault is meaningless. You know which map is being used before playing on it. Terrain is actually important now, plan ahead and use good positioning..
As such, I believe there is no such thing as map balance. The only thing the map adds is terrain, which makes certain play STYLES weaker or stronger, but does not imbalance a race. If it's more difficult to surround on a map with zerg, then the tight space is more easily covered by creep tumours or mutalisks, instead of a bulky ground army. Just because a map has a ledge behind the natural doesn't change your units! On any map you are susceptible to drops/runbys/infinite ff/cloaked units/etc.. If you can't account for ledges as drop spots, use the terrain/towers/tumours to gain map control, use terrain to attack him THE SAME WAY he can attack you, or watch destructible rocks, your race is not imbalanced. your play on that map is.
On June 19 2010 23:04 0neder wrote: Maybe people hate desert oasis as PLAYERS, but honestly it is the best SPECTATOR map Blizzard has at the moment. By far the closest in feeling to a Brood War map, and has produced the most exciting games from top players.
Suck it up, the pro gamers have to.
Besides ZvP, I agree that DO makes for games that are interesting to watch, but I also think that well balanced maps like Metalopolis are just as good for spectating. I obviously would rather have more well balanced maps that are also good for watching.
I like to think that Desert Oasis is an attempt at a map like Heartbreak Ridge, which is just very difficult to play, but Desert Oasis has a little more imbalance towards Zerg, mostly for ZvP.
On June 19 2010 23:19 OneFierceZealot wrote: "Learn some more about SC before you come in here bashing iCCup." oh my bad... i forgot when i bought StarCraft on the back of the case it came with an instructions on KESPA and their role in the StarCraft universe. sorry just found it. its really interesting. btw i fixed your post + Show Spoiler +
some/come
I'm just saying don't come in here bashing what you don't know. If you don't know what you are talking about than don't comment on it. You don't here me coming on here discussing the balance of C&C cause I don't know shit about the game.
Also maybe you should fix you're quote tags since apparently you don't know how to use those. And how does you're "fix" actually make not a shred of sense.
I don't really see why difficulty in a fast natural expo is a necessity for good zerg play, I think the problem lies more in the lack of good one base builds (which may be tied back to poor unit diversity).
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
Maybe he has - I don't see how pure mech is even viable on desert oasis? There is NO WAY to safely take a 3rd without opening yourself up to counter attack, and the distances are HUGE.
Seriously, explain what pure mech you are using on desert oasis to make it imbalanced...
I don't get how viking builds are hard to defend on DO, I find them way weaker there than on Scrap Station.
Hi Jinro, mech is quite strong on DO, at least i saw and played many games where it was effetive. I remember one, i think Asia vs Europe showmatch,Strelok won against a zerg on that map from being behind 2 bases
On June 19 2010 23:19 OneFierceZealot wrote: "Learn some more about SC before you come in here bashing iCCup." oh my bad... i forgot when i bought StarCraft on the back of the case it came with an instructions on KESPA and their role in the StarCraft universe. sorry just found it. its really interesting. btw i fixed your post + Show Spoiler +
some/come
I'm just saying don't come in here bashing what you don't know. If you don't know what you are talking about than don't comment on it. You don't here me coming on here discussing the balance of C&C cause I don't know shit about the game.
Also maybe you should fix you're quote tags since apparently you don't know how to use those. And how does you're "fix" actually make not a shred of sense.
Christ man you spelled something wrong... never mind and im pretty sure im not the only one who assumed that when they played on ICCup that ICCup made the maps seeing how it says ICCup Destination, ICCup Fighting Spirit. etc.
On June 19 2010 22:45 Geo.Rion wrote: just LOL on the posts bashing on Artosis coming from <200 posts users. Artosis' viewpoit is really legit, if you want to answer to it, take Morrow as an example, a very good Terran player, and doesnt try to dispatch Artosis' writeup entirely but adds his ideas and corrections, aknowledging at least the TvZ balance issues. (ok maybe im idealizing it, but u get the point)
BTW i was a half-decent Zerg player and Desert Oasis is surely among my 3 least preferred maps, it is really hard and imbalanced. I absolutely can see why terrans and protosses say the same thing, the map's features favor some builds, strategies and tricks, has a tone of abusable stuff on it, almost every player in every matchup can blame the map when he loses, cuz the other one just menaged to abuse it more. .
again with the post count..what does that have to do with _anything at all_ ? the amount you hang on TL equalls your skilllevel, is this what you are implying here? in that case you are sadly misstaken... you can take your 26xx posts and think you are a progamer because of it but it doesnt mean you are better than anyone with say..127 posts.
It s not about skill level, at least not only, but forum newbives bashing on an established and respected member of the community, it doesnt feel right.
And there are a lot of new posters here at TL and a large majority of them post bullshit all the time, so that serve as a base for stereotype. If someone makes a reasonable and respectful first post against Artosis' article i surely would complement him, but i will surely look down on those who feel they are justified to trashtalk and discredit someone with a star near his name, a name which everybody should know in sc2 community, that s wrong
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
Maybe he has - I don't see how pure mech is even viable on desert oasis? There is NO WAY to safely take a 3rd without opening yourself up to counter attack, and the distances are HUGE.
Seriously, explain what pure mech you are using on desert oasis to make it imbalanced...
I don't get how viking builds are hard to defend on DO, I find them way weaker there than on Scrap Station.
if even 1 person could read what was written, they would see that i did not take mech builds into consideration at all when writing this. lol@ the flamers who don't understand what's written.
On June 19 2010 22:45 Geo.Rion wrote: just LOL on the posts bashing on Artosis coming from <200 posts users. Artosis' viewpoit is really legit, if you want to answer to it, take Morrow as an example, a very good Terran player, and doesnt try to dispatch Artosis' writeup entirely but adds his ideas and corrections, aknowledging at least the TvZ balance issues. (ok maybe im idealizing it, but u get the point)
BTW i was a half-decent Zerg player and Desert Oasis is surely among my 3 least preferred maps, it is really hard and imbalanced. I absolutely can see why terrans and protosses say the same thing, the map's features favor some builds, strategies and tricks, has a tone of abusable stuff on it, almost every player in every matchup can blame the map when he loses, cuz the other one just menaged to abuse it more. .
again with the post count..what does that have to do with _anything at all_ ? the amount you hang on TL equalls your skilllevel, is this what you are implying here? in that case you are sadly misstaken... you can take your 26xx posts and think you are a progamer because of it but it doesnt mean you are better than anyone with say..127 posts.
It s not about skill level, at least not only, but forum newbives bashing on an established and respected member of the community, it doesnt feel right.
And there are a lot of new posters here at TL and a large majority of them post bullshit all the time, so that serve as a base for stereotype. If someone makes a reasonable and respectful first post against Artosis' article i surely would complement him, but i will surely look down on those who feel they are justified to trashtalk and discredit someone with a star near his name, a name which everybody should know in sc2 community, that s wrong
I hope this answers your question
You can easily avoid looking like a tool by ignoring it completly. Many ppl come in a new game, dont even know about teamliquid and are thus treated as "newbies" by ppl like u and artosis, if you think some1 is making a stupid comment in a thread, and you feel you have to point out how newbish he is, I rather you just write down the reason isntead of using bad stereotypes.....
On June 19 2010 22:45 Geo.Rion wrote: just LOL on the posts bashing on Artosis coming from <200 posts users. Artosis' viewpoit is really legit, if you want to answer to it, take Morrow as an example, a very good Terran player, and doesnt try to dispatch Artosis' writeup entirely but adds his ideas and corrections, aknowledging at least the TvZ balance issues. (ok maybe im idealizing it, but u get the point)
BTW i was a half-decent Zerg player and Desert Oasis is surely among my 3 least preferred maps, it is really hard and imbalanced. I absolutely can see why terrans and protosses say the same thing, the map's features favor some builds, strategies and tricks, has a tone of abusable stuff on it, almost every player in every matchup can blame the map when he loses, cuz the other one just menaged to abuse it more. .
again with the post count..what does that have to do with _anything at all_ ? the amount you hang on TL equalls your skilllevel, is this what you are implying here? in that case you are sadly misstaken... you can take your 26xx posts and think you are a progamer because of it but it doesnt mean you are better than anyone with say..127 posts.
It s not about skill level, at least not only, but forum newbives bashing on an established and respected member of the community, it doesnt feel right.
And there are a lot of new posters here at TL and a large majority of them post bullshit all the time, so that serve as a base for stereotype. If someone makes a reasonable and respectful first post against Artosis' article i surely would complement him, but i will surely look down on those who feel they are justified to trashtalk and discredit someone with a star near his name, a name which everybody should know in sc2 community, that s wrong
I hope this answers your question
You can easily avoid looking like a tool by ignoring it completly. Many ppl come in a new game, dont even know about teamliquid and are thus treated as "newbies" by ppl like u and artosis, if you think some1 is making a stupid comment in a thread, and you feel you have to point out how newbish he is, I rather you just write down the reason isntead of using bad stereotypes.....
i wrote down, disrespecting an established personality of the community, without anything to back it up, but vague thoughts. Artosis' skill level is known, beside post count, while all these nameless posters could be silver leauge level. And i was speaking generally, as there were several god awful posts, couldnt pick out every single one and point out why are bad. I'm not talking about every post or about every post coming from ppl with low postcounts.
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
Maybe he has - I don't see how pure mech is even viable on desert oasis? There is NO WAY to safely take a 3rd without opening yourself up to counter attack, and the distances are HUGE.
Seriously, explain what pure mech you are using on desert oasis to make it imbalanced...
I don't get how viking builds are hard to defend on DO, I find them way weaker there than on Scrap Station.
if even 1 person could read what was written, they would see that i did not take mech builds into consideration at all when writing this. lol@ the flamers who don't understand what's written.
are thors and hellions not mech?
also terran bio gets pretty trashed by Zerg, infestor baneling armies just demolish if, especially on DO were you have huge terrain advantage in almiost every spot, except perhaps the choke from one side of your nat.
I disslike how u use the short distances on maps as a reason for Z being weak, then you use long distances as reason why Z is weak, which is it?
99% of the arguments in here are addressed within the article. please read the whole thing, and try to think about it a bit before posting.
making blanket statements based upon your games, without any real thought behind them, do not hold much weight compared to the joint opinions of IdrA and I. I'll read/listen to well thought out posts, but certainly not "lolol just make mutalisks!!!1".
And i'm not talking about myself, a nameless poster with low postcounts should not talk to Artosis like they are on even terms, or as if his opinion is more valid than Artosis'. Postcounts are shown for a reason, not for statistics
While I have great respect for Artosis and Idra and their skills, this article really makes me want to follow MorroW's, reaction. The whole concept behind the article is completely irrelevant. This isn't Warcraft 3, Zerg units don't get a slight nerf on this map. Every unit costs the same and performs the same, and BOTH players are susceptible to the terrain. There is no such thing as map imbalance!
????
How do the units perform the same when the situation is: (low ground) unit1 | unit2 (high ground) (Thor vs. roaches for example) versus unit1 unit2 (both on same height, no "wall" between. same units.)
And no, zerg units can't abuse height advantage in the same way as for example terran units.
That's just a single simple example, get your head checked if you think there is no such thing as map balance. Not only are the units changed by the map but also build orders as some maps have very different distances that allow for different things to happen. Throughout the BW history map balance has been one of the biggest thing that has changed the styles of the players and race domination of the game.
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
Maybe he has - I don't see how pure mech is even viable on desert oasis? There is NO WAY to safely take a 3rd without opening yourself up to counter attack, and the distances are HUGE.
Seriously, explain what pure mech you are using on desert oasis to make it imbalanced...
I don't get how viking builds are hard to defend on DO, I find them way weaker there than on Scrap Station.
if even 1 person could read what was written, they would see that i did not take mech builds into consideration at all when writing this. lol@ the flamers who don't understand what's written.
I KNOW you said that in the OP, but then you quoted someone saying "mech sucks on DO" and essentially said "lol you are wrong".
It wasn't exactly clear what you were saying, especially as you mentioned viking builds and thor drops - both of which I would categorize as mech.
Yeah there are some cheese possibilties on DO, but I don't think that is a long-term viable solution to playing a map. DO is a good map for zerg.
And i'm not talking about myself, a nameless poster with low postcounts should not talk to Artosis like they are on even terms, or as if his opinion is more valid than Artosis'. Postcounts are shown for a reason, not for statistics
That's not the way that commandment is meant to work. It's basically saying that if you have been here for a while, you will have more leeway than if you are new.
It's not a free-pass to treat people with low post counts like they are worthless ;p
On June 19 2010 23:17 ChewbroCColi wrote: I miss bw maps ._. If there is one thing Blizzard can't do, it's making great maps..
Where are all the epic maps like Andromeda and Outsider?
And why oh why does almost every map have either rocks with only 2k hp going into the main OR an undefendable choke to the nat? Sigh... It's as if Blizzard only want to see cheese..
I'm guessing that they have so many maps with rock and that stuff just to test it out because it's beta. If I remember correctly Blizzard has adressed the problem that Lost Temple is the only map without a backdoor (to either the natural or the main) and that the map pool will be more diverse when the full game is released.
And i'm not talking about myself, a nameless poster with low postcounts should not talk to Artosis like they are on even terms, or as if his opinion is more valid than Artosis'. Postcounts are shown for a reason, not for statistics
I realise that, I like Artosis; I think he's a funny guy and an awesome player. I'm just saying that, to me, his arguments come through as somewhat biased since every single map feature is turned into a disadvantage for zerg.
My last post just states that no matter how 'veteran' you may or may not be, it does not make your arguments, per se, any better.
I'm a Terran player, so I might just be as biased to the other way, but this is just how I'm reading it.
interesting article, although I don't think map imbalances are too serious yet. Thor drops on cliffs above zerg naturals will be a problem for a long time, IMO. I don't think that blizz maps are terribly imbalanced (look at the starcraft 1 ones ) and the map doesn't usually alter whether i win or lose, but its good people are adressing the issue, maybe blizz will read and modify the maps! :D
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
Maybe he has - I don't see how pure mech is even viable on desert oasis? There is NO WAY to safely take a 3rd without opening yourself up to counter attack, and the distances are HUGE.
Seriously, explain what pure mech you are using on desert oasis to make it imbalanced...
I don't get how viking builds are hard to defend on DO, I find them way weaker there than on Scrap Station.
if even 1 person could read what was written, they would see that i did not take mech builds into consideration at all when writing this. lol@ the flamers who don't understand what's written.
I KNOW you said that in the OP, but then you quoted someone saying "mech sucks on DO" and essentially said "lol you are wrong".
It wasn't exactly clear what you were saying, especially as you mentioned viking builds and thor drops - both of which I would categorize as mech.
Yeah there are some cheese possibilties on DO, but I don't think that is a long-term viable solution to playing a map. DO is a good map for zerg.
And i'm not talking about myself, a nameless poster with low postcounts should not talk to Artosis like they are on even terms, or as if his opinion is more valid than Artosis'. Postcounts are shown for a reason, not for statistics
That's not the way that commandment is meant to work. It's basically saying that if you have been here for a while, you will have more leeway than if you are new.
It's not a free-pass to treat people with low post counts like they are worthless ;p
That's for sure, all im saying is that these posters should show some respect for Artosis' article, even if they do not agree. I do not mean to discredit every new poster around here.
Btw concerning DO mech, i think the problem is that Zerg's expos are really harassable with hellions on this map especially. Larger maps are generally better for Zerg, but DO's distances between expos are actually working against Z. It is really really hard to spread creep on the entire map, you have to start spreading it in two directions to begin with, and the area to cover is really huge. When ZvT reaches lategame on this map the T will try to take a gold, and this is really hard to stop as zerg, and it's also hard to keep the other gold. So he's effectively is forced on 3 bases, easely harassable bases btw. Say the T has established a position on the left side of the map at the gold expo. From there he controls the center more or less and could attack the Zerg's third or the other gold, the distance is raughly the same, while the zerg troops have trouble manuvering behind their own large highground base. IDK if i could paint it realistically, i wish i could ifnd that Strelok vs Asian zerg VOD
(BTW we met like twice on ladder, do you remember me? NP if not, you pwned me pretty badly)
Tank/Thor/Hellion is mech. This, I thought, was obvious.
For people still calling me biased, you didn't read the article very well. These are the 3 maps which IdrA and I feel are the very worst for Zerg. Future articles will have the maps which are the best for Zerg. These maps will outline what parts of the maps are good for Zerg.
If some idiot who clearly just signed up for the forum recently comes by and accuses me of hiding interviews because opinions of the people who I interviewed had different opinions from myself, what the fvck? Obviously that shit shouldnt be allowed.
While I have great respect for Artosis and Idra and their skills, this article really makes me want to follow MorroW's, reaction. The whole concept behind the article is completely irrelevant. This isn't Warcraft 3, Zerg units don't get a slight nerf on this map. Every unit costs the same and performs the same, and BOTH players are susceptible to the terrain. There is no such thing as map imbalance!
????
How do the units perform the same when the situation is: (low ground) unit1 | unit2 (high ground) (Thor vs. roaches for example) versus unit1 unit2 (both on same height, no "wall" between. same units.)
And no, zerg units can't abuse height advantage in the same way as for example terran units.
That's just a single simple example, get your head checked if you think there is no such thing as map balance. Not only are the units changed by the map but also build orders as some maps have very different distances that allow for different things to happen. Throughout the BW history map balance has been one of the biggest thing that has changed the styles of the players and race domination of the game.
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.
"as many people felt it too Zerg-favored" =/="Zerg vs Terran on this map is hugely imbalanced, perhaps more imbalanced than on any other map. Zerg simply cannot defeat Terran here"
Think outside the box man, asian server seems to have it down. I'd bet their more aggressive 1 base builds would wreck havoc on Desert Oasis. All the imbalances you speak about mostly just mimic each other in that you cant protect your natural as fast. Kulas Ravine is mostly imba due to your scouting/rushing idea, I'll give that, but I can't see thing something being imbalanced simply because your standard BO doesnt work as well.
And then read a thread about how worthless 200>posters are
On June 19 2010 22:45 Geo.Rion wrote: just LOL on the posts bashing on Artosis coming from <200 posts users.
and think about it. and that would be a lesson for us to work about avoiding generalizations... may be 200>posters can play starcraft good and know deep about it? who knows.
With regard to Kulas, it seems like a lot of the problems you pointed out have to do with harassment of the expo. Would it be possible to just delay your 2nd hatch a bit and break down the rocks and get the safe 2nd hatch up on the cliff and avoid all the T harassment? I realize that this might hurt your mid-game a bit, but it seems like you might get away with it because you could easily plant your 1st creep toward your normal expo (Thus allowing you to control that small little choke and stop any harassment) and have the subsequent ones go toward your high ground and then your gold.
Definitely don't disagree with you on Kulas's middle though because it is pretty damned cluttered.
As a side-note, I don't think the profanity is making you come off very well.
I notice the trend for these maps being unfavoured for zerg seems to be how easy or quick a 2nd/3rd base can be obtained. Has this maybe got a deeper problem in actual game dynamics or is it just because of zerg play style?
On June 19 2010 22:45 Geo.Rion wrote: just LOL on the posts bashing on Artosis coming from <200 posts users.
and think about it. and that would be a lesson for us to work about avoiding generalizations... may be 200>posters can play starcraft good and know deep about it? who knows.
check my further posts on this topic befor you post, please, they are right here
The OP seems to boil down to "waah I can't FE on all maps all the time" which is what a lot of the arguments were for these maps (I'm ignoring IZ because I think your "Incineration Zone - lol" comment summed it up perfectly) were that it is hard to defend the natural, when the entire point of those maps are difficult to defend naturals.
Now, I am not a zerg player so I'm going to ask, do you need to fast expand in order to win as Zerg or is it just easier?
On June 20 2010 00:37 Numy wrote: I notice the trend for these maps being unfavoured for zerg seems to be how easy or quick a 2nd/3rd base can be obtained. Has this maybe got a deeper problem in actual game dynamics or is it just because of zerg play style?
thank you, finally a very well thought out post! :D
There is definitely some truth in this being because of the Zerg play style. Zerg does require more bases than its opponent to win. The units are just not cost effective to fight with the same resources for very long. There's no solid answer to this though, the game is too dynamic. Different situations create different responses, etc.
On June 19 2010 20:27 Sunny Afternoon wrote: so uh.. this is just an article saying that zerg has a hard time on 3 maps? What about the other races? did imbalance working against them cease to exist?
Of course not. Artosis plays Zerg, not Terran or Protoss.
That aside, I think the talk about Kulas Ravine is true. While the cliffs do give Mutalisks a certain advantage, the fact that the map is SO cramped is terrible for Zerg armies.
I completely disagree on DO however. Zerg are the most mobile race and so are the least affected by the long distances between the bases. Not only that, they don't need a choke to defend nearly as much, where the other two races do, so the open layout of expansions heavily favors Zerg (it's actually harmful against their army because, like you said, they need flanks). Also, as we all know, the insanely short air distance favors Mutalisks.
And, of course, my comment about you is light-hearted jest. While it's true that you tend to show some bias, your comments do of course deserve to be taken seriously and thought about.
On June 20 2010 00:41 STS17 wrote: The OP seems to boil down to "waah I can't FE on all maps all the time" which is what a lot of the arguments were for these maps (I'm ignoring IZ because I think your "Incineration Zone - lol" comment summed it up perfectly) were that it is hard to defend the natural, when the entire point of those maps are difficult to defend naturals.
Now, I am not a zerg player so I'm going to ask, do you need to fast expand in order to win as Zerg or is it just easier?
You need to, in general, expand faster and more often than your opponent as Zerg. Of course there are exceptions to this, but its a real rule for the race with great massing ability but weaker units.
Artosis, you don't really reply to any of the posters here except for telling them to read your article, like it was the be-all and end-all truth. Some people disagree with your points. Saying your points automatically answer their opinions, because what, you're Artosis and idra, is pretty condescending man.
You say you hate Kulas because its just difficult to play on? Its difficult, but not impossible. I enjoy the challenge myself, its a great map to play on.
thor drop
What exactly were you doing as a zerg player whilst the terran was investing so much resources and time into getting that thor? What about all the other expansions on the map, is there a reason you can't take those?
choked map
Its cramped in Kulas, so initially you'd believe you'd just be running into a blood bath all the time. But all those buildings create different paths for you to run around and position separate forces around the map, instead of the same lame-ass mega blob most people use. The worst scenario is letting your enemy garner a massive force and control the absolute middle of the map. But again, why would you do/allow that?
helion rush
Position your initial spine crawlers better to protect your workers. That's all. You can't get everything easy by having a small single choke to spam spine crawlers.
On June 20 2010 00:37 Numy wrote: I notice the trend for these maps being unfavoured for zerg seems to be how easy or quick a 2nd/3rd base can be obtained. Has this maybe got a deeper problem in actual game dynamics or is it just because of zerg play style?
Yes that is how Zerg functions, unless going some cheesy strat. Consider that all zerg units spawn from hatcheries, and that's why being able to expand easily, as well as the actual location and defendability of those expansions is so important. Personally I've been more conscious of this recently when making maps, and make sure that at least the natural and second expansion is not too hard to defend.
i think if they just made some of the ramps/chokes a little wider at some of the natural expos it would give zerg some more options early on, instead of having to be ahead of their opponents with regards to bases.
Artosis/Idra, do you feel that these maps are difficult because of a difficulty in defending an expansion in addition to 1 base tier 1 zerg feeling too weak and expensive on these maps, difficulty in flanking units (for Kulas and Incineration), and fast air possiblities? From the article I glean the problem to be adequately defending an expansion while dealing with the many possibilities open to the enemy. I certainly feel this way too on these maps, though I use drones/speedlings more for scouting.
Whenever I play these maps as zerg, I just feel like I need more stuff to hold territory, forcing me to also take a lot of map control to feel safe, without which I find these maps much more difficult. I do not mean to critizise or demean your playing, just confused at good players not liking zerg on my zerg favorite maps(i hate DO as terran). Maybe I just like a challenge and swarming everywhere as zerg.
On June 20 2010 00:41 STS17 wrote: The OP seems to boil down to "waah I can't FE on all maps all the time" which is what a lot of the arguments were for these maps (I'm ignoring IZ because I think your "Incineration Zone - lol" comment summed it up perfectly) were that it is hard to defend the natural, when the entire point of those maps are difficult to defend naturals.
Now, I am not a zerg player so I'm going to ask, do you need to fast expand in order to win as Zerg or is it just easier?
You need to, in general, expand faster and more often than your opponent as Zerg. Of course there are exceptions to this, but its a real rule for the race with great massing ability but weaker units.
I can see the problem with Kulas Ravine in this sense, your points on the hard to defend natural are very valid.
On Desert Oasis, however, I find it hard to gain an advantage against zerg as a terran player. It just feels like it's easier for them to spread out over the map and take expos while expanding creep while I have to be very careful when first securing my nat and then even more so when trying to capture a third.
Am I doing something wrong? I mean, I guess the same stuff applies in some way for the zerg expanding (hard to defend, that is) but as a terran I just feel to vulnerable in moving out with ground forces on a map like DO and feel very constricted.
Regarding your rant on Kulas being long scouting, short rushing distance - why exactly is it that it is so bad for zerg to use a drone to scout? It's not like a protoss or a terran has a better scouting option that early in the game, so following your logic the map is imbalanced for a protoss because a zerg could 6,7,8-pool him or a terran could proxy reaper/marauder/bunkerrush him and for a terran the same applies. Whilst this isn't the only thing your argumentation relies on, I just couldn't help seeing it as a pretty big flaw.
I'm well aware that to keep up production with say a 4 gate protoss you need 2 hatcheries, but perhaps the second hatchery could be delayed more than the usual 16 hatch we saw as the trend without putting you too far behind in unit production? I'm not convinced that a 1 base zerg going for good map control before expanding is impossible, but then again - my zerg is at best gold, so I might miss something here.
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
Maybe he has - I don't see how pure mech is even viable on desert oasis? There is NO WAY to safely take a 3rd without opening yourself up to counter attack, and the distances are HUGE.
Seriously, explain what pure mech you are using on desert oasis to make it imbalanced...
I don't get how viking builds are hard to defend on DO, I find them way weaker there than on Scrap Station.
if even 1 person could read what was written, they would see that i did not take mech builds into consideration at all when writing this. lol@ the flamers who don't understand what's written.
I KNOW you said that in the OP, but then you quoted someone saying "mech sucks on DO" and essentially said "lol you are wrong".
It wasn't exactly clear what you were saying, especially as you mentioned viking builds and thor drops - both of which I would categorize as mech.
Yeah there are some cheese possibilties on DO, but I don't think that is a long-term viable solution to playing a map. DO is a good map for zerg.
On June 20 2010 00:04 Geo.Rion wrote:
On June 20 2010 00:00 gillon wrote: Bashing down on peoples postcount doesn't help your argument, seriously.
And i'm not talking about myself, a nameless poster with low postcounts should not talk to Artosis like they are on even terms, or as if his opinion is more valid than Artosis'. Postcounts are shown for a reason, not for statistics
That's not the way that commandment is meant to work. It's basically saying that if you have been here for a while, you will have more leeway than if you are new.
It's not a free-pass to treat people with low post counts like they are worthless ;p
That's for sure, all im saying is that these posters should show some respect for Artosis' article, even if they do not agree. I do not mean to discredit every new poster around here.
Btw concerning DO mech, i think the problem is that Zerg's expos are really harassable with hellions on this map especially. Larger maps are generally better for Zerg, but DO's distances between expos are actually working against Z. It is really really hard to spread creep on the entire map, you have to start spreading it in two directions to begin with, and the area to cover is really huge. When ZvT reaches lategame on this map the T will try to take a gold, and this is really hard to stop as zerg, and it's also hard to keep the other gold. So he's effectively is forced on 3 bases, easely harassable bases btw. Say the T has established a position on the left side of the map at the gold expo. From there he controls the center more or less and could attack the Zerg's third or the other gold, the distance is raughly the same, while the zerg troops have trouble manuvering behind their own large highground base. IDK if i could paint it realistically, i wish i could ifnd that Strelok vs Asian zerg VOD
(BTW we met like twice on ladder, do you remember me? NP if not, you pwned me pretty badly)
Yeah I remember.
I don't think hellion harass is that great when zerg has map control - 1 ling per tower, mutas faster than hellions. When T takes 3rd, drop his main. Take expos both sides of map so he kills 1 then he can't threaten a 2nd.
On June 20 2010 00:41 STS17 wrote: The OP seems to boil down to "waah I can't FE on all maps all the time" which is what a lot of the arguments were for these maps (I'm ignoring IZ because I think your "Incineration Zone - lol" comment summed it up perfectly) were that it is hard to defend the natural, when the entire point of those maps are difficult to defend naturals.
Now, I am not a zerg player so I'm going to ask, do you need to fast expand in order to win as Zerg or is it just easier?
You need to, in general, expand faster and more often than your opponent as Zerg. Of course there are exceptions to this, but its a real rule for the race with great massing ability but weaker units.
Yes I know Zerg is the "macro race" and generally speaking needs more bases then T or P to win but "expanding faster" does not mean "must always fast expand." Sometimes it might be better to stay on one base for a little while longer until you can establish a couple basic defenses.
Tank/Thor/Hellion is mech. This, I thought, was obvious.
if even 1 person could read what was written, they would see that i did not take mech builds into consideration at all when writing this. lol@ the flamers who don't understand what's written.
What?
For people still calling me biased, you didn't read the article very well. These are the 3 maps which IdrA and I feel are the very worst for Zerg. Future articles will have the maps which are the best for Zerg. These maps will outline what parts of the maps are good for Zerg.
If some idiot who clearly just signed up for the forum recently comes by and accuses me of hiding interviews because opinions of the people who I interviewed had different opinions from myself, what the fvck? Obviously that shit shouldnt be allowed.
Fine, that's great, but Desert Oasis is not bad for zerg. If you wanna call Steppes, LT, Incineration Zone, Kulas bad for zerg - be my guest. Desert? That's like the best zerg map in the pool as long as the game goes past early :[
And i'm not talking about myself, a nameless poster with low postcounts should not talk to Artosis like they are on even terms, or as if his opinion is more valid than Artosis'. Postcounts are shown for a reason, not for statistics
On the flip-side, it's pretty arrogant to think that just because you have more posts than someone, it makes your opinion more valid, and that's assumed rather often nowadays here on TL.
On June 20 2010 01:00 FrozenArbiter wrote: Fine, that's great, but Desert Oasis is not bad for zerg. If you wanna call Steppes, LT, Incineration Zone, Kulas bad for zerg - be my guest. Desert? That's like the best zerg map in the pool as long as the game goes past early :[
I have to agree with FA here. DO was banned from the ITL due to the massive favoritism towards Zerg. If they survive about more than 5 mins it's very hard to lose. Not impossible but there is better maps to point fingers at than the most Zerg IMBA map in the pool.
On June 20 2010 00:41 STS17 wrote: The OP seems to boil down to "waah I can't FE on all maps all the time" which is what a lot of the arguments were for these maps (I'm ignoring IZ because I think your "Incineration Zone - lol" comment summed it up perfectly) were that it is hard to defend the natural, when the entire point of those maps are difficult to defend naturals.
Now, I am not a zerg player so I'm going to ask, do you need to fast expand in order to win as Zerg or is it just easier?
You need to, in general, expand faster and more often than your opponent as Zerg. Of course there are exceptions to this, but its a real rule for the race with great massing ability but weaker units.
Yes I know Zerg is the "macro race" and generally speaking needs more bases then T or P to win but "expanding faster" does not mean "must always fast expand." Sometimes it might be better to stay on one base for a little while longer until you can establish a couple basic defenses.
Or just more units. With Spawn Larvae, you can produce plenty of units off of one base to fight off any really early aggression, then you can expand.
Fine, that's great, but Desert Oasis is not bad for zerg. If you wanna call Steppes, LT, Incineration Zone, Kulas bad for zerg - be my guest. Desert? That's like the best zerg map in the pool as long as the game goes past early :[
I play Random, but if the map is Desert Oasis, I pick Zerg. Every time.
zerg got most mobility -> maps with long distances to opponent/expansions/choke points are good. also backstabbing opportunities and many directions to walk/choose from zerg has largest armies -> open maps favor zerg because of the flanking
these are basically the only 2 things that it comes down to in tvz (maybe pvz too for that matter). stepps: short distances, not many ways to walk, not very open. HUGE terran map lost temple: medium distances, roads and flanking. should be pretty balanced but atm its t>z because the mu is imbalanced desert oasis: super long distances to everywhere and large opportunity for backstabbing. should favor zerg really much
now artosis tell me if u agree with this because i just cant understand how an experienced player like u would say desert is a map u dont wanna be zerg at
am i missing something here but shouldnt harass stuff like thor drop just work now in beta because nobody has any good timings of bos or how to play the game. its like got ppl went fast drop in tvp in sc1 and said it was good until 2~years ago u saw wow this sux if toss is halfdecent
On June 20 2010 00:49 Dystisis wrote: Yes that is how Zerg functions, unless going some cheesy strat. Consider that all zerg units spawn from hatcheries, and that's why being able to expand easily, as well as the actual location and defendability of those expansions is so important. Personally I've been more conscious of this recently when making maps, and make sure that at least the natural and second expansion is not too hard to defend.
This dynamic is one thing I have been puzzling for awhile. I think I'm right in saying in SC1 Zerg expanded early because they needed the hatch for production so putting one at a close expansion is logical but they could just put it in the base. They were still able to not handicap themselves by doing this at the start. This is the basis of my next few thoughts so if this is wrong then ignore the rest.
In SC2 it seems that if Zerg doesn't expand first they have a very tough time of getting into a position they can win. What seems to be happening is that the early game is being almost completely removed in most cases. In the mid game in most cases the Zerg has to out base the other races (I believe this is correct). So what appears to be happening is the mid game is coming so fast that the zerg has to expand in early game to get his expansion by mid game. Thus the root cause is this dynamic of losing early game very fast. This I believe is because of the macro mechanics allowing the game to progress much faster than it normally can. Maybe if these mechanics were adjusted than the dynamic could change allowing for more innovation in maps?
Of course this is only a theory and could be completely wrong as I'm rather bad at sc2
I will be writing several baww articles on the balance of various things in SC2 and I decided that the first one would have to be map balance. This will be an very subjective look at the theory and practice of the balance of the current set of SC2 maps in the Zerg matchups. I cannot, at this time, discuss TvP balance for these maps, simply because I don't care about any of it.
A big thanks to IdrA, who helped a ton in the bawwwing of this article!
PLEASE NOTE #1: This article addresses only my play. Balance is impossible to properly address at any other levels because they don't matter anyway.
PLEASE NOTE #2: I will be ignoring Mech vs Zerg. Seriously, this shit is so imba I cry in my sleep as I get tormented with nightmares of Thors and Siege Tanks.
The Worst of the Worst
KULAS RAVINE – Baaw ;_;
Even more BAAAAAAWWWWWWW Baaaaaw ;____:
Seriously, rivers are streaming down my face over this BAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWW BAAAW T_T | |
You thought I was done? Fuck no I 'm not Enter even more baaw.
Why should I bother pouring skill in this bitch? Again, lots of baww.
ZvAnything - I really don't want to be creative in my strategies or anything. Short rush distance, long scout distance- Listen to my Baaw. My Baww is most important as I am in Korea.
Seriously, I prefer continuing on leeching IdrA's BOs than actually try anything. Even more Baaw
Honestly, why would I create any form of strategy? Way better to just whine about it. Serious shitload of Baw.
DESERT OASIS - I have hated this map since day one of the beta. It was the first map I couldn't cheese my way out. Serious problems there.
ZvP - I think I Baawed enough. Oh wait, here's more. More Baw.
ZvT - I won't even bother explaining why I get rolled by Tanks and Thors. That would take some sort of effort. BAAAAAAAAAWW.
Distance from main base to natural- Yeah I admit, that's BS and I agree with what Artosis said.
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
On June 20 2010 00:41 STS17 wrote: The OP seems to boil down to "waah I can't FE on all maps all the time" which is what a lot of the arguments were for these maps (I'm ignoring IZ because I think your "Incineration Zone - lol" comment summed it up perfectly) were that it is hard to defend the natural, when the entire point of those maps are difficult to defend naturals.
Now, I am not a zerg player so I'm going to ask, do you need to fast expand in order to win as Zerg or is it just easier?
You need to, in general, expand faster and more often than your opponent as Zerg. Of course there are exceptions to this, but its a real rule for the race with great massing ability but weaker units.
I think this is only half of the story. In a game where both the Zerg and P/T are steadily expanding this is the case. But In a game where P/T tries to expand significantly faster than the Z its different, because Z can punish that very hard in the early and early midgame, possibly also later on (but I dont know because I never saw this situation).
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
ive been a starcraft fan for years, i just never made and account and started posting away on the forums. just because i chose not to voice my opinion that makes it less valid?
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
1st of all thats not true at all secondly this is RACE BALANCE, not MAP BALANCE. desert is the worst fucking map imaginable to sit on 2base macro and attack and finish zerg. WORST MAP ok? this is what im talking about we cant have this discussion as long as ppl confuse the meanings of this and as long as the mu is t>z on majority of the maps its just a matter of race balance to begin with
On June 20 2010 01:12 raph wrote: ive been a starcraft fan for years, i just never made and account and started posting away on the forums. just because i chose not to voice my opinion that makes it less valid?
not at all, many here r just frustrated about the different opinions and the post count is such an easy way to judge and say "ur a bad poster". personally i was just kidding when i said it but its amusing to see others who actually believe post count matters
Thanks for writing this article Dan. I enjoyed the read and I definetly agree with you on Kulas and Incin! Desert I also agree that theres just not enough test data for ZvP. (I actually had some tough tau cross like games on it vs good players who know how to macro as p!) And for ZvT I don't feel like I'm qualified to post. Anyway thanks alot for the article, your the man Dan! :D
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
1st of all thats not true at all secondly this is RACE BALANCE, not MAP BALANCE. desert is the worst fucking map imaginable to sit on 2base macro and attack and finish zerg. WORST MAP ok? this is what im talking about we cant have this discussion as long as ppl confuse the meanings of this and as long as the mu is t>z on majority of the maps its just a matter of race balance to begin with
Zerg has one option against a competent mech T. End the game early with a muta focused build. That's on any map, including DO. If you want to break it into multiple discussing, I don't care, but that's what mech has done to the matchup and that HAS to be considered when discussing balance on ANY map.
Alright, before I go into a tirade, are you just trying to point out the imbalanced maps or are you going for all maps?
Also, Desert Oasis seems a good map for 1 base fast air against Zerg. I have seen early Phoenix harass on this map (I forget which game, but I think it was in the HDH) and have personally done it (albeit at a much lower level) to great effect.
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
1st of all thats not true at all secondly this is RACE BALANCE, not MAP BALANCE. desert is the worst fucking map imaginable to sit on 2base macro and attack and finish zerg. WORST MAP ok? this is what im talking about we cant have this discussion as long as ppl confuse the meanings of this and as long as the mu is t>z on majority of the maps its just a matter of race balance to begin with
Zerg has one option against a competent mech T. End the game early with a muta focused build. That's on any map, including DO. If you want to break it into multiple discussing, I don't care, but that's what mech has done to the matchup and that HAS to be considered when discussing balance on ANY map.
thats like the worst way ever to play vs mech. how far did u get in ur tournaments lol, dont speak if u dont know anything ur just wasting my time reading mech is like pvt in sc1 without carriers and thats best way i can explain to u. ur goal is to break down the terran and not let him half the map while the meching player can decide to make some mech timing attack or simply turtle and slowly take half the map. thats how u win vs mech terran, not by making mutalisks rofl
On June 20 2010 01:27 deth2munkies wrote: Alright, before I go into a tirade, are you just trying to point out the imbalanced maps or are you going for all maps?
Also, Desert Oasis seems a good map for 1 base fast air against Zerg. I have seen early Phoenix harass on this map (I forget which game, but I think it was in the HDH) and have personally done it (albeit at a much lower level) to great effect.
In his article he said something along the lines of "This is a 3 part discussion, this is part 1 imbalanced maps" which goes on how three of all the 1v1 maps are more than 50% sided towards a certain race.
Then he said, he's going to address the more balance maps in a ZvX POV in his next article.
i have no idea why u think a muta heavy build is what beats mech, a few thors demolish any number of mutas. surely you can make some for harassment, but if its the core of your build? i dont think so.
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
1st of all thats not true at all secondly this is RACE BALANCE, not MAP BALANCE. desert is the worst fucking map imaginable to sit on 2base macro and attack and finish zerg. WORST MAP ok? this is what im talking about we cant have this discussion as long as ppl confuse the meanings of this and as long as the mu is t>z on majority of the maps its just a matter of race balance to begin with
Zerg has one option against a competent mech T. End the game early with a muta focused build. That's on any map, including DO. If you want to break it into multiple discussing, I don't care, but that's what mech has done to the matchup and that HAS to be considered when discussing balance on ANY map.
thats like the worst way ever to play vs mech. how far did u get in ur tournaments lol, dont speak if u dont know anything ur just wasting my time reading mech is like pvt in sc1 without carriers and thats best way i can explain to u. ur goal is to break down the terran and not let him half the map while the meching player can decide to make some mech timing attack or simply turtle and slowly take half the map. thats how u win vs mech terran, not by making mutalisks rofl
You're right ZvT is exactly like PvT in BW, wait except the fact that map control has absolutely no importance in a game where NOTHING a Z makes can beat a 200/200 T mech army. The only way to beat mech is to cripple/kill him early with a fast muta/ling/baneling build. Show me 1 example where this is not the case (and don't give me some stupid replay where Z when burrowed roaches into an afk T or something, that's not an actual counter, just cheese that works on bad T's).
Comis, your point isn't valid. Let the chef help you out. First of all, sure its ridiculously hard to beat a 200/200 army. However it takes alot of time and minerals to make that. (Exactly like a TvP in BW) So what Morrow is saying is that you want to effectively take your 200/200 army, that you got earlier then his, and harass him, try and keep him to two bases, or three bases if you have to and his army below 200.
You always want to keep whittling his massive ball of mech down so he doesn't reach this 200/200. And there are ways to stop a 200/200 army if you have 8 bases, and he has 2. And I assure you there are reps of Z's beating T's who have managed to get that 200/200 ball going. Idra's games on LT were a perfect example of what to do vs this mech turtle. (Just using Idra since hes a main idea in this thread)
So to end my point, ZvT is exactly like PvT in BW, Something a Z makes can beat a 200/200 T mech army and the only way to beat mech isn't to cripple/kill him early. Hopefully that helped you understand a little bit more about Starcraft.
From a zerg point of view i agree with a lot in this article, and also on DO. Im not sure if its is right to say the map is imbalanced thogh, but i do agree that preventing harass early game in zvt is very difficult due to the ledge next to the main and the large distance between the main and the natural. If you are able to get into the mid/late game i would say its fairly balanced.
One thing I disagree with is the asumption of zerg beeing OP on this map due to mobility in zvt. With dropships, terran gain great mobility and ability to harass where the zerg army is not present.
In general, I would like to see larger maps with longer rush distances, for zerg its a bit too hard too fend of an early protoss rush where the rush distance is short since it gives you no to time to respond and make the right adjustments. (mabye it wouldnt matter since all protoss cheese anywas :p).
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
1st of all thats not true at all secondly this is RACE BALANCE, not MAP BALANCE. desert is the worst fucking map imaginable to sit on 2base macro and attack and finish zerg. WORST MAP ok? this is what im talking about we cant have this discussion as long as ppl confuse the meanings of this and as long as the mu is t>z on majority of the maps its just a matter of race balance to begin with
Zerg has one option against a competent mech T. End the game early with a muta focused build. That's on any map, including DO. If you want to break it into multiple discussing, I don't care, but that's what mech has done to the matchup and that HAS to be considered when discussing balance on ANY map.
thats like the worst way ever to play vs mech. how far did u get in ur tournaments lol, dont speak if u dont know anything ur just wasting my time reading mech is like pvt in sc1 without carriers and thats best way i can explain to u. ur goal is to break down the terran and not let him half the map while the meching player can decide to make some mech timing attack or simply turtle and slowly take half the map. thats how u win vs mech terran, not by making mutalisks rofl
You're right ZvT is exactly like PvT in BW, wait except the fact that map control has absolutely no importance in a game where NOTHING a Z makes can beat a 200/200 T mech army. The only way to beat mech is to cripple/kill him early with a fast muta/ling/baneling build. Show me 1 example where this is not the case (and don't give me some stupid replay where Z when burrowed roaches into an afk T or something, that's not an actual counter, just cheese that works on bad T's).
maybe u didnt play bw but 200 psi mech owned toss too lol. thats why u gotta overpower terran before he gets too strong. sc1 is basically revolved around recalls and frontal attacks while terran just has to hold on because he wins if he splits the map (talking about 2 player maps). thats where carriers come in and zerg has no carrier most common way i can think of is to take about 3-4 base as zerg get mapcontrol then make a huge fucking army and try break terran down with nyduses drops and frontal attacks. just like sc1 on destination tvz or tvp on 2 player maps without carrier. ur a bad player and u avoid my question about ur tournament achievements or rank stats etc, just drop the discussion ur embarrassing urself
On June 20 2010 01:51 MorroW wrote: ur a bad player and u avoid my question about ur tournament achievements or rank stats etc, just drop the discussion ur embarrassing urself
Uggh, mark of a douchebag.
People either know you or they don't, MorroW. No need for petty ad hominem.
Holy cow people (general tendency) are arguing in such an ugly manner in this thread. I don't know much about this community (so I don't know if it's always that disgusting) but this is very bad advertising, that's for sure.
in terms of MAP BALANCE. blizzard maps are poorly designed. As a 1900 Plat player -> 700 diamond player, the only map i looked forward to playing was Metalopolis and that was generally because it was the lesser of all the evils.
The maps themselves are too small. Of the top of my head, Steppes of War, LT, Kulas, DO, favor agressive early games (yes DO is included in this, how many times have people tried to cheese you on that map?). That idea in itself favors the terran race because of their ability to wall-off while obtaining powerful harass units (i can sit in my base and tech and harass you at the same time lol).
In all honesty, Artosis has a point in bringing this up because although many people claim the game is closely balanced right now (which i would tend to agree with) map balance coupled with certain racial imbalances (namely terran's ability to do whatever the fuck they want; wall off, harass, open all tech trees, turtle and sit in their 2-base without pushing to get 200/200 mech.) really compound each other and make this game a rather one sided affair for one race over another. Hopefully with the advent of private tournaments we will be able to create our own maps that can reduce these types of discrepencies.
Holy shit has this community grown overly hostile since the beta went down. Please Blizzard bring it back before we have an all out war on our hands!
On June 20 2010 02:37 Heat_023 wrote: Holy cow people (general tendency) are arguing in such an ugly manner in this thread. I don't know much about this community (so I don't know if it's always that disgusting) but this is very bad advertising, that's for sure.
Please don't think this is how i normally is. This is normally a good and mostly mannered community but with no SC2 for a couple weeks everyone is irritated.
aaaw, i r dissapoint. Even if the article is great and about maps I had hoped you would have started with how the current mineral / gas ratio affects the game. xD
as for desert oasis, why have terran players never tried to wall off the smaller entrance as a response to mass ling?? its not like your army is moving out for years to come.
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
1st of all thats not true at all secondly this is RACE BALANCE, not MAP BALANCE. desert is the worst fucking map imaginable to sit on 2base macro and attack and finish zerg. WORST MAP ok? this is what im talking about we cant have this discussion as long as ppl confuse the meanings of this and as long as the mu is t>z on majority of the maps its just a matter of race balance to begin with
Zerg has one option against a competent mech T. End the game early with a muta focused build. That's on any map, including DO. If you want to break it into multiple discussing, I don't care, but that's what mech has done to the matchup and that HAS to be considered when discussing balance on ANY map.
thats like the worst way ever to play vs mech. how far did u get in ur tournaments lol, dont speak if u dont know anything ur just wasting my time reading mech is like pvt in sc1 without carriers and thats best way i can explain to u. ur goal is to break down the terran and not let him half the map while the meching player can decide to make some mech timing attack or simply turtle and slowly take half the map. thats how u win vs mech terran, not by making mutalisks rofl
You're right ZvT is exactly like PvT in BW, wait except the fact that map control has absolutely no importance in a game where NOTHING a Z makes can beat a 200/200 T mech army. The only way to beat mech is to cripple/kill him early with a fast muta/ling/baneling build. Show me 1 example where this is not the case (and don't give me some stupid replay where Z when burrowed roaches into an afk T or something, that's not an actual counter, just cheese that works on bad T's).
maybe u didnt play bw but 200 psi mech owned toss too lol. thats why u gotta overpower terran before he gets too strong. sc1 is basically revolved around recalls and frontal attacks while terran just has to hold on because he wins if he splits the map (talking about 2 player maps). thats where carriers come in and zerg has no carrier most common way i can think of is to take about 3-4 base as zerg get mapcontrol then make a huge fucking army and try break terran down with nyduses drops and frontal attacks. just like sc1 on destination tvz or tvp on 2 player maps without carrier. ur a bad player and u avoid my question about ur tournament achievements or rank stats etc, just drop the discussion ur embarrassing urself
Protoss could beat 200 supply T mech. It was just hard. Not next to impossible like ZvT mech.
You say the way to beat T in ZvT is to "overpower terran before he gets too strong". That's exactly what I'm saying. The only way to beat T mech is to cripple/kill him early with a muta-focused build (you can try all ground if you want to lose). You can throw in cheesy nydus or whatever else you want but if you let T get to 200/200 your chances of winning drop through the floor.
We're saying essentially the same thing, you're just doing it in broken english and littered with personal insults.
At the moment SC2 is a very dynamic game and must be treated as such. If a map is skewed toward a certain type of play from the opposing player, you should analyze it and devise a strategy that exploits as many of your opponents weakness as possible while playing to your own strengths.
Its a flawed way of thinking to go into every game on every map and play the same style, every map is a different arena with different tools at your disposal.
You (Artosis) and Idra like to play defensive macro games and steam roll when the time is right, on a map like Lost Temple, thats great, probably the best way to play the map. However on Desert Oasis it seems much more effect to abuse a feature of the map, one you make note of several times: the distance between the main and natural. That can be your strength or weakness depending on how you play. Nydus worming (proper verbage? lol) is incredibly effective on this map because of the distance between the main and natural, by pressuring with the constant threat of Nydus worms your safe to do a lot of whatever.
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.
All that being said, thanks for all you do Artosis!
I think the only way we can clear this up is that blizzard should implement customized maps just like in iccup, that way the people doesn't need to whine since it's made by professional map makers.
What I'm noticing Artosis, is that you want the maps to fit your style of Zerg play. Nothing wrong with that, but it leads for you to get destroyed on those cliffs vs Terran (I honestly don't see many Protoss players go for the cliff with stalkers...would work though). I think instead of just saying "these maps aren't the best for Zerg" you need to change your play style for the map. If the Kulas expansion is bad, maybe find a way to get an expansion on the cliff. It's probably not as economically sound as going to the primary expansion, but it might be easier to defend against some Terran and Protoss tactics that way. I just think you expect the straight up to work all the time, when maybe you need to be a little creative instead.
Also with Desert Oasis, I have to disagree on the point of defending three bases. It's hard for EVERY race to defend their third base on that map. Usually I just cannon up the island and take that as my third, as going to the gold or the third regular mineral patch on the opposite side of the main usually means you're leaving one of your bases vulnerable.
Also for ZvP on DO, I think the fact that Protoss always does the warp gate rush all in tells a lot about balance. DO is a map that Zerg can do well on if they get the chance to macro. Protoss has to get ahead of the zerg or downright kill the zerg before a certain point or it just becomes an uphill battle with an increasingly large hill.
Good read, but I think you need to vary up your tactics depending on the map.
Alou brings up a good point. Idra and Artosis play one playstyle 100% of the time. FE into a massive macro push with mass Roach or Hydra.
Whatever happened to BW where that shit would not fly? For example I was a P player and I KNEW that I could not do a macro war on Bluestorm. I also knew that Medusa and Colo it paid to be uber aggressive with 10/15 Goon Rush.
I think most of these players are not playing for the map and playing for the MU
This seems silly to me, the only maps that I feel we can really discuss imbalance on are desert oasis and maybe incineration zone. Maps like Kulas are not anywhere near as imbalanced as people think if you just play in a way that gets around it. Teching first to give you time to break down the rocks to take the safer expo is really not as big of a blow as some people think, you will already have units up and if you manage your larva correctly you will be able to keep up a decent defensive force while taking a 3rd relatively quickly after and still saturating them at a decent rate, which would then put you ahead. You can circumvent the dangerous cliffs altogether. It really just requires a different style of play, of course it is "imbalanced" if you just go ahead and expand to the obviously harder to defend location.
i wouldnt agree at all that its hard for every race to defend their third on DO, with creep tumors (and even without them) zerg can amply defend with their mobile army.
How come Artosis doesn't get banned for belittling someone's argument over their post count?
This whole thread is goddamn retarded. Artosis dismisses everyone who disagrees with him and as soon as someone agrees with him, he says "finally, a well thought out post!" Utterly transparent. He's convinced himself that he must be right and nothing will change his mind. He's best ignored.
I think most of these players are not playing for the map and playing for the MU
why should they bend their play to the map? you can notice from several turnaments that idra forces his strategy to work via overlord drops and flanking rather than abandone his entire gameplan, its nothing new.
Also with Desert Oasis, I have to disagree on the point of defending three bases. It's hard for EVERY race to defend their third base on that map. Usually I just cannon up the island and take that as my third, as going to the gold or the third regular mineral patch on the opposite side of the main usually means you're leaving one of your bases vulnerable.
where is the incentive to take a third against one base / two base zerg? its not like they are going to go sens one base muta and suddenly take 2 bases.
On June 19 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: i laff at this cause imo desert oasis was the best map for zvt u cant play mech turtle cause of all the open areas and huge distances to everywhere and u cant make good timing pushes cause of the long distances
i think its safe to say all the maps r insanely imbalanced, cmon here they r blizzard maps. do u really expect the first maps made to be good at all?
mech works just like mech in sc1, u kill tons of units compared to the unit cost, short distances and small areas favors mech play, destination, stepps of war u cant play bio in tvz, so ur basically just talking about bio mech which is too little to talk about balance for imo
Artosis explains imbalance on top level play so unless your active on high pro level you wont notice theese imbalances in your games.
Desert Oasis is actually one of my favourite maps, ESPECIALLY vs Zerg, and I am protoss player. I do think your arguments are very zerg biased and dont take everything into account. But hey what do I know - im a casual player
On June 20 2010 03:14 LokPest wrote: Artosis explains imbalance on top level play so unless your active on high pro level you wont notice theese imbalances in your games.
Do you know who Morrow is? He would notice these things bigtime.
On June 19 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: i laff at this cause imo desert oasis was the best map for zvt u cant play mech turtle cause of all the open areas and huge distances to everywhere and u cant make good timing pushes cause of the long distances
i think its safe to say all the maps r insanely imbalanced, cmon here they r blizzard maps. do u really expect the first maps made to be good at all?
mech works just like mech in sc1, u kill tons of units compared to the unit cost, short distances and small areas favors mech play, destination, stepps of war u cant play bio in tvz, so ur basically just talking about bio mech which is too little to talk about balance for imo
Artosis explains imbalance on top level play so unless your active on high pro level you wont notice theese imbalances in your games.
I think most of these players are not playing for the map and playing for the MU
why should they bend their play to the map? you can notice from several turnaments that idra forces his strategy to work via overlord drops and flanking rather than abandone his entire gameplan, its nothing new.
Also with Desert Oasis, I have to disagree on the point of defending three bases. It's hard for EVERY race to defend their third base on that map. Usually I just cannon up the island and take that as my third, as going to the gold or the third regular mineral patch on the opposite side of the main usually means you're leaving one of your bases vulnerable.
where is the incentive to take a third against one base / two base zerg? its not like they are going to go sens one base muta and suddenly take 2 bases.
Because their play is not working on a certain map. I'm not asking for Artosis and Idra and other Zergs to just go all in on a 6 pool on Kulas or anything. I'm asking for him to perhaps try expanding to the cliff and probably reordering the way he does something to fit that map. If the expansion on Kulas is hard to defend, why not go to the other expansion. It'll mean a later expansion, but you probably won't be as harassed. I've never done it, but it seems like a reasonable solution to look into.
What are you on about? I said it's hard for all races to defend their third on DO, because the third base is far from your second. Just as your second is far from your main. I'm not saying we should scout the Zerg's one base play and take a second and third base. I'm saying that when the game gets to a point where you need a third, it's hard to defend that third base.
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
1st of all thats not true at all secondly this is RACE BALANCE, not MAP BALANCE. desert is the worst fucking map imaginable to sit on 2base macro and attack and finish zerg. WORST MAP ok? this is what im talking about we cant have this discussion as long as ppl confuse the meanings of this and as long as the mu is t>z on majority of the maps its just a matter of race balance to begin with
Zerg has one option against a competent mech T. End the game early with a muta focused build. That's on any map, including DO. If you want to break it into multiple discussing, I don't care, but that's what mech has done to the matchup and that HAS to be considered when discussing balance on ANY map.
thats like the worst way ever to play vs mech. how far did u get in ur tournaments lol, dont speak if u dont know anything ur just wasting my time reading mech is like pvt in sc1 without carriers and thats best way i can explain to u. ur goal is to break down the terran and not let him half the map while the meching player can decide to make some mech timing attack or simply turtle and slowly take half the map. thats how u win vs mech terran, not by making mutalisks rofl
You're right ZvT is exactly like PvT in BW, wait except the fact that map control has absolutely no importance in a game where NOTHING a Z makes can beat a 200/200 T mech army. The only way to beat mech is to cripple/kill him early with a fast muta/ling/baneling build. Show me 1 example where this is not the case (and don't give me some stupid replay where Z when burrowed roaches into an afk T or something, that's not an actual counter, just cheese that works on bad T's).
maybe u didnt play bw but 200 psi mech owned toss too lol. thats why u gotta overpower terran before he gets too strong. sc1 is basically revolved around recalls and frontal attacks while terran just has to hold on because he wins if he splits the map (talking about 2 player maps). thats where carriers come in and zerg has no carrier most common way i can think of is to take about 3-4 base as zerg get mapcontrol then make a huge fucking army and try break terran down with nyduses drops and frontal attacks. just like sc1 on destination tvz or tvp on 2 player maps without carrier. ur a bad player and u avoid my question about ur tournament achievements or rank stats etc, just drop the discussion ur embarrassing urself
Protoss could beat 200 supply T mech. It was just hard. Not next to impossible like ZvT mech.
You say the way to beat T in ZvT is to "overpower terran before he gets too strong". That's exactly what I'm saying. The only way to beat T mech is to cripple/kill him early with a muta-focused build (you can try all ground if you want to lose). You can throw in cheesy nydus or whatever else you want but if you let T get to 200/200 your chances of winning drop through the floor.
We're saying essentially the same thing, you're just doing it in broken english and littered with personal insults.
were not at all saying the same thing ur saying early game cheese and im saying play strong and straight up. im not talking about 1base nydus here im just saying zerg will reach high armies earlier than a meching terran and he can use that advantage to expand more or potentially break terran down. drop on different locations or nydus was just a suggestion to go around terrans army and use his mobility to his weakness
On June 19 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: i laff at this cause imo desert oasis was the best map for zvt u cant play mech turtle cause of all the open areas and huge distances to everywhere and u cant make good timing pushes cause of the long distances
i think its safe to say all the maps r insanely imbalanced, cmon here they r blizzard maps. do u really expect the first maps made to be good at all?
mech works just like mech in sc1, u kill tons of units compared to the unit cost, short distances and small areas favors mech play, destination, stepps of war u cant play bio in tvz, so ur basically just talking about bio mech which is too little to talk about balance for imo
Artosis explains imbalance on top level play so unless your active on high pro level you wont notice theese imbalances in your games.
I've only played SC since SC2 came out, and I've been on this site for even less time.
The amount of people coming in here acting like they have any inkling of what is balanced and not in top level play is hilarious.
The amount of people skimming through posts until they find something they can take offensive to is alarming.
Fanboys coming in here telling Morrow "Yo bro, this is for the big boys. Don't worry about it"
I've been here for like 2 months, and I've seen Morrow a bunch of times between the casts/tourneys/interviews Ive watched. I know I have no clue what's balanced yet. How are you people going to act like you do with even less knowledge of high tier play than I gained in 60 days.
I think there should be about two neutral maps in a given map pool (lets say Meta and LT are neutral, although LT is a bit T favored TvZ, but not too too bad) and then maps that fluctuate in who they favor or don't favor. A big part of clan wars (coming from a wc3 perspective) was sort of a mind game between managers.
I think the idea of having maps that *slightly* favor one race over another are perfectly acceptable. They add a lot of strategy and mind games to clan wars at the very least. Also, differently sized/shaped/structured maps often create new strategies on their own. I think Artosis is jumping the gun a bit personally, Id like to see how things shake out a bit more.
On June 20 2010 03:28 Joseki wrote: I think there should be about two neutral maps in a given map pool (lets say Meta and LT are neutral, although LT is a bit T favored TvZ, but not too too bad) and then maps that fluctuate in who they favor or don't favor. A big part of clan wars (coming from a wc3 perspective) was sort of a mind game between managers.
I think the idea of having maps that *slightly* favor one race over another are perfectly acceptable. They add a lot of strategy and mind games to clan wars at the very least. Also, differently sized/shaped/structured maps often create new strategies on their own. I think Artosis is jumping the gun a bit personally, Id like to see how things shake out a bit more.
This would work something like irl sports home team advantage lol. If you could win on your opponents home turf you gained a huge lead.
Well even some of the higher level players are coming in here and disagreeing. It's obviously not as black and white as what the OP is making it out to be, at least in some cases.
Kulas is such a fun map. It's not really well balanced for TvZ, but TvP and PvZ are pretty good on the map. I don't think it's really P-favored at all in PvZ. The map makes warp-gate all-ins more easy to pull off, and maybe two-gate pressure is better, but it's sort of hard to take a second base as Protoss. You can't really do the typical "fast expand" on the map very easily, since speedlings backstabs are so deadly.
Desert Oasis is really zerg-favored, if zerg ever gets up and running--which is hard to do with thor drops, viking harass, bunkers under your cliff, void rays, and warp gate all-ins. I know Artosis uses Nydus worms on the map, so he knows about it, but the map is the nydus worm's paradise.
Anyhow, I'm sort of puzzled why DO is on the "worst of the worst" for zerg, but Steppes is not. I guess I'll find out in part 2.
blizzard maps are soo much better than most of the iccup crap that gets churned out. every single iccup map is the same. each starting base has an expo or two perfectly defendable by 1 easy choke/ramp. then add a little python or decal in the middle and bingo another sick map. seriously all iccup maps are macro-fuck-orientated and end up playing the same every game. i think early in the beta many were complaining that blizzards sc2 maps were "made too well." ......................
Is this guy serious? I know Diamond already addressed it, but Jesus thanks for the good laugh.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts about these maps. I can't stand kulas or incineration zone. The only decent maps while playing Z seem to be blistering sands, LT, metalopolis and scrap station. I suppose steppes of war is also ok since you have an open area in the middle, but the rush distance is ridiculously short. Even scrap station can be ridiculous if you need to defend 4gate. I also really hate how spawning close on LT or metalopolis pretty much makes it impossible to FE against a good protoss.
I'm not sure I agree with desert oasis being super terran favored. The long distance between main and nat certainly doesn't help, but speedlings & infestors with NP can pretty easily shut down thor & hellion garbage as well as MM drops, and then you can just abuse nydus and keep him scrambling to get a third while you macro off 3-4 bases. Keeping an infestor or two in your main when hes threatening drops will completely shit on him. I have had numerous games where they will attempt to drop me, I fungal 3-4 dropships full of units where they can't unload, kill them, and its GG. Infestors in general seem to be the best answer to 1:1:1 harassment.
probably because of sc2 beta that this site has degraded somewhat in quality posters who post at a regular pace.
I've never done it, but it seems like a reasonable solution to look into.
yea it does, i have never tried that either.
What are you on about? I said it's hard for all races to defend their third on DO, because the third base is far from your second. Just as your second is far from your main. I'm not saying we should scout the Zerg's one base play and take a second and third base. I'm saying that when the game gets to a point where you need a third, it's hard to defend that third base.
as far as i am concerned the pace of the game is usually decided before that time, i shouldnt have commented on it but zerg going for hydra roach are usually the ones trying to defend a third while terran abuses the cliffs and ledges with the countless opportunities to harass that they have to their disposal xD.
TLO style ling play looks and feels awesome on that map but to field that up as a reply to state that zerg is mobile and good when not on creep is just wrong. Outside Speedlings, infestor and mutalisk there is almost nothing mobile with Hydra / roach when they are off creep.
thats probably why Artosis and idra feel the map working against them. Not that i disagree, the map is from a balance pov bad.
minor edit: this is a great example Artosis and Idra both try to force their styles to work on all maps, while not optimal it should not be failing as badly as it currently does.
I retract my statement... BTW Morrow isn't some newb so the guys acting as if need to check themselves. It's funny how people just started playing SC2 and never touched SC:BW and come here thinking they know anything about everything. This community is old school bro's, it wasn't created yesterday.
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
1st of all thats not true at all secondly this is RACE BALANCE, not MAP BALANCE. desert is the worst fucking map imaginable to sit on 2base macro and attack and finish zerg. WORST MAP ok? this is what im talking about we cant have this discussion as long as ppl confuse the meanings of this and as long as the mu is t>z on majority of the maps its just a matter of race balance to begin with
Zerg has one option against a competent mech T. End the game early with a muta focused build. That's on any map, including DO. If you want to break it into multiple discussing, I don't care, but that's what mech has done to the matchup and that HAS to be considered when discussing balance on ANY map.
thats like the worst way ever to play vs mech. how far did u get in ur tournaments lol, dont speak if u dont know anything ur just wasting my time reading mech is like pvt in sc1 without carriers and thats best way i can explain to u. ur goal is to break down the terran and not let him half the map while the meching player can decide to make some mech timing attack or simply turtle and slowly take half the map. thats how u win vs mech terran, not by making mutalisks rofl
You're right ZvT is exactly like PvT in BW, wait except the fact that map control has absolutely no importance in a game where NOTHING a Z makes can beat a 200/200 T mech army. The only way to beat mech is to cripple/kill him early with a fast muta/ling/baneling build. Show me 1 example where this is not the case (and don't give me some stupid replay where Z when burrowed roaches into an afk T or something, that's not an actual counter, just cheese that works on bad T's).
maybe u didnt play bw but 200 psi mech owned toss too lol. thats why u gotta overpower terran before he gets too strong. sc1 is basically revolved around recalls and frontal attacks while terran just has to hold on because he wins if he splits the map (talking about 2 player maps). thats where carriers come in and zerg has no carrier most common way i can think of is to take about 3-4 base as zerg get mapcontrol then make a huge fucking army and try break terran down with nyduses drops and frontal attacks. just like sc1 on destination tvz or tvp on 2 player maps without carrier. ur a bad player and u avoid my question about ur tournament achievements or rank stats etc, just drop the discussion ur embarrassing urself
Protoss could beat 200 supply T mech. It was just hard. Not next to impossible like ZvT mech.
You say the way to beat T in ZvT is to "overpower terran before he gets too strong". That's exactly what I'm saying. The only way to beat T mech is to cripple/kill him early with a muta-focused build (you can try all ground if you want to lose). You can throw in cheesy nydus or whatever else you want but if you let T get to 200/200 your chances of winning drop through the floor.
We're saying essentially the same thing, you're just doing it in broken english and littered with personal insults.
were not at all saying the same thing ur saying early game cheese and im saying play strong and straight up. im not talking about 1base nydus here im just saying zerg will reach high armies earlier than a meching terran and he can use that advantage to expand more or potentially break terran down. drop on different locations or nydus was just a suggestion to go around terrans army and use his mobility to his weakness
Since when is a "muta-focused build" early game cheese? Muta/ling/bling is staple ZvT.
Well, I, for one, believe that Idra should be involved in all balance decisions... I mean, c'mon, he's not the type of player to rage and overreact if he loses to something, he's super levelheaded and able to clearly see the issues and make informed decisions.
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.
On June 19 2010 22:08 raph wrote: i agree with kulas, but on DO, terran actually feels much harder if the game goes beyond 2 base.
in the 2 base game im generally able to get 2-3 tanks + 12-15 marines and push to my nat, easy as pie. you bunk up and siege behind the bunkers and then just turret your main and leave a few scattered tanks within to help defend on doom drops. i can push and contain on 2 base and fight effectively. but if the game runs long into a 3+ base game for terran, the distances even on the closest blue mineral patch for an immobile meching terran against heavy muta + drops makes it incredibly hard on me to be able to defend my main and 3rd because of the obscure layout and distance
You only need 2 bases to max out a mech army. You then A-move into the Zerg base. If he tries to fight you, he loses. If he tries to base trade you, he has a chance but still most likely loses.
1st of all thats not true at all secondly this is RACE BALANCE, not MAP BALANCE. desert is the worst fucking map imaginable to sit on 2base macro and attack and finish zerg. WORST MAP ok? this is what im talking about we cant have this discussion as long as ppl confuse the meanings of this and as long as the mu is t>z on majority of the maps its just a matter of race balance to begin with
Zerg has one option against a competent mech T. End the game early with a muta focused build. That's on any map, including DO. If you want to break it into multiple discussing, I don't care, but that's what mech has done to the matchup and that HAS to be considered when discussing balance on ANY map.
thats like the worst way ever to play vs mech. how far did u get in ur tournaments lol, dont speak if u dont know anything ur just wasting my time reading mech is like pvt in sc1 without carriers and thats best way i can explain to u. ur goal is to break down the terran and not let him half the map while the meching player can decide to make some mech timing attack or simply turtle and slowly take half the map. thats how u win vs mech terran, not by making mutalisks rofl
You're right ZvT is exactly like PvT in BW, wait except the fact that map control has absolutely no importance in a game where NOTHING a Z makes can beat a 200/200 T mech army. The only way to beat mech is to cripple/kill him early with a fast muta/ling/baneling build. Show me 1 example where this is not the case (and don't give me some stupid replay where Z when burrowed roaches into an afk T or something, that's not an actual counter, just cheese that works on bad T's).
maybe u didnt play bw but 200 psi mech owned toss too lol. thats why u gotta overpower terran before he gets too strong. sc1 is basically revolved around recalls and frontal attacks while terran just has to hold on because he wins if he splits the map (talking about 2 player maps). thats where carriers come in and zerg has no carrier most common way i can think of is to take about 3-4 base as zerg get mapcontrol then make a huge fucking army and try break terran down with nyduses drops and frontal attacks. just like sc1 on destination tvz or tvp on 2 player maps without carrier. ur a bad player and u avoid my question about ur tournament achievements or rank stats etc, just drop the discussion ur embarrassing urself
Protoss could beat 200 supply T mech. It was just hard. Not next to impossible like ZvT mech.
You say the way to beat T in ZvT is to "overpower terran before he gets too strong". That's exactly what I'm saying. The only way to beat T mech is to cripple/kill him early with a muta-focused build (you can try all ground if you want to lose). You can throw in cheesy nydus or whatever else you want but if you let T get to 200/200 your chances of winning drop through the floor.
We're saying essentially the same thing, you're just doing it in broken english and littered with personal insults.
were not at all saying the same thing ur saying early game cheese and im saying play strong and straight up. im not talking about 1base nydus here im just saying zerg will reach high armies earlier than a meching terran and he can use that advantage to expand more or potentially break terran down. drop on different locations or nydus was just a suggestion to go around terrans army and use his mobility to his weakness
Since when is a "muta-focused build" early game cheese? Muta/ling/bling is staple ZvT.
you dont make banelings and zerglings against mech, only time u do that is when trying to baneling bust that fails then u go 1hatch spire into mutalisk ur clearly just a newb who makes banelings against tanks so ill stop this right now
Too bad this discussion can't be limited to people who know what they are talking about because the amount of stupid comments is overwhelming and people who don't know better take it as the truth.
I thumbed down DO and Kulas Ravine on my first run through the ladders, and did the same for Incineration Zone after realizing how ridiculous that map was. I'm glad to see my sentiments were shared by some of the top NA Z players. Thanks for the article, Artosis; you could have also mentioned that the cliffs on Kulas are extremely susceptible to Viking harass in the same way they do for Stalkers, albeit somewhat easier to counter due to their later position in the tech tree.
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.
I agree with everything artosis/idra said. Maps like kulas and IZ break the game. They aren't slightly favored towards one race, just straight up imbalanced maps. There is something very wrong when you have to completely outplay your opponent to win.
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?
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.
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....
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.
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....
new favorite SC player...I think I love you MorroW. You're condescending remarks towards people that clearly have no clue what they are talking about make me smile on the inside and out. Keep burninating the newbs and I will follow you blindly. I try and have respect for all the high level players here but when I see things like the OP contradicting his own statements for the QQ's, because his standard BO wont work, its really really really hard...Idra claims DO favors zerg, then lists reasons why its not balanced (all reasons that simply dont fall in line with his very linear play style (as far as I have seen.))
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...
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....
how sweet of you guys, hope the people you invite will have different pov's to lead into interesting discussions. ;D
I really think Blizzard just has some kinks they need to hammer out in game design. The way the races are currently balanced it's going to be hard to make any maps that have "good" balance. IMO all of the units need to be a little less specialized, splash and certain AoE abilities need to be weaker, and zerg units need to be cheaper, weaker, and cost less supply, but that's my opinion without any super top-level play to back it up.
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.
While I have great respect for Artosis and Idra and their skills, this article really makes me want to follow MorroW's, reaction. The whole concept behind the article is completely irrelevant. This isn't Warcraft 3, Zerg units don't get a slight nerf on this map. Every unit costs the same and performs the same, and BOTH players are susceptible to the terrain. There is no such thing as map imbalance!
????
How do the units perform the same when the situation is: (low ground) unit1 | unit2 (high ground) (Thor vs. roaches for example) versus unit1 unit2 (both on same height, no "wall" between. same units.)
And no, zerg units can't abuse height advantage in the same way as for example terran units.
That's just a single simple example, get your head checked if you think there is no such thing as map balance. Not only are the units changed by the map but also build orders as some maps have very different distances that allow for different things to happen. Throughout the BW history map balance has been one of the biggest thing that has changed the styles of the players and race domination of the game.
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.
First of all, it's ridiculous to proclaim you are going to take an objective look at map balance. Being objective is something to strive for, as a goal, while you are yourself always subjective. It stands out especially if your post is essentially some brief notes on zerg imbalance, at top level play, with the current patch. i.e. something meaningless, since the maps will change, players will get better and unit stats will change.
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.
Thanks for an interesting read. While I personally feel that it is too early to declare anything unbeatable (strategies are shifting so fast, still at this point) it certainly brings up some nice points about how terrain affects gameplay.
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.
Although I dislike most of the maps that Blizzard has made, saying that they are imbalanced is just plain wrong.
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.
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.
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the advantage over terran on desert oasis as mech is extremely difficult to play on this map.
"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.
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,
cheesy, aggressive zerg play on kulos ravine is very good against protoss. As protoss has a very hard time defending from zerg attacks when they take their natural, just like zerg has a hard time defending from toss at their natural. Although i think it's slightly harder for toss as we rely a little bit more on photon cannons. we need 4 to defend natural at all points and can sometimes need another at destructable rocks.
Artosis/Idra i think you should practice more than one build order because if you just practice one solid build over and over, although you become very good at it, it may not be the best build order to use on every map. i think the smart strategy for zerg is to use a variety of cheeses on kulos ravine, as there are so many places people have to defend on that map.
I feel all the maps are too small and have major abuses for any race. For example BS is a nightmare to play PvT if the terran goes mech as he can defend almost everything without moving. Please blizz, take a look to BW maps where u can build sunkens when you see the enemy coming, they have a big path to push although there may be also another short ways that are riskier. Avoid cliff abuses that are too powerful and make short the distance between main and expo.
I find it hilarious how Artosis likes to name drop "Idra" whenever he's trying to defend himself
no, this article was formed drawing upon both of their vast knowledge from relentlessly playing the game. He did not make this article and end up sprinking Idras name over it while only drawing upon his own oppinions for good measure, god some people are really dense.
bitching about a maps features doesn't help anything
You have to realise that it is not bitching and rather than bash people it is important for those of us who actually MAKE maps, It is my hope that we will see some creative yet new standard that is not blizzard standard. However i wanted to know just how they precieve the current map pool so that i can maybe make a better map. Artosis with his article is worth its weight in gold to me and i hope it promotes more discussion at the subject of map balance and current resource standard.
Maps affect play STYLE
Maps can also promote certain styles but just because one is optimal does not mean you cant attempt to force your style of play upon the map and make minor adjustement to optimise it. ,
i think you should practice more than one build order
again your not seeing the broad strokes. JUST because a map promotes certain styles of play it does not mean they should THROW months of practice into a vastly different one.
On June 20 2010 03:06 iCCup.Diamond wrote: Alou brings up a good point. Idra and Artosis play one playstyle 100% of the time. FE into a massive macro push with mass Roach or Hydra.
Whatever happened to BW where that shit would not fly? For example I was a P player and I KNEW that I could not do a macro war on Bluestorm. I also knew that Medusa and Colo it paid to be uber aggressive with 10/15 Goon Rush.
I think most of these players are not playing for the map and playing for the MU
That's false the 100% same playstyle part. (Based on watching his streams Artosis mixes his builds up a lot. Like a delayed expo, based on early 2 gate pressure etc... As for IdrA he's more of a 99.9% same playstyle type player when it comes to FE he's more of a mind game player imo)
On June 19 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: i laff at this cause imo desert oasis was the best map for zvt u cant play mech turtle cause of all the open areas and huge distances to everywhere and u cant make good timing pushes cause of the long distances
i think its safe to say all the maps r insanely imbalanced, cmon here they r blizzard maps. do u really expect the first maps made to be good at all?
mech works just like mech in sc1, u kill tons of units compared to the unit cost, short distances and small areas favors mech play, destination, stepps of war u cant play bio in tvz, so ur basically just talking about bio mech which is too little to talk about balance for imo
On June 19 2010 23:19 OneFierceZealot wrote: "Learn some more about SC before you come in here bashing iCCup." oh my bad... i forgot when i bought StarCraft on the back of the case it came with an instructions on KESPA and their role in the StarCraft universe. sorry just found it. its really interesting. btw i fixed your post + Show Spoiler +
some/come
I'm just saying don't come in here bashing what you don't know. If you don't know what you are talking about than don't comment on it. You don't here me coming on here discussing the balance of C&C cause I don't know shit about the game.
Also maybe you should fix you're quote tags since apparently you don't know how to use those. And how does you're "fix" actually make not a shred of sense.
Christ man you spelled something wrong... never mind and im pretty sure im not the only one who assumed that when they played on ICCup that ICCup made the maps seeing how it says ICCup Destination, ICCup Fighting Spirit. etc.
Holy shit get the fuck out of here, They made the god damn maps named that because its played on the iccup server, do you see the pros bitching about it(they play there by the way incase you didnt know) "OMG ITS NOT KESPA DESTINATION HOLY FUCKING COCKS" no you dont, go troll someone else.
Yeah im pretty sure you are the only one who assumed that also, unless they have never in their life watched proleague(which im assuming you havent due to your complete ignorance) then they would 100% know iccup didnt make the maps, not to mention last i checked in the map description when making alot of the older maps(not the newer ones as its not included) the map authors name is there.
On topic : The op is alright, however i feel its ALOT of bitching about how you cant win with zerg, great strats havent been figured out yet because its beta..saying the maps or the game is imbalanced just because no ones discovered a ground breaking build with zerg yet is just ridiculous
I just wanted to quote this post because its so f***ing good:
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.
For me it is very interesting when such good players like Artosis and Idra show their insights about the game. Especialy when they put so much effort in it and write well a argumented article.
My goal is then to find out what I can learn from it. And when there's something that I don't understand/disagree with then I'd rather formulate my concerns into questions instead of claims.
I find it hilarious how Artosis likes to name drop "Idra" whenever he's trying to defend himself
no, this article was formed drawing upon both of their vast knowledge from relentlessly playing the game. He did not make this article and end up sprinking Idras name over it while only drawing upon his own oppinions for good measure, god some people are really dense.
bitching about a maps features doesn't help anything
You have to realise that it is not bitching and rather than bash people it is important for those of us who actually MAKE maps, It is my hope that we will see some creative yet new standard that is not blizzard standard. However i wanted to know just how they precieve the current map pool so that i can maybe make a better map. Artosis with his article is worth its weight in gold to me and i hope it promotes more discussion at the subject of map balance and current resource standard.
Maps can also promote certain styles but just because one is optimal does not mean you cant attempt to force your style of play upon the map and make minor adjustement to optimise it. ,
i think you should practice more than one build order
again your not seeing the broad strokes. JUST because a map promotes certain styles of play it does not mean they should THROW months of practice into a vastly different one.
lol, so it takes idra 4 days of practice to almost qualify for osl but months to learn a new build order for a ladder map
As stated above; these imbalances will only be experienced by top players and such. Therefore Blizzard isn't going to probably change anything with their maps because they cater to a LARGE audience. Although the maps may have there issues at higher skill levels it really doesn't matter because when E-Sports really picks up, matches will be on custom maps, not Blizzard maps except in rare cases.
Let's face it, Blizzard isn't very knowledgeable when it comes to what sort of stuff makes a good map for you top guys and almost never has. Just give it time for map makers at the same par as the Brood War ones to make their mark on SC2. It is BETA after all and race specific tweaks are being worked out, not map balancing. This sort of balancing isn't a top priority.
Nice write up though Artosis, it's nice that people actually put good thought in to fixing what may seem "broken". The fact is, map balancing, and even race balancing in most cases is a personal and biased opinion so everyone is going to throw in their 2 cents.
How can we change Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine to feel good against all match ups?
Personally an idea for Kulas Ravine is to remove the entrance rocks from the high ground expansion (from your main to the expo).
(Also I think we need to fix lost temple's cliffs next to the natural expansion whereas only thor drops on the cliff can hit the gas and not the natural expansion itself.)
lol, so it takes idra 4 days of practice to almost qualify for osl but months to learn a new build order for a ladder map
yes, its not about build order its about style, its about how he wants the mid to late game to play out. about what units he is familliar with useing and how he incorporates them to follow with him as he transitions into higher tiers of game.
THere is a GIANT unsurmountable difference between Practice, tweaking a build and changing your entire game STYLE.
This thread was doomed from the beginning. I respect Artosis for all the time he puts into the community, but if he really was trying to start an "objective" map balance thread he should have written his article with more than the thoughts of the two most highly opinionated zerg players.
On June 20 2010 03:06 iCCup.Diamond wrote: Alou brings up a good point. Idra and Artosis play one playstyle 100% of the time. FE into a massive macro push with mass Roach or Hydra.
Whatever happened to BW where that shit would not fly? For example I was a P player and I KNEW that I could not do a macro war on Bluestorm. I also knew that Medusa and Colo it paid to be uber aggressive with 10/15 Goon Rush.
I think most of these players are not playing for the map and playing for the MU
That's false the 100% same playstyle part. (Based on watching his streams Artosis mixes his builds up a lot. Like a delayed expo, based on early 2 gate pressure etc... As for IdrA he's more of a 99.9% same playstyle type player when it comes to FE he's more of a mind game player imo)
What you're describing is how they have to alter things to fit the current game. Not a change in their playstyle. They still have the same general ideas going in from what I've seen. Of course if a player has early zealot harass he won't feel safe to expand, but he will steal deal with the harass, expand, and go back to how he has been playing. I think my other post highlights my opinion on this. I think players who want this macro oriented almost mechanical game need to be able to take a step back and try something different if their style isn't fitting the map.
On June 20 2010 06:12 Merikh wrote: To turn the tide of this thread:
How can we change Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine to feel good against all match ups?
Personally an idea for Kulas Ravine is to remove the entrance rocks from the high ground expansion (from your main to the expo).
(Also I think we need to fix lost temple's cliffs next to the natural expansion whereas only thor drops on the cliff can hit the gas and not the natural expansion itself.)
Discuss
delete kulas ravine, if it was balanced it would end up looking like LT.
On June 20 2010 03:06 iCCup.Diamond wrote: Alou brings up a good point. Idra and Artosis play one playstyle 100% of the time. FE into a massive macro push with mass Roach or Hydra.
Whatever happened to BW where that shit would not fly? For example I was a P player and I KNEW that I could not do a macro war on Bluestorm. I also knew that Medusa and Colo it paid to be uber aggressive with 10/15 Goon Rush.
I think most of these players are not playing for the map and playing for the MU
That's false the 100% same playstyle part. (Based on watching his streams Artosis mixes his builds up a lot. Like a delayed expo, based on early 2 gate pressure etc... As for IdrA he's more of a 99.9% same playstyle type player when it comes to FE he's more of a mind game player imo)
What you're describing is how they have to alter things to fit the current game. Not a change in their playstyle. They still have the same general ideas going in from what I've seen. Of course if a player has early zealot harass he won't feel safe to expand, but he will steal deal with the harass, expand, and go back to how he has been playing. I think my other post highlights my opinion on this. I think players who want this macro oriented almost mechanical game need to be able to take a step back and try something different if their style isn't fitting the map.
Truth, I see what you're saying (staying on 1 base too long isn't how zerg works though imo). Personally on a map like Kulas my main focus is "how do I secure my expo without wasting 300 minerals and dying".
I like how zerg players feel that they should automatically have a free expansion. They have no clue that they could easily play one-base and expand later, like every other race. Its like if they can't have 2-base they think its imbalanced. Too bad protoss production buildlings can't act as an extra nexus that we can put at our natural and just saturate with probes while building an army.
Not saying that its an imbalanced matchup, but seriously, you can't call a map bad just because the other races can put pressure early on a fast expansion. If you want an expansion, you should have to defend it. Its not fuckin free.
Kulas Ravine is one of my favorite maps. The questions is about how can we change them, not how can we delete them.
Taking away the destructible rocks is not a good idea in my opinion. They are there to get in the way. If someone wants to break into your base that way, they'd then only have to go through 1 rock. there would also be little incentive to actually take your natural rather than your high ground. Kulas Ravine is meant to be a tricky map, and I think it's already perfectly balanced if you actually plan your positioning, realize how the terrain can be taken advantage of, and defend against that or use it against your opponent.
Desert Oasis is just.............. strange. But it shouldn't be deleted. I think it would be more interesting if there was a Xel-Naga tower closer to each natural though. It might make it a more dynamic matchup, but make it a little easier for both players to maintain some map control and your 2nd expansion.
Edit: Props to the poster above me. Expansions aren't free.
On June 20 2010 06:31 Paramore wrote: I like how zerg players feel that they should automatically have a free expansion. They have no clue that they could easily play one-base and expand later, like every other race. Its like if they can't have 2-base they think its imbalanced. Too bad protoss production buildlings can't act as an extra nexus that we can put at our natural and just saturate with probes while building an army.
Not saying that its an imbalanced matchup, but seriously, you can't call a map bad just because the other races can put pressure early on a fast expansion. If you want an expansion, you should have to defend it. Its not fuckin free.
This is also something I thought about. Why does Zerg have to be allowed a free expansion? Early int he beta most Zerg were happy playing off 1 base.
It's like HuK. Most Protoss now choose to fast expand. But yet HuK flourishes off one base play. CatZ is the type of player that might be able to lay the way for one base Zerg play. He is creative and focused enough.
On June 20 2010 06:34 Fyrewolf wrote: Kulas Ravine is one of my favorite maps. The questions is about how can we change them, not how can we delete them.
Taking away the destructible rocks is not a good idea in my opinion. They are there to get in the way. If someone wants to break into your base that way, they'd then only have to go through 1 rock. there would also be little incentive to actually take your natural rather than your high ground. Kulas Ravine is meant to be a tricky map, and I think it's already perfectly balanced if you actually plan your positioning, realize how the terrain can be taken advantage of, and defend against that or use it against your opponent.
Desert Oasis is just.............. strange. But it shouldn't be deleted. I think it would be more interesting if there was a Xel-Naga tower closer to each natural though. It might make it a more dynamic matchup, but make it a little easier for both players to maintain some map control and your 2nd expansion.
The thing about Kulas is Terran can be ahead 1 base in both matchups TvP and TvZ. My idea of removing the front rocks just gives all matchups the possibility to have an safer early expo instead of just terran.
lol, so it takes idra 4 days of practice to almost qualify for osl but months to learn a new build order for a ladder map
yes, its not about build order its about style, its about how he wants the mid to late game to play out. about what units he is familliar with useing and how he incorporates them to follow with him as he transitions into higher tiers of game.
THere is a GIANT unsurmountable difference between Practice and changing your entire game STYLE.
Na its really easy actually, for example after roach nerf idra instantly started using a hydra/ling orientated game and raped just as hard. If you already have the skill inherent then it's pretty easy to switch up, that's why all the Good BW players are good at SC2 and the switch was instant
On June 20 2010 06:31 Paramore wrote: I like how zerg players feel that they should automatically have a free expansion. They have no clue that they could easily play one-base and expand later, like every other race. Its like if they can't have 2-base they think its imbalanced. Too bad protoss production buildlings can't act as an extra nexus that we can put at our natural and just saturate with probes while building an army.
Not saying that its an imbalanced matchup, but seriously, you can't call a map bad just because the other races can put pressure early on a fast expansion. If you want an expansion, you should have to defend it. Its not fuckin free.
This is also something I thought about. Why does Zerg have to be allowed a free expansion? Early int he beta most Zerg were happy playing off 1 base.
Yeah, and then they nerfed all of the units that made 1base play somewhat viable.
lol, so it takes idra 4 days of practice to almost qualify for osl but months to learn a new build order for a ladder map
yes, its not about build order its about style, its about how he wants the mid to late game to play out. about what units he is familliar with useing and how he incorporates them to follow with him as he transitions into higher tiers of game.
THere is a GIANT unsurmountable difference between Practice and changing your entire game STYLE.
Na its really easy actually, for example after roach nerf idra instantly started using a hydra/ling orientated game and raped just as hard. If you already have the skill inherent then it's pretty easy to switch up, that's why all the Good BW players are good at SC2 and the switch was instant
thats not a game style switch, he is still using the same broad strokes as before in that he will get an expansion, start saturating while defending with as few units as possible, barely suriving and suddenly sprinting upwards of 150 / 200 while he takes his third and possibly fourth.
Now if he had suddenly started useing spire units for his mid game i could admit that ok i am wrong but i dont think that in the instant that roaches got nerfed he switched his entire style. He just switched the focus towards a more Hydralisk sentric army earlier on.
I think it's interesting to note that both IdrA and Artosis come from playing Terran in BW, which is almost a completely different game when compared to Zerg. I bring this up because Artosis mentioned open natural entrances, which in most cases is a huge bonus to attacking Zerg players, yet Artosis talks about defending it (when the objective as Zerg is to be on the offensive as much as possible). Maybe the T mindset still hasn't left you two quite yet?
lol, so it takes idra 4 days of practice to almost qualify for osl but months to learn a new build order for a ladder map
yes, its not about build order its about style, its about how he wants the mid to late game to play out. about what units he is familliar with useing and how he incorporates them to follow with him as he transitions into higher tiers of game.
THere is a GIANT unsurmountable difference between Practice and changing your entire game STYLE.
Na its really easy actually, for example after roach nerf idra instantly started using a hydra/ling orientated game and raped just as hard. If you already have the skill inherent then it's pretty easy to switch up, that's why all the Good BW players are good at SC2 and the switch was instant
thats not a game style switch, he is still using the same broad strokes as before in that he will get an expansion, start saturating while defending with as few units as possible, barely suriving and suddenly sprinting upwards of 150 / 200 while he takes his third and possibly fourth.
Now if he had suddenly started useing spire units for his mid game i could admit that ok i am wrong but i dont think that in the instant that roaches got nerfed he switched his entire style. He just switched the focus towards a more Hydralisk sentric army earlier on.
This is exactly what makes him such an interesting and smart player. He makes well calculated adjustments during his games.
This is the type of player that is detail focussed. and thats why I respect his opinion and insight about map favoritism ...same goes for artosis.
As high ranked euro player I disagree with everything artosis said, for me I mostly lose to zergs on maps like DA and kulvas and win arround 95% on lt apart from mb a few freak losses and 1 convincing loss to dimaga and 1 to mondragon wich I usualy beat here.
I think the problem are the players and not the map, Artosis and Idra are training based players and huge practise monsters with great mechanics and determination but lack in the strategy and insight department imo. Their decision making is mostly terrible (for top level) and they use the same playstyle on all maps. They balance their playstyle on standard macro maps but different maps require a different playstyle.
Especialy on kulvas zerg should use the backdoors for full potential to use their speed and in wich you will see that terran cannot take 3 base save cause there are 2 destructible rocks and 2 entrances to the nat zerg can exploit. Close spawn with the nats being close to each other however is totaly terran favoured but imo cross spawn and far spawn defenatly aint.
On June 20 2010 06:34 Fyrewolf wrote: Kulas Ravine is one of my favorite maps. The questions is about how can we change them, not how can we delete them.
Taking away the destructible rocks is not a good idea in my opinion. They are there to get in the way. If someone wants to break into your base that way, they'd then only have to go through 1 rock. there would also be little incentive to actually take your natural rather than your high ground. Kulas Ravine is meant to be a tricky map, and I think it's already perfectly balanced if you actually plan your positioning, realize how the terrain can be taken advantage of, and defend against that or use it against your opponent.
Desert Oasis is just.............. strange. But it shouldn't be deleted. I think it would be more interesting if there was a Xel-Naga tower closer to each natural though. It might make it a more dynamic matchup, but make it a little easier for both players to maintain some map control and your 2nd expansion.
The thing about Kulas is Terran can be ahead 1 base in both matchups TvP and TvZ. My idea of removing the front rocks just gives all matchups the possibility to have an safer early expo instead of just terran.
Terran doesn't necessarily have a safe expo either, there are multiple entrances to the expansions. If a zerg or protoss player wants a safe expansion too, he can knock down the rocks early. Siege Tanks are good at holding down Kulas pretty well, maybe better than other races, but there are still 2 regular entrances to the expo, and 2 different destructable rocks that could provide entrance to their base. Non- terrans should actually like this map, because of the many assault paths, whereas terran often has to buckle down and turtle, an inherent strength of theirs.
So yes terran has a slightly easier expo, because terran holds territory well. It's also slightly easier to attack, than a normal terran expo. And every race can take a safer expo if they knock down rocks, and if you take that one first, then it's easy to defend the 3rd at your natural with a 2 base econ already in place. Since there is more than one option for a 2nd base, I don't see it that terran automatically can get 1 base up against someone on this map for very long, unless he double expands, which is kind of vulnerable.
Edit: Damn 4Servy beat me to it. Nice post. Thanks for noting that spawn positions drastically change map too.
On June 20 2010 03:06 iCCup.Diamond wrote: Alou brings up a good point. Idra and Artosis play one playstyle 100% of the time. FE into a massive macro push with mass Roach or Hydra.
Whatever happened to BW where that shit would not fly? For example I was a P player and I KNEW that I could not do a macro war on Bluestorm. I also knew that Medusa and Colo it paid to be uber aggressive with 10/15 Goon Rush.
I think most of these players are not playing for the map and playing for the MU
That's false the 100% same playstyle part. (Based on watching his streams Artosis mixes his builds up a lot. Like a delayed expo, based on early 2 gate pressure etc... As for IdrA he's more of a 99.9% same playstyle type player when it comes to FE he's more of a mind game player imo)
What you're describing is how they have to alter things to fit the current game. Not a change in their playstyle. They still have the same general ideas going in from what I've seen. Of course if a player has early zealot harass he won't feel safe to expand, but he will steal deal with the harass, expand, and go back to how he has been playing. I think my other post highlights my opinion on this. I think players who want this macro oriented almost mechanical game need to be able to take a step back and try something different if their style isn't fitting the map.
Truth, I see what you're saying (staying on 1 base too long isn't how zerg works though imo). Personally on a map like Kulas my main focus is "how do I secure my expo without wasting 300 minerals and dying".
Expand later when you can defend the risky expo on Kulas or break the rocks and expand on top of the cliff.
I dont really see how kulas goes against zerg so much (except against T, but the entire balance of ZvT is questionable more than the map). I mean, yes your natural is a bit more difficult to defend but you also have access to an easy 2nd expansion for a lot more gas. I think that this whole analysis is only looking at the starting few minutes with one or two builds in mind and ignoring anything else that can happen later on in the game.
I feel like balance should be discussed as sort of a "team", like with a zerg, a protoss, a terran, and a maybe a random player. Even when discussing map balance with respect to zerg specifically, protoss and terran players know how they lose to zerg on a particular map, so it can be pretty useful.
Getting two top zergs to discuss maps they feel weak on is still pretty interesting nevertheless.
I was kind of hoping for a legitimate article I could read for fun and not something to feed the Zerg Victimization Syndrome, but I suppose I should be used to that by now. The article would have been a lot better if you mentioned a lot of the matchups that are tough for other races (such as playing against Zerg on Crap Station).
You seriously whine way to much for your own good Artosis. its a beta phase and u start whineing on maps, of all things... theres so much other stuff you could do for the community that they will actully appriciate. u just killed a part of me from the inside for writeing back to some of the posters with a attitude like that.
Start useing other builds then FE Macropush and ul see a big diffrence in your gameplay. its a OK read if your into constant crying.
but what do i know im just @ C +
im sorry if my english grammer is bad. im EU and i want to be like Whit-ra..
On June 20 2010 07:25 Morgynia wrote: You seriously whine way to much for your own good Artosis. its a beta phase and u start whineing on maps, of all things... theres so much other stuff you could do for the community that they will actully appriciate. u just killed a part of me from the inside for writeing back to some of the posters with a attitude like that.
Been playing RTSes all my life and you can see a clear divide between the types of players who adapt and innovate and the types of players who seek to achieve parity by claiming imbalance. Unfortunately even good players can be childish, as this thread demonstrates.
The problem is that SC2 isn't even out yet. There's tons of great players that are going to emerge without a SC1 background, whereas now all the players are currently riding their SC1/WC3 experience, which ultimately won't last forever as more creative and mature players close the mechanics gap. As a result we have a lot of players who aren't really creative thinkers claiming that their superior skill makes their opinion more valid, when in reality the only advantage they have is that they have sharp mechanics from SC1. Good times will ensue once the mechanics curve begins to be narrowed.
Nice article Artosis. I agree with you on alot of the points which can cause a Zerg player to do risky play, do what they wouldn't want to, have one-sided battles due to a lack of open space, and stay on the defensive. It sucks being on the short end of the stick on these situations. However, I wish you could have put in some constructive writing in the article that can help counter or alleviate these tactics. I have to agree with some posters that it seems there is alot of T_T. I know you have been on the SC scene for quite a long time, so I have mutual respect for you. Lets hope part 2 can mix things up a little more(LOL).
if even 1 person could read what was written, they would see that i did not take mech builds into consideration at all when writing this. lol@ the flamers who don't understand what's written.
For people still calling me biased, you didn't read the article very well. These are the 3 maps which IdrA and I feel are the very worst for Zerg. Future articles will have the maps which are the best for Zerg. These maps will outline what parts of the maps are good for Zerg.
If some idiot who clearly just signed up for the forum recently comes by and accuses me of hiding interviews because opinions of the people who I interviewed had different opinions from myself, what the fvck? Obviously that shit shouldnt be allowed.
Fine, that's great, but Desert Oasis is not bad for zerg. If you wanna call Steppes, LT, Incineration Zone, Kulas bad for zerg - be my guest. Desert? That's like the best zerg map in the pool as long as the game goes past early :[
1) you are the one who brought up mech, and then thought i did, because i mentioned units which weren't made out of flesh.
2) you are actually saying to me over and over that mech isn't that good on Desert, and thus its a zerg map. IdrA and I directly disagree with Desert being a Zerg map vs Terran, due to the reasons we put. NOT because of any mech garbage, as mech wasn't even thought about in the creation of this article. Notice we even explained that SEn went 1 hatch mutalisk here because of how ridiculous it is to fight off a thor drop. In fact, so many people are trying to counter our well thought out arguments by saying "its a big map, thats good for zerg, its a zerg map." YES, big maps are good for Zerg. NO, Desert is not one of them vs Terran.
On June 20 2010 07:37 Artosis wrote: 2) you are actually saying to me over and over that mech isn't that good on Desert, and thus its a zerg map. IdrA and I directly disagree with Desert being a Zerg map vs Terran, due to the reasons we put.
You and Idra have also demonstrated repeatedly that you think Zerg is at a disadvantage in almost every single topic brought up, so this doesn't sound very exceptional to most people.
Man I thought there'd be some balance discussion but this thread seems to be mostly just haters. I don't think this is that biased at all and the map pool isn't too great. I don't know how much we should be concerned about it as I'm kind of expecting sweeping changes as we enter the next beta phase.
NOT because of any mech garbage, as mech wasn't even thought about in the creation of this article. Notice we even explained that SEn went 1 hatch mutalisk here because of how ridiculous it is to fight off a thor drop.
And thor drop isn't a mech play how? And guess what it transitions into. Mech. Stop pretending you are the be-all and end-all one-stop shop for balance discussions.
On June 20 2010 07:44 Drowsy wrote: Man I thought there'd be some balance discussion but this thread seems to be mostly just haters. I don't think this is that biased at all and the map pool isn't too great. I don't know how much we should be concerned about it as I'm kind of expecting sweeping changes as we enter the next beta phase.
Nobody is hating, the original article was just terrible. Writing an article on Zerg map balance and completely neglecting to mention Scrap Station is a poor excuse for writing and a clear excuse to feed the Zerg Victimization Syndrome.
I think that there is too much emphasis being placed on the maps and their balance issues. None of the maps are necessarily IMBALANCED to the degree where they are unplayable in any of the matchups. Each map is different, and for this reason, players should recognize that some strategies that work well on certain maps (say Maps "A") do not work so well on other maps (maps "B"). Conversely, some strategies that did not seem viable on "A" could potentially be extremely powerful on "B". I believe this is why you (Artosis/Idra/others) believe these maps are "imbalanced". You two are exceptionally strong with the general build orders and strategies you are used to, thus you shine on maps "A" where those builds are especially viable. HOWEVER, you have to recognize that these "imbalanced" maps require a reworking of your usual styles, and it is not until you have thoroughly experimented with other build variations that you can objectively state that maps "B" are "imbalanced" for the Zerg race or the X race.
An example of this is terran play. The early stages of beta saw most Terran using MMM ball strategies or variants of it, and by the end of the beta phase, the majority of Terran adapted to mech-centric builds. The basic reasons for this are two-fold. Bio had been "figured out" and was being beaten much more often and mech was still very new and unexplored, and secondly, certain maps catered to Terran mech, thus producing some desirable results for terrans. Granted, this build change had less to do with maps and more to do with the general matchups but the fundamental idea is directly related to this issue of apparent map imbalances. Map differences are simply another factor that needs to be considered when working out optimal strategies.
The fundamental problem is that Zerg players (I am one myself) need to recognize that the metagame is evolving and you have to embrace these changes and recognize that you need to adjust accordingly. Each new strategy has new strong points and new weaknesses, and its up to the players to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of certain builds in conjunction with the strengths and weaknesses of the maps. Until players begin to accept that sometimes certain maps cater to drastic changes in playstyle, they will continue to blame map imbalances and make no progress.
Zerg can perfectly FE on dessert and hold thor drop with proper foresight and scouting its just fast muta are better vs it, the only map were a zerg expo isnt possible till air control is LT due thor cliff abuse and my 10rax/FE opener.
Tank/Thor/Hellion is mech. This, I thought, was obvious.
if even 1 person could read what was written, they would see that i did not take mech builds into consideration at all when writing this. lol@ the flamers who don't understand what's written.
What?
For people still calling me biased, you didn't read the article very well. These are the 3 maps which IdrA and I feel are the very worst for Zerg. Future articles will have the maps which are the best for Zerg. These maps will outline what parts of the maps are good for Zerg.
If some idiot who clearly just signed up for the forum recently comes by and accuses me of hiding interviews because opinions of the people who I interviewed had different opinions from myself, what the fvck? Obviously that shit shouldnt be allowed.
Fine, that's great, but Desert Oasis is not bad for zerg. If you wanna call Steppes, LT, Incineration Zone, Kulas bad for zerg - be my guest. Desert? That's like the best zerg map in the pool as long as the game goes past early :[
1) you are the one who brought up mech, and then thought i did, because i mentioned units which weren't made out of flesh.
2) you are actually saying to me over and over that mech isn't that good on Desert, and thus its a zerg map. IdrA and I directly disagree with Desert being a Zerg map vs Terran, due to the reasons we put. NOT because of any mech garbage, as mech wasn't even thought about in the creation of this article. Notice we even explained that SEn went 1 hatch mutalisk here because of how ridiculous it is to fight off a thor drop. In fact, so many people are trying to counter our well thought out arguments by saying "its a big map, thats good for zerg, its a zerg map." YES, big maps are good for Zerg. NO, Desert is not one of them vs Terran.
You say you don't take mech builds into consideration, then you list Thor drops and viking builds as part of the reason why the map is bad for zerg - can you not see the contradiction?
Yes, there's a lot of cheese possibilities vs Zerg on this map, but to say this makes it a Terran map is almost as absurd to me as saying Bifrost is a Protoss map vs Zerg because there's a lot of cheese potential -_-
You'd bloody better do a shitload of damage to the zerg with whatever early aggro opener you choose on DO, cause midgame there's fuck all you can do.
I prefer maps to be very different to encourage different sorts of play. I agree that on Kulas Ravine, there are some serious challenges versus zerg given the current zerg playstyle; however, why does the zerg playstyle have to be the same? Everyone talks about map-specific builds, maybe that map just requires a completely different playstyle? Encouraging either 1-base play, taking the rock expo first (delayed expo) or fast expanding as zerg but using early zerglings to break the rock so as to minimize any harass on the ledge.
I actually think the rocks give zerg many options for expanding naturally and maintaining creep paths if they can keep their natural up.
As for the unit spread, yes this encourages smaller engagements, so maybe zerg needs many smaller armies to hit at several points? Or maybe earlier pressure to prevent buildup of a larger army? Or maybe this encourages a different unit composition.
I used to be one to get on topics of imbalance, but I feel now that any disadvantage can be turned to an advantage with a different playstyle. I'd be pleased to see some new zerg playstyles come out on Kulas that counters these statements. If one doesn't come up then hey they were right and have some legit points; however, I'm not going to be so quick to throw away a map which I think is really interesting (Protoss here, who hates the vulnerability of that natural).
A) I struggled a lot on Desert Oasis to various terran cheese tactics: early reaper/marines with a bunker below mineral line, siege tank attacking my refinery and hatchery from the cliff off to the side...
The cliff at the natural of Kulas Ravine is very annoying!
Wide open chokes are hard to defend, while a narrow choke gives a lot of power to Force Fields and tanks. Ever had that experience where a warp prism comes in with a few sentries to your ramp, FF it (over and over) and warp in a handful of reinforcements?
I believe every map element can have their own strengths and weaknesses!
I simply blame myself for not being good enough, or going for 14 pool/hatch instead of a safer 12 pool...
Certain maps in BW would seem to favor one match up over another until someone comes along with something innovative.
B) Zerg is extremely mobile, we have: - Creep - Nydus Network (protoss can warp in limited units, but we can send an entire army!) - Cheap overlord transports (day9's TLO special gave me the idea of doing a fake drop while a nydus is digging through) - Speedlings run at insane speeds on creep acting as good front line defenders
Through creep tumors and clever overlord placements, we can also have vision of a large portion of the map.
A lot of units can burrow, a gimmicky ability but not everyone bring observers with their army early game, opening ambush opportunities. On the last week of beta I have had a lot of fun with baneling mines at chokes during team games!
C) Without a 2nd hatch, I feel that it is very difficult for zerg to catch up with unit production and economy. What to do/what to change to make zerg 1 base play more viable?
I also feel Zerg relies a lot on lair tech. Marines/Marauder, zealot/stalker/sentry are all very viable unit comps... zerglings + roachs are very meh...
Instead of saying something is imbalanced, how about exploring options in making use of similar map elements, or seeing if blizzard would give zerg a new tool? Imagine if speedlings can fly up cliffs with those wings XD.
The huge early advantage of a hellion/marine or reaper rush should promote a change in game-play as a response to this, not just claiming that the map is insanely overpowered and should be ignored.
A later expansion, once your defensive capabilities have caught up with your expansive, might be able to defend against a hellion harassment.
A map like DO, which favors harassment will require some non-standard play to allow for zerg to overcome the strong harassing abilities of terran.
I'm a Zerg player and I agree on most of Artosis's points And what if generate creep was Tier 1 ;O I know it might provoke Zergling rushes but how is it not blown out hard not to scout? o_o Also I believe maps should be Brood War size again, it gave alot more options for all races since Sc2 maps are amazingly small
On June 20 2010 08:25 Hikari wrote: A) I struggled a lot on Desert Oasis to various terran cheese tactics: early reaper/marines with a bunker below mineral line, siege tank attacking my refinery and hatchery from the cliff off to the side...
The cliff at the natural of Kulas Ravine is very annoying!
Wide open chokes are hard to defend, while a narrow choke gives a lot of power to Force Fields and tanks. Ever had that experience where a warp prism comes in with a few sentries to your ramp, FF it (over and over) and warp in a handful of reinforcements?
I believe every map element can have their own strengths and weaknesses!
I simply blame myself for not being good enough, or going for 14 pool/hatch instead of a safer 12 pool...
Certain maps in BW would seem to favor one match up over another until someone comes along with something innovative.
B) Zerg is extremely mobile, we have: - Creep - Nydus Network (protoss can warp in limited units, but we can send an entire army!) - Cheap overlord transports (day9's TLO special gave me the idea of doing a fake drop while a nydus is digging through) - Speedlings run at insane speeds on creep acting as good front line defenders
Through creep tumors and clever overlord placements, we can also have vision of a large portion of the map.
A lot of units can burrow, a gimmicky ability but not everyone bring observers with their army early game, opening ambush opportunities. On the last week of beta I have had a lot of fun with baneling mines at chokes during team games!
C) Without a 2nd hatch, I feel that it is very difficult for zerg to catch up with unit production and economy. What to do/what to change to make zerg 1 base play more viable?
I also feel Zerg relies a lot on lair tech. Marines/Marauder, zealot/stalker/sentry are all very viable unit comps... zerglings + roachs are very meh...
Instead of saying something is imbalanced, how about exploring options in making use of similar map elements, or seeing if blizzard would give zerg a new tool? Imagine if speedlings can fly up cliffs with those wings XD.
I totally agree, Zerglings are meh late game against Collosi and Hellions so Zerg is more unlikely to get them in large numbers Roaches is a meh, not bad but not entirely great either
2) ..... NOT because of any mech garbage, as mech wasn't even thought about in the creation of this article.
....Notice we even explained that SEn went 1 hatch mutalisk here because of how ridiculous it is to fight off a thor drop....
Just read what u just wrote Artosis.....tut tut tut, so just cause Thors got Arnold Swarchenegger voice and he played in terminator and he had human look with flesh and such - he was still a terminator - a machine....
Notice we even explained that SEn went 1 hatch mutalisk here because of how ridiculous it is to fight off a thor drop.
Another thing I want to point out about this: Why do you think Terrans and Protoss players cheese on every other game on this map? Because we don't feel that playing a normal game vs zerg on this map is going to end well for us.
On June 20 2010 07:44 Drowsy wrote: Man I thought there'd be some balance discussion but this thread seems to be mostly just haters. I don't think this is that biased at all and the map pool isn't too great. I don't know how much we should be concerned about it as I'm kind of expecting sweeping changes as we enter the next beta phase.
Nobody is hating, the original article was just terrible. Writing an article on Zerg map balance and completely neglecting to mention Scrap Station is a poor excuse for writing and a clear excuse to feed the Zerg Victimization Syndrome.
I'm assuming you think Scrap Station is zerg favoured? I actually feel like it's balanced/T favoured TvZ at least O_o
I'd pick scrap station a million times before I picked desert oasis vs Zerg.
On June 20 2010 08:54 jtgizmo wrote: Just read what u just wrote Artosis.....tut tut tut, so just cause Thors got Arnold Swarchenegger voice and he played in terminator and he had human look with flesh and such - he was still a terminator - a machine....
I seriously LOL'd
On June 20 2010 08:11 FrozenArbiter wrote: You'd bloody better do a shitload of damage to the zerg with whatever early aggro opener you choose on DO, cause midgame there's fuck all you can do.
I got to agree. Zerg on DO can expand like hell while others are left to expand at like 40-50 food at the earliest and will be able to use any real aggression or risk getting their main raped.
Short rush distance, long scout distance- While Kulas has reasonably short rush distances it actually has very slow scouting for Zerg. The other four player maps have close air positions, meaning your overlord scout eliminates a base quickly, but on Kulas, this isn't the case. This makes fast expanding az Zerg much more risky, as you are less likely to see bunker rush or reaper builds in time. This is not imbalanced itself, but it puts Zerg in an uncomfortable position that makes dealing with subsequent pressure much more difficult.
OMG THANK YOU! even though the map is huge, the distance is only moderate, not long. A cross position 6 pool on this map wouldn't harm the Zerg or benefit the Protoss at all.
In all the problems you listed, you're basically saying zerg will have trouble defending their bases if they expanded... but isn't that true for the opponent as well? So whats the problem? Plus why do zergs always feel obligated to expand?
Worst map is incineration zone by far, don't even need a reason, it was taken off ladder play for the final few weeks of beta phase 1.
On June 20 2010 10:26 eScaper-tsunami wrote: In all the problems you listed, you're basically saying zerg will have trouble defending their bases if they expanded... but isn't that true for the opponent as well? So whats the problem? Plus why do zergs always feel obligated to expand?
Worst map is incineration zone by far, don't even need a reason, it was taken off ladder play for the final few weeks of beta phase 1.
Zergs have to expand because they simply can't win without a macro advantage. And, our production building is also our main building, so we basically need more hatches to be able to produce enough units.
The problem is that Blizzard have started to listen too much to the community, and it has resulted in them going overboard more than once with the patching.
I do know that this particular post is about the maps ONLY, but Blizzard, if you read this, just bide your time and see how things play out before you do any more changes. You (Blizzard) have really gone overboard too many times already (phoenix anyone?) with the patch changes. Imagine if there were these uproars during the release of SC1; the game would not have been nearly as good if they kept tweaking as much as they do now before being patient and seeing how things play out.
On a side note, if someone can enlighten me, I do have one question: People kept talking about how useless mech were, but then it kept changing. I wonder: Was it the "Center Splash Damage" patch that totally turned the table for mech, or has it been viable to some extent all the way through beta, but that no one actually knew anyting?
On June 20 2010 10:54 HowardRoark wrote: The problem is that Blizzard have started to listen too much to the community, and it has resulted in them going overboard more than once with the patching.
I do know that this particular post is about the maps ONLY, but Blizzard, if you read this, just bide your time and see how things play out before you do any more changes. You (Blizzard) have really gone overboard too many times already (phoenix anyone?) with the patch changes. Imagine if there were these uproars during the release of SC1; the game would not have been nearly as good if they kept tweaking as much as they do now before being patient and seeing how things play out.
On a side note, if someone can enlighten me, I do have one question: People kept talking about how useless mech were, but then it kept changing. I wonder: Was it the "Center Splash Damage" patch that totally turned the table for mech, or has it been viable to some extent all the way through beta, but that no one actually knew anyting?
Its because of "center splash damage" and "no overkill AI" patch.. Terran players had alway been addicted to using siege tanks even when they were still weak.
On June 20 2010 10:54 HowardRoark wrote: The problem is that Blizzard have started to listen too much to the community, and it has resulted in them going overboard more than once with the patching.
I do know that this particular post is about the maps ONLY, but Blizzard, if you read this, just bide your time and see how things play out before you do any more changes. You (Blizzard) have really gone overboard too many times already (phoenix anyone?) with the patch changes. Imagine if there were these uproars during the release of SC1; the game would not have been nearly as good if they kept tweaking as much as they do now before being patient and seeing how things play out.
On a side note, if someone can enlighten me, I do have one question: People kept talking about how useless mech were, but then it kept changing. I wonder: Was it the "Center Splash Damage" patch that totally turned the table for mech, or has it been viable to some extent all the way through beta, but that no one actually knew anyting?
Its because of "center splash damage" and "no overkill AI" patch.. Terran players had alway been addicted to using siege tanks even when they were still weak.
false, at the start of the beta, there were very few strong straight mech builds. players either went all bio, or started bio and transitioned to mech or bio mech.
On June 20 2010 11:11 alphafuzard wrote: false, at the start of the beta, there were very few strong straight mech builds. players either went all bio, or started bio and transitioned to mech or bio mech.
He is correct. Mech was totally unusable at the launch. It wasnt till around patch 7 or so we started seeing anything mech.
Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that Artosis can't make a single thread without inciting some kind of uproar? The theory I've been working on after reading these 14 pages (beta is down, I am bored), is that all the maps essentially, suck. The exception being Lost Temple and Metalopolis. Really though, they need to just trash these stupid mini maps (stepps and incineration zone) hands down. Kulas....I say take it down for awhile, then introduce it when zerg starts doing better vs mech (which is going to happen). I think when it comes to DO, a lot of people just flat out don't like the map. So they attribute some kind of balance issue to it, they may not actually exist (marrow is good at explaining what sucks about this map v Z, and artosis/Idra have pointed out why a lot of zerg hate it too). I haven't seen any evidence that its hard to play a macro PvZ on DO, just evidence that 4 gate all-ins work really well.
On June 20 2010 10:54 HowardRoark wrote: The problem is that Blizzard have started to listen too much to the community, and it has resulted in them going overboard more than once with the patching.
I do know that this particular post is about the maps ONLY, but Blizzard, if you read this, just bide your time and see how things play out before you do any more changes. You (Blizzard) have really gone overboard too many times already (phoenix anyone?) with the patch changes. Imagine if there were these uproars during the release of SC1; the game would not have been nearly as good if they kept tweaking as much as they do now before being patient and seeing how things play out.
On a side note, if someone can enlighten me, I do have one question: People kept talking about how useless mech were, but then it kept changing. I wonder: Was it the "Center Splash Damage" patch that totally turned the table for mech, or has it been viable to some extent all the way through beta, but that no one actually knew anyting?
Its because of "center splash damage" and "no overkill AI" patch.. Terran players had alway been addicted to using siege tanks even when they were still weak.
They never had overkill in SC2 (as long as the beta was around anyway), that wasn't patched.
For TvT, various changes (marine build time, tank build time, perhaps more than anything else) killed the 1 rax CC -> 3 rax mara build, opening the door to way more mech builds.
For TvZ, mech was always good - I used it since one of the earliest patches. However, roaches used to be RIDICULOUS - they have since gone from 1 supply with super-super-super fast regen @ hive-tech, to 2 supply and way less regen unless burrowed.
For TvP, ehh, there was just no good build that could lead into mech play until the 1/1/1 build was discovered. Trying to mech without that, just led to you dying to too many things or getting behind etc... + Before they nerfed the warp gate research time, all 1 rax builds just died to mass warpgate+pylon below your ramp
On June 20 2010 11:15 D3lta wrote: Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that Artosis can't make a single thread without inciting some kind of uproar? The theory I've been working on after reading these 14 pages (beta is down, I am bored), is that all the maps essentially, suck. The exception being Lost Temple and Metalopolis. Really though, they need to just trash these stupid mini maps (stepps and incineration zone) hands down. Kulas....I say take it down for awhile, then introduce it when zerg starts doing better vs mech (which is going to happen). I think when it comes to DO, a lot of people just flat out don't like the map. So they attribute some kind of balance issue to it, they may not actually exist (marrow is good at explaining what sucks about this map v Z, and artosis/Idra have pointed out why a lot of zerg hate it too). I haven't seen any evidence that its hard to play a macro PvZ on DO, just evidence that 4 gate all-ins work really well.
Kulas needs bigger paths in the center, and probably the paths up to the cliff areas should be bigger as well.
Desert Oasis needs a better placed natural, which would make cheese less strong vs zerg AND make non-cheese options better. Maybe do what they did on scrap station and add debris to one of the paths leading to the natural (and preferably move the ramp so you can defend the ramp and your nat at once...).
Maybe make it a bit harder to hit the main gas. I'm not sure if it would end up being necessary or not.
EDIT: Maybe make the distance between minerals and the edge of your main longer to make bunker cheese weaker - again, not sure if it's needed or if this is a desireable "feature" of the map.
On June 20 2010 10:03 FrozenArbiter wrote: I'm assuming you think Scrap Station is zerg favoured? I actually feel like it's balanced/T favoured TvZ at least O_o
I'd pick scrap station a million times before I picked desert oasis vs Zerg.
You don't think there's a reason that Scrap Station is the standard pick by Zerg players? I could link you to endless matches where the Zerg player picks Scrap Station against T or P.
I will agree that hellions are very strong against Zerg on scrap station because you can't block the ramp to the main with queens/roaches. However, mutas are very, very powerful on scrap vs terran (because vikings do not counter mutas combined with the short air distance) and spreading creep between the second expo and the destructible rocks allows you to defend 3 bases very quickly.
On June 20 2010 10:03 FrozenArbiter wrote: I'm assuming you think Scrap Station is zerg favoured? I actually feel like it's balanced/T favoured TvZ at least O_o
I'd pick scrap station a million times before I picked desert oasis vs Zerg.
You don't think there's a reason that Scrap Station is the standard pick by Zerg players? I could link you to endless matches where the Zerg player picks Scrap Station against T or P.
afaik metalopolis is the standard pick by zergs ^_~
Zergs have to expand because they simply can't win without a macro advantage. And, our production building is also our main building, so we basically need more hatches to be able to produce enough units.
That's the part I don't get. 1 Hatch and a queen has a production rate of 6 units of production. At 3-4 minute mark, thats pretty damn good for pool+150 resources. Not to mention zerg can allocate resources more freely to switch between economy/army since they essentially have a free mixture of 6 gateways or nexus.
Zergs generally have a faster increase of resource gathering rate. They saturate faster than most races when playing heavy econ. But I have to say, terran tends to have the biggest macro advantage off 1 base due to their resource rate overflow from MULE. However in the case of zvp, i don't think 1 base toss will have an unfair macro advantage against 1 base zerg at all.
On June 20 2010 10:03 FrozenArbiter wrote: I'm assuming you think Scrap Station is zerg favoured? I actually feel like it's balanced/T favoured TvZ at least O_o
I'd pick scrap station a million times before I picked desert oasis vs Zerg.
You don't think there's a reason that Scrap Station is the standard pick by Zerg players? I could link you to endless matches where the Zerg player picks Scrap Station against T or P.
I will agree that hellions are very strong against Zerg on scrap station because you can't block the ramp to the main with queens/roaches. However, mutas are very, very powerful on scrap vs terran (because vikings do not counter mutas combined with the short air distance) and spreading creep between the second expo and the destructible rocks allows you to defend 3 bases very quickly.
Meh, mutas are very strong on desert oasis too then - I'd much rather have Scrap Station where I can take a 3rd base without dying
T can turtle with mech on scrap, while it's impossible on Desert - I'd say this alone makes Scrap better for T than Desert. There are less cheese options on Scrap, but in a standard game it's far more even.
I think Viking builds are also a million times stronger on scrap station than on DO, as the natural on DO is not easily harassable while both the main and nat are reasonable targets for vikings on Scrap.
It might be super imbalanced ZvP for all I know, but it's not nearly as bad as Desert for Terran at least.
This kinda just sounds like the complaining of a zerg player. Idk, I'm not a zerg so i can't really talk on whether this is true or not, but I'm pretty sure there should be some talk of imbalances towards other races as well. Honestly i think the maps have been fine. DO, even though many people hate it and i sometimes sigh when i play on it thinking I'll probably lose, isn't actually that bad. I looked at my matches there and its been pretty balanced for me.
On June 20 2010 10:03 FrozenArbiter wrote: I'm assuming you think Scrap Station is zerg favoured? I actually feel like it's balanced/T favoured TvZ at least O_o
I'd pick scrap station a million times before I picked desert oasis vs Zerg.
You don't think there's a reason that Scrap Station is the standard pick by Zerg players? I could link you to endless matches where the Zerg player picks Scrap Station against T or P.
I will agree that hellions are very strong against Zerg on scrap station because you can't block the ramp to the main with queens/roaches. However, mutas are very, very powerful on scrap vs terran (because vikings do not counter mutas combined with the short air distance) and spreading creep between the second expo and the destructible rocks allows you to defend 3 bases very quickly.
Meh, mutas are very strong on desert oasis too then - I'd much rather have Scrap Station where I can take a 3rd base without dying
T can turtle with mech on scrap, while it's impossible on Desert - I'd say this alone makes Scrap better for T than Desert. There are less cheese options on Scrap, but in a standard game it's far more even.
I think Viking builds are also a million times stronger on scrap station than on DO, as the natural on DO is not easily harassable while both the main and nat are reasonable targets for vikings on Scrap.
It might be super imbalanced ZvP for all I know, but it's not nearly as bad as Desert for Terran at least.
ZvP on Scrap Station is pretty balanced imo. Nothing too crazy I can think of off the top of my head.
On June 20 2010 03:06 iCCup.Diamond wrote: Alou brings up a good point. Idra and Artosis play one playstyle 100% of the time. FE into a massive macro push with mass Roach or Hydra.
Whatever happened to BW where that shit would not fly? For example I was a P player and I KNEW that I could not do a macro war on Bluestorm. I also knew that Medusa and Colo it paid to be uber aggressive with 10/15 Goon Rush.
I think most of these players are not playing for the map and playing for the MU
That's false the 100% same playstyle part. (Based on watching his streams Artosis mixes his builds up a lot. Like a delayed expo, based on early 2 gate pressure etc... As for IdrA he's more of a 99.9% same playstyle type player when it comes to FE he's more of a mind game player imo)
What you're describing is how they have to alter things to fit the current game. Not a change in their playstyle. They still have the same general ideas going in from what I've seen. Of course if a player has early zealot harass he won't feel safe to expand, but he will steal deal with the harass, expand, and go back to how he has been playing. I think my other post highlights my opinion on this. I think players who want this macro oriented almost mechanical game need to be able to take a step back and try something different if their style isn't fitting the map.
Truth, I see what you're saying (staying on 1 base too long isn't how zerg works though imo). Personally on a map like Kulas my main focus is "how do I secure my expo without wasting 300 minerals and dying".
Expand later when you can defend the risky expo on Kulas or break the rocks and expand on top of the cliff.
I wasn't asking lol... (Just a thought process I do)
On June 20 2010 10:54 HowardRoark wrote: The problem is that Blizzard have started to listen too much to the community, and it has resulted in them going overboard more than once with the patching.
I do know that this particular post is about the maps ONLY, but Blizzard, if you read this, just bide your time and see how things play out before you do any more changes. You (Blizzard) have really gone overboard too many times already (phoenix anyone?) with the patch changes. Imagine if there were these uproars during the release of SC1; the game would not have been nearly as good if they kept tweaking as much as they do now before being patient and seeing how things play out.
On a side note, if someone can enlighten me, I do have one question: People kept talking about how useless mech were, but then it kept changing. I wonder: Was it the "Center Splash Damage" patch that totally turned the table for mech, or has it been viable to some extent all the way through beta, but that no one actually knew anyting?
For TvZ, mech was always good - I used it since one of the earliest patches. However, roaches used to be RIDICULOUS - they have since gone from 1 supply with super-super-super fast regen @ hive-tech, to 2 supply and way less regen unless burrowed.
what? mech was utterly horrible vs 1 supply roaches and 50 mana mind control
And I think this is key in every argument when discussing Terran mech vs. Zerg. Apollo mentions in his interview that sc brood war is balanced around its imbalance.
I am in the progress of re watching all of days dailies and came across his 23rd daily. Upmagic vs GGaemo he mentioned a lot of subtleties in the matchup but the general theme is the same.
OUT expanding the meching terran and win by nature of having a lot more stuff at a faster rate than he can push.
In addition to both roach and hydralisk suddenly being 2 supply (hydra was 1 supply in brood war and had speed off creep).
You simply overall have access to less stuff than in sc1 while terran mech has more stuff to fiddle around with such as banshees and Vikings. In the ultimate doom scenario on any map outside of cross positions metalopolis and some chases such as cross position lost temple.
The current map pool does not allow you to take 3-4 expansions with relative ease and safety against mech. You can gamble and hope he doesn’t kill them off but really, its hard to get 4 bases on steppes of war without dying in the process to the various forms of harassments that terran has at his disposal in addition to building the mech blob.
And that’s why we sometimes see mech as this unstoppable force. Because really as day puts it in his 23rd daily, a 200 / 200 mech army can not be beat unless you have had superior macro than the terran and the wiggle room to replenish yours once you have killed off half of his blob and
I personally wanted Artosis to comment on the current map pool before he ever mentioned the possibility of an article specifically I wanted to hear if the current 8 mineral 2 gas system favours Terran more so than zerg or comments on how almost all the expansion patterns all form the same pattern.
Towards your enemy, its not a good thing for zerg either.
mech was utterly horrible vs 1 supply roaches
Because roaches can actually LIVE trough tankshots for an extensive period of time, reduced hp and supply cost with increased armor would be an easy fix as tanks would then need less tank shots. xD but its a short sighted solution not accounting for ZVP
there is one particular reason i find desert oasis to be in favor of T in ZvT. There is a ridge in the middle of the map near the vespene geysers (but across a chasm) from which units of range 6 can hit the vespene and siege tanks CAN HIT THE STARTING HATCHERY.
I think the heat in this thread comes from the fact that the OP's arguments lacks so much reason, it's hard to provide anything to argue against. Must every natural expansion not have a cliff next to it? Must it always be easily defendable?
While Kulas Ravine has short rush distance, and long scout distance, he argues it is imbalanced. Yet it is completely the opposite on Desert Oasis, again it's imbalanced.
Most of the builds used against Zerg that are argued as imbalanced can simply be countered with a little scouting and timing attacks.
well he did use idra as his source. so pretty much zerg whining. (i'm a zerg player). The only map with problems is incineration zone, and only then because it requires a different thought process, but we didn't get enough time for zergs to figure it out.
I am sorry to say, but this feels as yet another "IdrA and Artosis whining about underpowered Zerg" post. They always claim they are "objective", but how can they really be after just a few months of beta with HUGE changes to balance between the races (Roach food nerf anyone?)?
It also feels absolutely unobjective because Desert Oasis is really favored for Zerg IF they dont stick to ground only armies and IF they arent lazy with creep tumors. I always thought Zerg wanted wide and open maps, but it seems like they only want flat maps without any choke points for the opponents and a worm hole for Overlords into their opponents base. Excuse the sarcasm, but these claims of "objectivity" are a bit arrogant and thus devaluing the whole thing.
On June 19 2010 20:07 Artosis wrote: KULAS RAVINE
Short rush distance, long scout distance-
Well life is tough and its the same for everyone. Zerg already have the fastest worker production capability, so why not use them to scout? Many are doing it already and if a Terran is walled in, well the Protoss cant get a look at his base either.
On June 19 2010 20:07 Artosis wrote: Wide-open natural expansion, long distance from main hatchery to expansion hatchery-
Arent Zerg usually the ones who complain about not having wide open spaces? Look at it this way: THEIR naturals are wide and open too and if THEY expand somewhere else maybe you should do that too ...
On June 19 2010 20:07 Artosis wrote: Large ledge behind natural expansion- The ledge behind the natural expansion can cause huge problems for Zerg.
Well its the same bad spot for every race or does the map change for Zerg only? Maybe you should stop considering that expansion "the natural" and rather focus on the one behind the rocks? Many others (Terran and Protoss) arent expanding there either and rather take the one behind the rocks.
Personally I think this is getting too much attention due to the "fame factor". It is written one-sidedly and not objective at all, but at least he says so in the beginning. Wasnt there a rule against these kinds of posts on the forum?
While there are many "unusual things" on Kulas Ravine it is only hard because people havent figured out how to play on it yet. Who is to say that there wont be an unbeatable Zerg Kulas tactic in six months? The thing is that Artosis doesnt like the map and thus writes an article about its supposed imbalance. But most of these points work FOR EVERYONE, so they are balanced in fact. The only real imbalance is that Zerg doesnt have early artillery (I consider the Brood Lords to be artillery) and cliff jumpers; but they have burrowed movers instead.
Without even looking at the complaints themselves, how can it be objective when:
Only one race is represented. (Artosis and Idra's main race) Not all match-ups are covered. Mech play is left out on purpose. (Nobody knows a good way to play against it yet? Maybe you don't know a good way to play these maps yet.) No pros, only cons. Contradictions. Disclaimer saying this is "top-level" only talk. "Top-level" Zergs seem to be doing fine.
This looks to me like a very long and glorified whine post even if that wasn't your intent.
edit:
In the comments you wrote
Oh, and as for Desert Oasis, we realize many people feel it is a Zerg favored map. This just isn't the case on the Asian server. At the very top level, Terran is pretty much unbeatable there.
Just because a certain MU is dominant in one region compared to the others doesn't mean there is a map imbalance. People need to stop caring about regions and look at the overall if you ask me.
lol, so it takes idra 4 days of practice to almost qualify for osl but months to learn a new build order for a ladder map
yes, its not about build order its about style, its about how he wants the mid to late game to play out. about what units he is familliar with useing and how he incorporates them to follow with him as he transitions into higher tiers of game.
THere is a GIANT unsurmountable difference between Practice and changing your entire game STYLE.
Na its really easy actually, for example after roach nerf idra instantly started using a hydra/ling orientated game and raped just as hard. If you already have the skill inherent then it's pretty easy to switch up, that's why all the Good BW players are good at SC2 and the switch was instant
thats not a game style switch, he is still using the same broad strokes as before in that he will get an expansion, start saturating while defending with as few units as possible, barely suriving and suddenly sprinting upwards of 150 / 200 while he takes his third and possibly fourth.
Now if he had suddenly started useing spire units for his mid game i could admit that ok i am wrong but i dont think that in the instant that roaches got nerfed he switched his entire style. He just switched the focus towards a more Hydralisk sentric army earlier on.
and he told you all this didnt he? stop assuming things you fool.
"Terran is pretty much unbeatable [on desert oasis]". FFS. I've played so many RTSes in my life and every single thing time "x is unbeatable by y" has been said so close to a game's release it's been completely wrong. Anyone without a star by their name would have been banned by now.
I always thought having Nydus networks from main to expans on DO was pretty good. Are these Zerg players who are complaining using them? It's not that hard to get lair tech. I have nothing but respect for idrA but I've never seen him use a Nydus network defensively or offensively in probably 50+ replays.
On June 20 2010 14:49 DooMDash wrote: I always thought having Nydus networks from main to expans on DO was pretty good. Are these Zerg players who are complaining using them? It's not that hard to get lair tech. I have nothing but respect for idrA but I've never seen him use a Nydus network defensively or offensively in probably 50+ replays.
I think this is the biggest problem. IdrA is basically a macro machine - there's no creativity in his play (from everything I've seen). He plays Zerg like a standard Terran macro game, and I think this causes a lot of his problems.
I will still go with morrow's initial post. I have nothing to say that hasn't been said except: A. Players know more than Blizzard about the game as they make 3 different games while players do nothing but play. B. Blizzard failed to balance each map but atleast they were able to balance the whole map pool. Not all maps are zerg favored and not all maps are zerg WoW(worst of the worst).Applies to the other races. C. Why do you think spl has a lot of mirror matches? Why would both coach sends players from the same race on a certain map? Because every map has a dominant race even though they are made by kespa. I'm not saying "go play mirrors". I'm saying that no map is balanced. There is no such thing as: 50-50 TvP 50-50 ZvP 50-50 TvZ D. Famous players revolutionizing playstyles has something to do with this. Just like the protoss with Carriers(years ago) vs terran and Bisu build vs z, not long after that both t and z was able to counter everything with ease. There are just times a certain season that a race thrives on certain maps. It just happens that this time a certain playstyle(mech) is dominant on certain maps(DO, IZ, KR [not in my opinion, only from what i had read in this thread]). Peace!!!!!!
On June 20 2010 14:49 DooMDash wrote: I always thought having Nydus networks from main to expans on DO was pretty good. Are these Zerg players who are complaining using them? It's not that hard to get lair tech. I have nothing but respect for idrA but I've never seen him use a Nydus network defensively or offensively in probably 50+ replays.
I think this is the biggest problem. IdrA is basically a macro machine - there's no creativity in his play (from everything I've seen). He plays Zerg like a standard Terran macro game, and I think this causes a lot of his problems.
He seems to be stuck in BW. In the "Nerds of the Round Table" interview, i believe Idra and Artosis both said that TLO's very creative playstyle isn't going to work once SC2 hits it's prime.
If you ask me though, it looks like he's doing fine with his Zerg play even against Terran mech which Artosis claims is not fully understood.
It is hilarious to me that anyone takes artosis' comments on balance seriously. Dont any of you ever actually watch weekly's? Hes an awesome guy and contributes a lot, but there arent many people that are as biased as him
Of course this thread would become provocative, when only bad sides of zerg were talked of.
As a zerg, it's pretty easy to relate to points made - none are absolutely incorrect. But I guess it goes for all of map pool - maps being too small make them mostly terran favoring. I find it funny how metalo is even considered bad for terran because it has less imbalanced cliffs than half of other maps. Metalo still ends up being the map where in TvX only terrans can take the gold. When race gets too used to some imbalance, people start to call it imbalanced if they do NOT get that advantage every game. Speaking as zerg I haven't considered any of the zerg nerfs truly overboard. Game balance actually has felt really good lately, but some of the maps are turning things around too much. If Z is supposed to be fine with all the bad stuff terran can do, isn't that unfair towards TOSS? Does terran really need these cliffs that force zerg to do supersafe builds to not lose against any harrasses to keep the matchup balanced? I haven't felt metalo being freewin for me - what sort of equal balance issue should there be serving zerg compared to what maps like kulas are in zvt? This can't last forever that maps are friggin tunnels that don't allow almost any flanking and way too little dropping.
It's not just the scene turning more teenywhiney - maps simply aren't up to par with balance standards of what people used to get in iccup. That shouldn't be news for anyone, so what's the point in such raging flamefest? Very few of the maps seems as balanced as almost any of the proleague maps from recent years. I can only hope the map pool gets decent changes, hopefully in form of bigger maps and cliffs more often being closer to middle rather than 1st expansions/mains
This is a terrible article. It's obvious that idra and artosis just simply are not capable of looking at balance objectively. Time and time again it's 'Zerg is so underpowered!' when at high levels of play P/Z dominate and in Asia Z dominates.
After the first few articles/interviews/videos of them talking about 'balance' at the start of beta it was pretty apparent that they should just be ignored on the subject.
On June 20 2010 14:49 DooMDash wrote: I always thought having Nydus networks from main to expans on DO was pretty good. Are these Zerg players who are complaining using them? It's not that hard to get lair tech. I have nothing but respect for idrA but I've never seen him use a Nydus network defensively or offensively in probably 50+ replays.
I think this is the biggest problem. IdrA is basically a macro machine - there's no creativity in his play (from everything I've seen). He plays Zerg like a standard Terran macro game, and I think this causes a lot of his problems.
He seems to be stuck in BW. In the "Nerds of the Round Table" interview, i believe Idra and Artosis both said that TLO's very creative playstyle isn't going to work once SC2 hits it's prime.
If you ask me though, it looks like he's doing fine with his Zerg play even against Terran mech which Artosis claims is not fully understood.
These are player issues, not map issues.
Your response to their assertion that TLO won't have as much success when SC2 hits it's prime is that he has success now?
I agree that these are not solely map issues (as I posted earlier in this thread), but your logic is rather flawed.
On June 20 2010 14:49 DooMDash wrote: I always thought having Nydus networks from main to expans on DO was pretty good. Are these Zerg players who are complaining using them? It's not that hard to get lair tech. I have nothing but respect for idrA but I've never seen him use a Nydus network defensively or offensively in probably 50+ replays.
I think this is the biggest problem. IdrA is basically a macro machine - there's no creativity in his play (from everything I've seen). He plays Zerg like a standard Terran macro game, and I think this causes a lot of his problems.
He seems to be stuck in BW. In the "Nerds of the Round Table" interview, i believe Idra and Artosis both said that TLO's very creative playstyle isn't going to work once SC2 hits it's prime.
If you ask me though, it looks like he's doing fine with his Zerg play even against Terran mech which Artosis claims is not fully understood.
These are player issues, not map issues.
Your response to their assertion that TLO won't have as much success when SC2 hits it's prime is that he has success now?
I agree that these are not solely map issues (as I posted earlier in this thread), but your logic is rather flawed.
It's simply more support that shows that IdrA (and probably Artosis) are probably still stuck in this incredibly dull, macro only play with absolutely zero creativity that only the T from BW could get away with.
I'm not entirely sure why everyone seems to think this even SHOULD be an objective article. It's an article that is SPECIFICALLY targeted to high level ZERG map difficulties, from the perspective of Artosis and Idra.
Would you guys really want an article by a pro player that just totes the mob opinion, or would you rather see what the unfiltered opinion of a pro or two? I'd choose the later; not only is it more interesting, but you can also glean some very useful information from it. So thanks Artosis, for posting this. Keep up the good work, you really help to bring the pro-scene to those of us who are not a part of it/new to Starcraft.
As FrozenArbiter said (I think, I'm too lazy to go check if it was him or not) a post like this can really be gold for some people. If you read this and go "well that's a silly opinion, I'll argue against it on the interwebs!" you're probably looking at it the wrong way. Giving your own opinion is one thing; criticizing his opinion is another.
Posts like Artosis' are very useful. There is a world of difference between beating your head against a wall and thinking "I must be making some mistake or not playing well enough, but I'm trying to accomplish the right thing" and seeing a player like Artosis complain about something similar and thinking, "ok, maybe I'm not just playing poorly, maybe I'm just going about it the wrong way and need to rethink my goal/strategy."
That being said, I suppose I should actually address the ideas in the article. Oh god, Incineration Zone was a nightmare for me on the ladder. I would get so frustrated, because it seemed like I could just never do anything against Terran or Protoss. Small chokes and lots of areas you can abuse the cliffs create just murderous situations for Zerg armies. It really felt like they took all the worst parts of Kulas and created an entire tiny map out of it. Zerg has this very interesting style to them where you really need wide spaces in order to outmaneuver the enemy army, and it's just not realistically possible on a map like Incineration Zone. Kulas isn't as bad for me, but any time there is terrain that allows Terran or Protoss to take a 'map control' advantage over Zerg you will just have a horrible time dealing with it.
Desert Oasis, I am still on the fence about. Protoss is hard to address for the same things Artosis mentioned; it wouldn't really be about map balance, it'd be about play vs. a specific build. The map in general does feel Zerg favored once you are able to establish your expansion. It's pretty easy for the Zerg player to outmaneuver Terran and Protoss armies in the mid/late game, and as a result it's very hard for them to hold more then their natural.
On June 20 2010 16:17 w_Ender_w wrote: Would you guys really want an article by a pro player that just totes the mob opinion, or would you rather see what the unfiltered opinion of a pro or two?
It doesn't have to be filtered, it just has to be unbiased. Not hard. Artosis and IdrA are known for complaining about imbalance and it's pretty obvious they aren't unbiased at all.
On June 20 2010 16:17 w_Ender_w wrote: Would you guys really want an article by a pro player that just totes the mob opinion, or would you rather see what the unfiltered opinion of a pro or two?
It doesn't have to be filtered, it just has to be unbiased. Not hard. Artosis and IdrA are known for complaining about imbalance and it's pretty obvious they aren't unbiased at all.
It's an article that is advertised as two Zerg players giving their opinion on what maps cause Zerg players problems at high level play.
At what point did you expect no bias, or did it become necessary to be unbiased?
On June 20 2010 16:17 w_Ender_w wrote: Would you guys really want an article by a pro player that just totes the mob opinion, or would you rather see what the unfiltered opinion of a pro or two?
It doesn't have to be filtered, it just has to be unbiased. Not hard. Artosis and IdrA are known for complaining about imbalance and it's pretty obvious they aren't unbiased at all.
It's an article that is advertised as two Zerg players giving their opinion on what maps cause Zerg players problems at high level play.
At what point did you expect no bias, or did it become necessary to be unbiased?
"I will be writing several articles on the balance of various things in SC2 and I decided that the first one would have to be map balance. This will be an objective look at the theory and practice of the balance of the current set of SC2 maps in the Zerg matchups."
At what point should we NOT expect it to be unbiased? He states right off the bat that he wants it to be an objective look at the map balance as it pertains to zerg. Then he ignores some aspects of a particular zerg matchup and seemingly ignores anything that doesnt have a fast expansion or anything beyond the first 6 minutes of the game.
There ARE builds other than 14 pool 15 hatch that can be used to great success.
On June 20 2010 16:36 TheRabidDeer wrote: "I will be writing several articles on the balance of various things in SC2 and I decided that the first one would have to be map balance. This will be an objective look at the theory and practice of the balance of the current set of SC2 maps in the Zerg matchups."
At what point should we NOT expect it to be unbiased? He states right off the bat that he wants it to be an objective look at the map balance as it pertains to zerg. Then he ignores some aspects of a particular zerg matchup and seemingly ignores anything that doesnt have a fast expansion or anything beyond the first 6 minutes of the game.
Tch. I missed the word objective, you may have me on a technicality buddy. I'll concede that point, but I do think we're looking at "unbiased" in two different ways. I think when you see "objective" and "map balance", you expect to see both the advantages and disadvantages that the maps allow for Zerg. Perhaps we will see this in later articles. Hell, the expected "Best of the Best" Zerg maps article might even have Desert Oasis as an example as well as in the worst, who knows?
All I know is that when I see an article by a professional Zerg player titles "The Worst of the Worst" pertaining to 'map imbalances', I don't expect to see anything but a highlight of complaints and problems Zerg players deal with. It wouldn't be the "Worst of the Worst" if half the article was about good things Zerg can do on Desert Oasis.
There ARE builds other than 14 pool 15 hatch that can be used to great success.
I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a big fan of the TLO and Sen style play, with lots of aggression. But that really doesn't have anything to do with map balance.
On June 20 2010 16:45 w_Ender_w wrote: I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a big fan of the TLO and Sen style play, with lots of aggression. But that really doesn't have anything to do with map balance.
It has to do with the credibility of their arguments. Take a second and just think - "two players that do 14 pool 15 hatch nearly every single match state that a matchup on desert oasis is unbeatable a month before the game is even released and when a small fraction of the game's possibilities have been explored".
If you think that statement or the person saying it has any credibility, you may be interested in an offer from a Nigerian Prince waiting for you in your inbox.
There has literally never been a time in RTS history that a player has said 'x is unbeatable by y' this close to the game's release and it has actually turned out to be true. That alone should give you plenty of insight into how valid these claims are.
The individual points about the map characteristics, I think, are well made.
If the article simple stated: 'Here are some difficulties presented to Zerg in the current map pool. Top players are finding them difficult to overcome. Discuss in light of the overall game balance and Zerg's current reliance on early (safe) expansion.'
Then it would have been a fine article. However, the arguments and conclusions made from what are valid points, are much more sloppy and biased than they should be. Too bad really, someone should re-write it for him.
On June 20 2010 16:45 w_Ender_w wrote: I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a big fan of the TLO and Sen style play, with lots of aggression. But that really doesn't have anything to do with map balance.
It has to do with the credibility of their arguments. Take a second and just think - "two players that do 14 pool 15 hatch nearly every single match state that a matchup on desert oasis is unbeatable a month before the game is even released and when a small fraction of the game's possibilities have been explored".
If you think that statement or the person saying it has any credibility, you may be interested in an offer from a Nigerian Prince waiting for you in your inbox.
There has literally never been a time in RTS history that a player has said 'x is unbeatable by y' this close to the game's release and it has actually turned out to be true. That alone should give you plenty of insight into how valid these claims are.
Ah yes, you're right. Because they do the same opening most games, they should lose credibility. (On a side note, have you watched a lot of Artosis' replays? He really doesn't just 14 pool/15 hatch every game). That's a much better measure of their credibility then that they are known as some of the top Zerg players in the Beta that have done quite well in nearly every tournament they have been a part of. You're right, doing the same build a lot is much more important.
On June 20 2010 16:45 w_Ender_w wrote: I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a big fan of the TLO and Sen style play, with lots of aggression. But that really doesn't have anything to do with map balance.
It has to do with the credibility of their arguments. Take a second and just think - "two players that do 14 pool 15 hatch nearly every single match state that a matchup on desert oasis is unbeatable a month before the game is even released and when a small fraction of the game's possibilities have been explored".
If you think that statement or the person saying it has any credibility, you may be interested in an offer from a Nigerian Prince waiting for you in your inbox.
There has literally never been a time in RTS history that a player has said 'x is unbeatable by y' this close to the game's release and it has actually turned out to be true. That alone should give you plenty of insight into how valid these claims are.
Ah yes, you're right. Because they do the same opening most games, they should lose credibility. (On a side note, have you watched a lot of Artosis' replays? He really doesn't just 14 pool/15 hatch every game). That's a much better measure of their credibility then that they are known as some of the top Zerg players in the Beta that have done quite well in nearly every tournament they have been a part of. You're right, doing the same build a lot is much more important.
I'm going to stop wasting my time arguing with you following this post, it's obvious you either won't read or refuse to listen. The point that they do the same build is to point out that a lot of the possibilities in the game haven't been explored yet, not that they're bad. But thanks for completely and intentionally misconstruing my post.
Anybody who believes an idiotic statement like "Zerg can't beat Terran on Desert Oasis" deserves the misery they're going to feel when they can't enjoy the game because they're too busy being upset over game balance. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "x is unbeatable by y" I'd be a rich man.
If zerg is allowed to have free expansion on all maps, I think Protoss gateways should act as mineral nodes and allowed to warp in probes after harass fails... you know.. just to "catch up" on macro because i spent all my "warp" on fighting units instead of drones... i mean probes...
There is a very fundamental reason why zergs dont saturate and have low drone count early game. Protoss and Terran build 1 worker every time one finishes buildling out of the nexus, zerg, however, spends every available larva on forces without committing a single larva to drone.. its like they forget they can do both.. build units and macro.. then later on when they have been busy microing and shit, they have built up 14 larva at base and build it all into drones and instantly have saturation mid-game... so hilarious...
On June 20 2010 16:36 TheRabidDeer wrote: "I will be writing several articles on the balance of various things in SC2 and I decided that the first one would have to be map balance. This will be an objective look at the theory and practice of the balance of the current set of SC2 maps in the Zerg matchups."
At what point should we NOT expect it to be unbiased? He states right off the bat that he wants it to be an objective look at the map balance as it pertains to zerg. Then he ignores some aspects of a particular zerg matchup and seemingly ignores anything that doesnt have a fast expansion or anything beyond the first 6 minutes of the game.
Tch. I missed the word objective, you may have me on a technicality buddy. I'll concede that point, but I do think we're looking at "unbiased" in two different ways. I think when you see "objective" and "map balance", you expect to see both the advantages and disadvantages that the maps allow for Zerg. Perhaps we will see this in later articles. Hell, the expected "Best of the Best" Zerg maps article might even have Desert Oasis as an example as well as in the worst, who knows?
All I know is that when I see an article by a professional Zerg player titles "The Worst of the Worst" pertaining to 'map imbalances', I don't expect to see anything but a highlight of complaints and problems Zerg players deal with. It wouldn't be the "Worst of the Worst" if half the article was about good things Zerg can do on Desert Oasis.
There ARE builds other than 14 pool 15 hatch that can be used to great success.
I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a big fan of the TLO and Sen style play, with lots of aggression. But that really doesn't have anything to do with map balance.
It is fine to have an article that focuses only on the negative aspects, but you shouldnt draw ANY conclusions from that single article (several times you can see a clear conclusion before he even begins detailing the map balance at all). You should have one article that details the negative aspects, another for the positive then a final article for a conclusion.
Many times in the article he has a focus on builds that are used. In fact, builds are almost taking over the article instead of it being an analysis of the map itself. Then he refuses to look at his own builds at all, which gives it an air of bias. A huge example of this is his desert oasis analysis for ZvP: "Nearly every high-level game consists of Protoss attempting to hit Zerg before Hydralisks come out, force field the ramp and kill the natural."
Oh look, the map in a ZvP where the protoss is forced to all-in because the map isnt balanced well for later game when the zerg gets mutalisks (he notes that it is mutalisk heaven) and what does he do? 14 pool 15 hatch and lose the expansion because thats all he is focusing on. Same thing for kulas, he assumes a fast zerg expansion and ignores all else.
On June 20 2010 17:17 iEchoic wrote: I'm going to stop wasting my time arguing with you following this post, it's obvious you either won't read or refuse to listen. The point that they do the same build is to point out that a lot of the possibilities in the game haven't been explored yet, not that they're bad. But thanks for completely and intentionally misconstruing my post.
Anybody who believes an idiotic statement like "Zerg can't beat Terran on Desert Oasis" deserves the misery they're going to feel when they can't enjoy the game because they're too busy being upset over game balance. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "x is unbeatable by y" I'd be a rich man.
Who ever said I thought that was an accurate statement? In my own post I said, "I'm still on the fence about Desert Oasis..."blah blah blah, and then went on to elaborate. You're making a lot of assumptions here, starting apparently with "This article should be x instead of y" and "Artosis only does one build ever". All I'm arguing is that the article should be taken for what it is; an opinion, by two zerg players, about what bothers Zerg players in high level play on a few specific maps.
You're right, a ton of possibilities in this game haven't been explored yet. Artosis certainly can't unlock every secret of the match up in a single article. He can only speak about is own experience and observations.
On June 20 2010 17:17 iEchoic wrote: I'm going to stop wasting my time arguing with you following this post, it's obvious you either won't read or refuse to listen. The point that they do the same build is to point out that a lot of the possibilities in the game haven't been explored yet, not that they're bad. But thanks for completely and intentionally misconstruing my post.
Anybody who believes an idiotic statement like "Zerg can't beat Terran on Desert Oasis" deserves the misery they're going to feel when they can't enjoy the game because they're too busy being upset over game balance. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "x is unbeatable by y" I'd be a rich man.
Who ever said I thought that was an accurate statement? In my own post I said, "I'm still on the fence about Desert Oasis..."blah blah blah, and then went on to elaborate. You're making a lot of assumptions here, starting apparently with "This article should be x instead of y" and "Artosis only does one build ever". All I'm arguing is that the article should be taken for what it is; an opinion, by two zerg players, about what bothers Zerg players in high level play on a few specific maps.
You're right, a ton of possibilities in this game haven't been explored yet. Artosis certainly can't unlock every secret of the match up in a single article. He can only speak about is own experience and observations.
(highlighted the last part)
And this is the big difference between Artosis and the ones who flame in this thread. He actually has high level experience while the other bluntly state that the game is unexplored. Its like saying "just do something different". pretty laughable...
On June 20 2010 17:24 TheRabidDeer wrote: It is fine to have an article that focuses only on the negative aspects, but you shouldnt draw ANY conclusions from that single article (several times you can see a clear conclusion before he even begins detailing the map balance at all). You should have one article that details the negative aspects, another for the positive then a final article for a conclusion.
You're right, he could have changed his wording a bit to be less... conclusive, I suppose? And I do believe that plan from the start was to have this as merely the start of a series of articles (including one outlying pro-Zerg maps).
Many times in the article he has a focus on builds that are used. In fact, builds are almost taking over the article instead of it being an analysis of the map itself. Then he refuses to look at his own builds at all, which gives it an air of bias. A huge example of this is his desert oasis analysis for ZvP: "Nearly every high-level game consists of Protoss attempting to hit Zerg before Hydralisks come out, force field the ramp and kill the natural."
Oh look, the map in a ZvP where the protoss is forced to all-in because the map isnt balanced well for later game when the zerg gets mutalisks (he notes that it is mutalisk heaven) and what does he do? 14 pool 15 hatch and lose the expansion because thats all he is focusing on. Same thing for kulas, he assumes a fast zerg expansion and ignores all else.
I think people are focusing on the builds he mentions, not so much the article. The builds he mentions in the article, he generally uses to say either "I can't mention this in the map balance article, due to this build (mech is not completely explored)" or "ZvP isn't worth mentioning because the build that is used is the biggest deal, not the map". He's not complaining about the match up, or how it goes, he's just explaining a bit about what the Protoss player is intending with the build (warp-gate all-in). I think, in light of this, the reason he does not examine his own build is because he doesn't want it to about the builds, and I suppose we could guess that he believes the build you do is less important than the terrain.
I'd like a to throw a different idea out there on map balance:
Is it really a good thing if every map is perfectly even?
That sounds stupid at first, and you're going to be inclined to say "of course, idiot!" But, competition is about overcoming obstacles. In the NBA, for a random example, you don't play on a neutral court. You play on home court. And then you play on away court. Win rates on home court are much higher than win rates on away courts.
And the reason this is actually a good thing is because it comes down to the fact that how well you can handle adversity is one thing that defines your skill as a player.Playing equally-balanced maps in every situation creates gameplay that is vanilla because there are no obstacles to overcome.
I think when we're evaluating map balance we have a predisposition to say that every map should be exactly equal, when that doesn't actually create a good competitive situation or an enjoyable situation for viewers.
Edit, also:
And this is the big difference between Artosis and the ones who flame in this thread. He actually has high level experience while the other bluntly state that the game is unexplored. Its like saying "just do something different". pretty laughable...
I definitely think it's fair that you shouldn't be critiquing things that are reliant on player skill. I think the people who are offering suggestions and saying things like "just make mutas on 1base" probably aren't making convincing arguments. I just want to clear this up before he gets on and calls me garbage because I have less than 300 posts or whatever measure artosis uses to determine the worth of a human being. However there are a lot of fair complaints that have nothing to do with skill level.
For example, even if you're the greatest player in the world, you're a prodigy at SC2, it is stupid to say "Terran cannot beat Zerg on Desert Oasis". This doesn't become a qualified statement just because you're good at the game. At this point, NOBODY is qualified to say that. As I said, never has there been a time in RTS history where someone has said before the game is even released that something is unbeatable and it turns out to be true.
These kind of ridiculous statements completely obliterate any shred of objectivity the article had, and really make it obvious that there is some serious bias involved. I am actually shocked that anyone with RTS experience can say this with a straight face.
On June 20 2010 17:53 iEchoic wrote: I'd like a to throw a different idea out there on map balance:
Is it really a good thing if every map is perfectly even?
That sounds stupid at first, and you're going to be inclined to say "of course, idiot!" But, competition is about overcoming obstacles. In the NBA, for a random example, you don't play on a neutral court. You play on home court. And then you play on away court. Win rates on home court are much higher than win rates on away courts.
And the reason this is actually a good thing is because it comes down to the fact that how well you can handle adversity is one thing that defines your skill as a player.Playing equally-balanced maps in every situation creates gameplay that is vanilla because there are no obstacles to overcome.
I think you're definitely on to something there. I'd say that the only "perfectly even" map would be a totally symmetrical map played in a mirror matchup. That would indeed likely lead to some pretty bland gameplay. Adversity breeds excellence; "imbalances" and challenges lead to very interesting new strategies.
Personally I think this thread should be closed for being an obvious whine-thread by the OP, no matter that his name is Artosis. It is highly biased - even though it tries to give itself the look of being objective - and by that geared to incite a flame war. I think the number of posts here support this.
Only someone who has "no part in it" OR who plays random can be truly objective. Neither IdrA nor Artosis are outsiders of the competitive scene and neither of them plays random. So they are looking at everything from the Zerg side of the fence and this is very obvious at all times.
On the point of Kulas Ravine being very cramped, i think that's a very common trend in the map circulation, but Blizzard probably won't change those maps, like ever. (Just look at wc3 ladder maps).
Don't worry guys, these are beta maps. I'm sure blizzard has map race stats, and they can see what's going on.
I fully expect blizzard to have motw/motm after release. I also expect blizzard to hold map making competitions where the winners get their maps into the ladder map pools. So at the least we will slowly see a shift into balanced maps over a few months.
The problem with this article by Artosis is simply the way it's written; there are some good points, but they get overlooked.I recommend more effort the next time you state your goal is to be objective. There are several areas where the language is poorly used and bias is transparent. You have to be careful how you word things or people will not listen.
As for discussion, it's really interesting how controversial DO is. Pros from every race seem to hate this map, but it has really produced some fantastic replays. If it's hard for everyone, doesn't that make it one of the more balanced maps?
While we're on the topic of bad maps, I'm just going to plug my own map, which I feel is pretty balanced. With all of the different map threads on the forums now it is so easy for maps to get overlooked.
The problem with this article by Artosis is simply the way it's written; there are some good points, but they get overlooked.I recommend more effort the next time you state your goal is to be objective. There are several areas where the language is poorly used and bias is transparent. You have to be careful how you word things or people will not listen.
As for discussion, it's really interesting how controversial DO is. Pros from every race seem to hate this map, but it has really produced some fantastic replays. If it's hard for everyone, doesn't that make it one of the more balanced maps?
This.. Most of the pro level games on DO is really epic.. Don't why its hard for the players but its really awesome for the spectators..
On June 20 2010 19:05 Strut wrote: As for discussion, it's really interesting how controversial DO is. Pros from every race seem to hate this map, but it has really produced some fantastic replays. If it's hard for everyone, doesn't that make it one of the more balanced maps?
I think many people hate the map only because you have to do something different from your normal game plan. Thats the only reason.
I also agree that this map is very good from a spectators point, simply because the players have to do something different.
I had to registrate to write something, because in my opinion everybody is missing a huge point here.
Perhaps, maybe or maybe not, some maps are imbalanced for high end pro-gaming, where only little tiny differences make a huge impact on succes or failure. But consider Blizzard, they are making these maps for millions of people, who have way less skills then progamers. The elite group is only ,01% of the total base of players, no way Blizzard will create maps soley for them. My point being, although some maps are not suited for progaming, they are very well suited for normal games, which Blizzard is mainly aiming for. As a lower lvl player, you don't want even more adjustments with chokes/rocks/or whatever just so it's more balanced. It takes away the fun for many. I think these maps are very well designed for normal players and changing (or even removing) them would ruin it for a normal player. I don't want maps which all look and feel the same, just because they are spot-on for balancing purposes at high lvl play. I want to have the feeling I'm playing on a deserted planet, where not everything is perfectly symmetrical and balanced.
I guess it will be up to the eSPORTS to come up with good maps for progaming, perhaps progaming only.
As for discussion, it's really interesting how controversial DO is. Pros from every race seem to hate this map, but it has really produced some fantastic replays. If it's hard for everyone, doesn't that make it one of the more balanced maps?
we have seen epic games in all the wcg tournaments. still the majority of the map pool (esp the older ones) was horrible.
On June 20 2010 19:18 Stuv wrote: I had to registrate to write something, because in my opinion everybody is missing a huge point here.
Perhaps, maybe or maybe not, some maps are imbalanced for high end pro-gaming, where only little tiny differences make a huge impact on succes or failure. But consider Blizzard, they are making these maps for millions of people, who have way less skills then progamers. The elite group is only ,01% of the total base of players, no way Blizzard will create maps soley for them. My point being, although some maps are not suited for progaming, they are very well suited for normal games, which Blizzard is mainly aiming for. As a lower lvl player, you don't want even more adjustments with chokes/rocks/or whatever just so it's more balanced. It takes away the fun for many. I think these maps are very well designed for normal players and changing (or even removing) them would ruin it for a normal player. I don't want maps which all look and feel the same, just because they are spot-on for balancing purposes at high lvl play. I want to have the feeling I'm playing on a deserted planet, where not everything is perfectly symmetrical and balanced.
I guess it will be up to the eSPORTS to come up with good maps for progaming, perhaps progaming only.
I agree, that the community must contribute with their own maps for the competetive scene. in the other hand iscussions and articles like this one are needed to build up enough knowledge to do that.
On June 20 2010 19:18 Stuv wrote: I had to registrate to write something, because in my opinion everybody is missing a huge point here.
Perhaps, maybe or maybe not, some maps are imbalanced for high end pro-gaming, where only little tiny differences make a huge impact on succes or failure. But consider Blizzard, they are making these maps for millions of people, who have way less skills then progamers. The elite group is only ,01% of the total base of players, no way Blizzard will create maps soley for them. My point being, although some maps are not suited for progaming, they are very well suited for normal games, which Blizzard is mainly aiming for. As a lower lvl player, you don't want even more adjustments with chokes/rocks/or whatever just so it's more balanced. It takes away the fun for many. I think these maps are very well designed for normal players and changing (or even removing) them would ruin it for a normal player. I don't want maps which all look and feel the same, just because they are spot-on for balancing purposes at high lvl play. I want to have the feeling I'm playing on a deserted planet, where not everything is perfectly symmetrical and balanced.
I guess it will be up to the eSPORTS to come up with good maps for progaming, perhaps progaming only.
Uh. No one is saying that all maps need to be exactly the same, but they do need to be balanced. The casual gamer isn't going to be bothered either way since your are correct in assessing that it is completely beyond him. But it does matter to the people who are trying to be the best - and simple modifications on these maps can lead to drastically better balance without sacrificing unique play. The maps that can't be saved can be removed (and all maps should be rotated healthily) and new interesting maps put in their place. It's a win win situation.
Just to emphasise my point. I have shitloads of fun playing on Fighting Spirit or Python in brood war. Both of which are progaming maps created by the progaming map design teams. Casual players love and enjoy these maps (and they are pretty balanced... generally speaking) just as the progamers do. Creating a balanced map isn't mutually exclusive from creating a map that the average gamer can enjoy as well.
I really enjoy the unique feel of desert oasis as all races even if it's not the most balanced. I feel a lot of players are making the assumption that natural expansions should always be easy to take just because they are on BW pro maps. SC2 strategy has not been developed anywhere near far enough to jump to that conclusion. It's good to have a couple of maps that favour 1 basing in the pool, people can just not play on them if they don't like them.
Think we can all agree that Incineration Zone was terrible, though.
On June 20 2010 19:18 Stuv wrote: I had to registrate to write something, because in my opinion everybody is missing a huge point here.
Perhaps, maybe or maybe not, some maps are imbalanced for high end pro-gaming, where only little tiny differences make a huge impact on succes or failure. But consider Blizzard, they are making these maps for millions of people, who have way less skills then progamers. The elite group is only ,01% of the total base of players, no way Blizzard will create maps soley for them. My point being, although some maps are not suited for progaming, they are very well suited for normal games, which Blizzard is mainly aiming for. As a lower lvl player, you don't want even more adjustments with chokes/rocks/or whatever just so it's more balanced. It takes away the fun for many. I think these maps are very well designed for normal players and changing (or even removing) them would ruin it for a normal player. I don't want maps which all look and feel the same, just because they are spot-on for balancing purposes at high lvl play. I want to have the feeling I'm playing on a deserted planet, where not everything is perfectly symmetrical and balanced.
I guess it will be up to the eSPORTS to come up with good maps for progaming, perhaps progaming only.
On June 20 2010 18:33 MaD.pYrO wrote: On the point of Kulas Ravine being very cramped, i think that's a very common trend in the map circulation, but Blizzard probably won't change those maps, like ever. (Just look at wc3 ladder maps).
They have to have a good map circulation. That's what makes sc1 bw so badass!
The problem with this article by Artosis is simply the way it's written; there are some good points, but they get overlooked.I recommend more effort the next time you state your goal is to be objective. There are several areas where the language is poorly used and bias is transparent. You have to be careful how you word things or people will not listen.
As for discussion, it's really interesting how controversial DO is. Pros from every race seem to hate this map, but it has really produced some fantastic replays. If it's hard for everyone, doesn't that make it one of the more balanced maps?
This.. Most of the pro level games on DO is really epic.. Don't why its hard for the players but its really awesome for the spectators..
Zergs hate it because there's a lot of cheese possible. Terrans and Protoss hate it because if you don't cheese, you lose.
I still think it's one of the best maps in the map pool - it just needs to be tweaked.
On June 20 2010 18:33 MaD.pYrO wrote: On the point of Kulas Ravine being very cramped, i think that's a very common trend in the map circulation, but Blizzard probably won't change those maps, like ever. (Just look at wc3 ladder maps).
They have to have a good map circulation. That's what makes sc1 bw so badass!
lets just hope the popular melee maps will be integrated into ladder system works
On June 20 2010 10:54 HowardRoark wrote: The problem is that Blizzard have started to listen too much to the community, and it has resulted in them going overboard more than once with the patching.
I do know that this particular post is about the maps ONLY, but Blizzard, if you read this, just bide your time and see how things play out before you do any more changes. You (Blizzard) have really gone overboard too many times already (phoenix anyone?) with the patch changes. Imagine if there were these uproars during the release of SC1; the game would not have been nearly as good if they kept tweaking as much as they do now before being patient and seeing how things play out.
On a side note, if someone can enlighten me, I do have one question: People kept talking about how useless mech were, but then it kept changing. I wonder: Was it the "Center Splash Damage" patch that totally turned the table for mech, or has it been viable to some extent all the way through beta, but that no one actually knew anyting?
For TvZ, mech was always good - I used it since one of the earliest patches. However, roaches used to be RIDICULOUS - they have since gone from 1 supply with super-super-super fast regen @ hive-tech, to 2 supply and way less regen unless burrowed.
what? mech was utterly horrible vs 1 supply roaches and 50 mana mind control
Yes I should have elaborated, semi-mech then. Pure mech sucked, agreed. Marauder/Thor was good for a while (before MC had 9 range, however.
But that's exactly why I mentioned roaches were ridiculous - mech would have been fine if it wasn't for that. Oh that and the fact that thors didn't do splash so mass mutas raped :D
I still think it's one of the best maps in the map pool - it just needs to be tweaked.
How would you tweak it, Jinro?
By people getting used to it - and other "totally different" maps - and having different strategies for them. This however needs TIME and WILLINGNESS TO ADAPT. The first we didnt have yet and the second is something our Korean Zergy friends (and many other Oasis- and Ravine-haters) apparently do not possess.
I think there is a saying flying around this forum that there is no broken unit, you just need to learn how to beat it. The same thing could be said for maps. While a map might be ugly or uninspiring to play on, that is a personal preference and I guarantee you that there are Zerg players out there who have nothing against Desert Oasis or Kulas Ravine. It is just our "Korean pro gamers" who are in love with their mechanics and who like to do the same things every time, who have trouble being creative on such a map.
I think it's entirely fair to be criticizing Artosis for this post. Personally, I feel Artosis is known for having the opinion that the race he plays is the weakest and all the other races are stronger and/or have imbalanced units/strategies whatever. I would suspect that if you looked at all of the articles written by Artosis about balance, the vast, vast majority would be favourable towards Zerg in SC2, or Terran in SC1. The point is that I don't think Artosis is objective at all, so when ever I read any thing by him, I'm generally suspicious.
That being said, it's also really hard to comment on what Artosis actually said. If you post any of your own experiences, the rebuttal will be that you're not a top player and that you don't know what you're talking about, or that Idra & Artosis himself disagree. That argument has already been made by Artosis here:
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the 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.
The only comments you can make is if it's statistical arguments against what Artosis is saying, or if you're a top player. If you're just someone talking about their own experiences, that doesn't matter, unless you're supporting the OP, in which case we can probably let that slide.
I'm not going to go into alternate tactical use on these maps right, though I did touch on this briefly earlier, like using drops/nydus/burrowed movement to get around cramped area, but rather to incite the complete shutdown of this thread, on the grounds that there are only enough total games of SC2 played to date for 1 person (if they played every game to date) to be an expert at a race (not the game).
What everyone doesn't seem to realize is that SC2 is NOT SC:BW. It also HASN"T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET. Any discussion by anyone (besides Blizzard themselves) is completely ignorant. At this point in the game nobody has fleshed out ANY single build to its fullest potential.
In case y'all don't remember, Brood War had many many many times where 1 race would dominate, and then someone would come around and revoutionize the matchup creatively and it would switch. Boxer started playing Terran when it was seen as underpowered. Savior (cheating asshole) was practically unbeatable until Bisu 3-0 him. Very rarely was there "balance" at any point in Starcraft history. And remember people, Blizzard has all the race stats globally, and divided by skill, matchup, region, server, etc. They can see if there is a discrepency in win rates, but the rates are different on different leagues and servers, like in the Asia sector where Zerg is dominating.
Think back to TvZ in Brood War. There was so much tactical positioning and response to the enemy it was insane. Terran opens with MMF, which have their own micro idosyncracies, but then the Zerg respond with Lurkers. Lurkers normally pwned marines. Then we learned to micro the marines. Then Zerg throws down Dark Swarms, then we learn to tactically retreat our forces in battle. Or the Zerg learns Muta Micro and learns lots of delaying tactics. For instance, a zergling outside the natural tells you when T moves out, and you throw down sunken colonies only after.
None of these ideas where around when SC was young, they came over a long learning period of years. SC 1 was very unbalanced until a good while after it came out, it wasn't until 1.08/1.09 that the game got really competitive. That's because strategy games have to evolve to even work. Blizzard had no idea how the balance was going to work out when they started SC 1. They let the community figure everything out. And that's the point. We have yet to figure out the many many aspects of SC2.
All of Starcraft has EVOLVED over time. And since SC2 IS NOT SC:BW, no player anywhere, no matter his rank, can yet speak about issues like this. Even Artosis and Idra, with their heavy practice in their builds, still have yet to explore the entirety of their own builds, because SC2 will continue to evolve and throw new challenges towards their builds. I have a lot of respect for Artosis and Idra's skill in SC Brood War, but Brood War skill does not make you an expert at SC2. We have to look at SC2 play only to talk about SC2, and completely ignore any leftover biases or tendencies from Brood War, because they don't apply. And all of us are only playing a BETA, there is not enough SC2 data around for there to be any experts yet. The people that know most about the balance right now are the Blizzard testers. They're the only ones that can actually be objective at this point in development, since SC2 is still in utero.
The idea that people are already so knowledgeable about a game(which isn't even FINISHED yet) that they are completely infallible and make absolutist claims (Z cannot beat T on DO), is completely insane.
all of the old SC1 maps on SC2 I think are the most balanced maps lol
edit : I don't agree with most of the stuff you write in the article artosis no offense, I think zerg has to show good play in order to win games sure, but the potential with zerg isn't lower than other races on these maps (excluding kulas ) , Zerg can win , they just have to pull off good and smart moves.
I still think it's one of the best maps in the map pool - it just needs to be tweaked.
How would you tweak it, Jinro?
By people getting used to it - and other "totally different" maps - and having different strategies for them. This however needs TIME and WILLINGNESS TO ADAPT. The first we didnt have yet and the second is something our Korean Zergy friends (and many other Oasis- and Ravine-haters) apparently do not possess.
I think there is a saying flying around this forum that there is no broken unit, you just need to learn how to beat it. The same thing could be said for maps. While a map might be ugly or uninspiring to play on, that is a personal preference and I guarantee you that there are Zerg players out there who have nothing against Desert Oasis or Kulas Ravine. It is just our "Korean pro gamers" who are in love with their mechanics and who like to do the same things every time, who have trouble being creative on such a map.
No, Desert Oasis needs to be tweaked. The natural is placed in the most obnoxious way imaginable, meaning T and P can't rush unless they do something really cheesy and they can't take a fast expansion because it's impossible to defend.
On June 21 2010 00:07 Salv wrote: I think it's entirely fair to be criticizing Artosis for this post. Personally, I feel Artosis is known for having the opinion that the race he plays is the weakest and all the other races are stronger and/or have imbalanced units/strategies whatever. I would suspect that if you looked at all of the articles written by Artosis about balance, the vast, vast majority would be favourable towards Zerg in SC2, or Terran in SC1. The point is that I don't think Artosis is objective at all, so when ever I read any thing by him, I'm generally suspicious.
That being said, it's also really hard to comment on what Artosis actually said. If you post any of your own experiences, the rebuttal will be that you're not a top player and that you don't know what you're talking about, or that Idra & Artosis himself disagree. That argument has already been made by Artosis here:
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the 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.
The only comments you can make is if it's statistical arguments against what Artosis is saying, or if you're a top player. If you're just someone talking about their own experiences, that doesn't matter, unless you're supporting the OP, in which case we can probably let that slide.
I really don't agree with you, Artosis busts his ass to go around and get opinions/interviews with people, and do write ups. Someone did say there should have been a bigger discussion in a state of the game cast or something and I agree, but saying Artosis is favoring Zerg and pushing these articles for his own race is non-sense. He obviously understands, experienced and knows things you do not and you think this is what hes doing. However this was recently one of the more controversial posts because many feel differently about DO but a solution has already been imposed by doing a state of the realm with a few more progamers. These are Artosis's thoughts and experiences from his perspective + others of the same race, this is clearly stated and of course it will sound like hes talking down on Zerg, thats the Race the post is mostly about!
And I definitely agree with him on many of the concerns he has addressed, he isn't just making this stuff up.
On June 21 2010 01:41 v3chr0 wrote: I really don't agree with you, Artosis busts his ass to go around and get opinions from people, someone did say there should have been a bigger discussion in a state of the game cast or something and I agree, but saying Artosis is favoring Zerg and pushing these articles for his own race is non-sense. He obviously understands, experienced and knows things you do not and you think this is what hes doing. However this was recently one of the more controversial posts because many feel differently about DO but a solution has already been imposed by doing a state of the realm with a few more progamers. These are Artosis's thoughts and experiences from his perspective + others of the same race, this is clearly stated and of course it will sound like hes talking down on Zerg, thats the Race the post is mostly about!
I don't think there is a single person in this thread that does not know Artosis has done leaps and bounds for the community.
What I think the collective is upset about is since the release of SCII most of Artosis' main written pieces have become increasingly about bitching about how bad Zerg is and how every patch and well everything hurts them and makes them the weakest race in the game.
For example this article would not get so much hate if he had consulted someone that was non Zerg. Frankly the old anolgy of "it true cause Idra said it" does not hold water anymore. He's not the top player in SCII and is known for his lack of innovation. As soon as he cannot mass one unit he cries IMBA.
Artosis is the fucking man and I love u dude, but the community as a whole seems to be tired of you screaming Zerg are weak. When's the last time you have done any major balance discussion on Protoss? You have access to the same people in the community as me (ie: everyone) so use it.
This week when we do the big map breakdown cast I'm planning I will include all Terran, Protoss, and Zerg. To get two Zerg players together (that play together non stop and have almost mirror styles) is not a good poll. You should look to include other players such as members of .Root, EG, Liquid, etc.....
Again I love Artosis and watch everything he puts out for the community more than once but I feel this is what the community (me included) is really trying to say.
On June 21 2010 01:41 v3chr0 wrote: I really don't agree with you, Artosis busts his ass to go around and get opinions from people, someone did say there should have been a bigger discussion in a state of the game cast or something and I agree, but saying Artosis is favoring Zerg and pushing these articles for his own race is non-sense. He obviously understands, experienced and knows things you do not and you think this is what hes doing. However this was recently one of the more controversial posts because many feel differently about DO but a solution has already been imposed by doing a state of the realm with a few more progamers. These are Artosis's thoughts and experiences from his perspective + others of the same race, this is clearly stated and of course it will sound like hes talking down on Zerg, thats the Race the post is mostly about!
I don't think there is a single person in this thread that does not know Artosis has done leaps and bounds for the community.
What I think the collective is upset about is since the release of SCII most of Artosis' main written pieces have become increasingly about bitching about how bad Zerg is and how every patch and well everything hurts them and makes them the weakest race in the game.
For example this article would not get so much hate if he had consulted someone that was non Zerg. Frankly the old anolgy of "it true cause Idra said it" does not hold water anymore. He's not the top player in SCII and is known for his lack of innovation. As soon as he cannot mass one unit he cries IMBA.
Artosis is the fucking man and I love u dude, but the community as a whole seems to be tired of you screaming Zerg are weak. When's the last time you have done any major balance discussion on Protoss? You have access to the same people in the community as me (ie: everyone) so use it.
This week when we do the big map breakdown cast I'm planning I will include all Terran, Protoss, and Zerg. To get two Zerg players together (that play together non stop and have almost mirror styles) is not a good poll. You should look to include other players such as members of .Root, EG, Liquid, etc.....
Again I love Artosis and watch everything he puts out for the community more than once but I feel this is what the community (me included) is really trying to say.
Yea I can understand that, I felt this way after listening to many of the responds to this post, I just think people are being way too hostile towards it. He plays Zerg and I would expect him to do stuff based around that, but I do agree that he should have (more of)other players (other races) opinions in the posts to make it not seem so 1 sided. In the end though, Zerg and other things needs attention so I see the point of his posts even though it can sound biased, I trust he isn't falsifying his information so I draw my own conclusions and I happen to agree with most of it.
On June 21 2010 00:07 Salv wrote: I think it's entirely fair to be criticizing Artosis for this post. Personally, I feel Artosis is known for having the opinion that the race he plays is the weakest and all the other races are stronger and/or have imbalanced units/strategies whatever. I would suspect that if you looked at all of the articles written by Artosis about balance, the vast, vast majority would be favourable towards Zerg in SC2, or Terran in SC1. The point is that I don't think Artosis is objective at all, so when ever I read any thing by him, I'm generally suspicious.
That being said, it's also really hard to comment on what Artosis actually said. If you post any of your own experiences, the rebuttal will be that you're not a top player and that you don't know what you're talking about, or that Idra & Artosis himself disagree. That argument has already been made by Artosis here:
On June 19 2010 22:13 Artosis wrote:
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the 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.
The only comments you can make is if it's statistical arguments against what Artosis is saying, or if you're a top player. If you're just someone talking about their own experiences, that doesn't matter, unless you're supporting the OP, in which case we can probably let that slide.
I really don't agree with you, Artosis busts his ass to go around and get opinions/interviews with people, and do write ups. Someone did say there should have been a bigger discussion in a state of the game cast or something and I agree, but saying Artosis is favoring Zerg and pushing these articles for his own race is non-sense. He obviously understands, experienced and knows things you do not and you think this is what hes doing. However this was recently one of the more controversial posts because many feel differently about DO but a solution has already been imposed by doing a state of the realm with a few more progamers. These are Artosis's thoughts and experiences from his perspective + others of the same race, this is clearly stated and of course it will sound like hes talking down on Zerg, thats the Race the post is mostly about!
And I definitely agree with him on many of the concerns he has addressed, he isn't just making this stuff up.
The main problem is not that Artosis thinks Desert Oasis is a bad map for zerg. That is a matter of opinion, and I and many other disagree with him in this view, but ok, we can't all agree. However the main problem IMO is that Artosis lately has done a poor job in the role of being a journalist. Every thread he makes has been directly og indirectly stating that zerg is too weak and other races too strong. Or that the other races are not played correct, and if played correct would do much better.
A good journalist however, would realize at this time that he had too much focus on the weakness of zerg. And even though he may be correct, he should realize that he is beginning to lose credibility. So when planning to make some articles about the current state of the beta, he should not have started with an article about the weakness of zerg on 3 maps, but should have started with an article discussing bad maps of the other races, or at least written very clearly that in the next article he will analyze the maps in which zerg are too strong, or the maps in which terran/protoss are too weak.
On June 21 2010 00:08 jamesr12 wrote: Artosis why dont you just play terran and dominate everyone if terran is so good and zerg is so bad?
On June 19 2010 22:07 Artosis wrote:
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.
I've always despised top tier pickers. At least, that ruins a game for me personally. Play what you like. I wish Terran was the worst even... I just think they are cool, so I'll be playing them till the end.
On June 21 2010 00:07 Salv wrote: I think it's entirely fair to be criticizing Artosis for this post. Personally, I feel Artosis is known for having the opinion that the race he plays is the weakest and all the other races are stronger and/or have imbalanced units/strategies whatever. I would suspect that if you looked at all of the articles written by Artosis about balance, the vast, vast majority would be favourable towards Zerg in SC2, or Terran in SC1. The point is that I don't think Artosis is objective at all, so when ever I read any thing by him, I'm generally suspicious.
That being said, it's also really hard to comment on what Artosis actually said. If you post any of your own experiences, the rebuttal will be that you're not a top player and that you don't know what you're talking about, or that Idra & Artosis himself disagree. That argument has already been made by Artosis here:
On June 19 2010 22:13 Artosis wrote:
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the 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.
The only comments you can make is if it's statistical arguments against what Artosis is saying, or if you're a top player. If you're just someone talking about their own experiences, that doesn't matter, unless you're supporting the OP, in which case we can probably let that slide.
I really don't agree with you, Artosis busts his ass to go around and get opinions/interviews with people, and do write ups. Someone did say there should have been a bigger discussion in a state of the game cast or something and I agree, but saying Artosis is favoring Zerg and pushing these articles for his own race is non-sense. He obviously understands, experienced and knows things you do not and you think this is what hes doing. However this was recently one of the more controversial posts because many feel differently about DO but a solution has already been imposed by doing a state of the realm with a few more progamers. These are Artosis's thoughts and experiences from his perspective + others of the same race, this is clearly stated and of course it will sound like hes talking down on Zerg, thats the Race the post is mostly about!
And I definitely agree with him on many of the concerns he has addressed, he isn't just making this stuff up.
Like ICCup.Diamond & Hider said, this has nothing to do with Artosis doing a lot for the community. Clearly there are a lot of people with the opinion that Artosis is far too biased towards his own race, which I personally find irritating when others and himself insist that he is being objective. This is a general complaint, as maybe Artosis will release another article detailing maps that Zerg is too strong on, but the overwhelming majority of Artosis' posts and articles always seem to favour Zerg if it's SC2 or Terran if it's SC1. It's a legitimate gripe.
Think most people here are seeing this article wrongly. It's pretty much a general conclusion that a couple of zergs have come up with - which by all means everyone is entitled to do so, and are sharing their view with others. People are seeing this as whine, or simply disagreeing with what is written because - something different happens to them. This article - along with the future few (which are going to talk about zerg's stronger maps) are all going to hit areas that both Artosis and Idra have touched on, and probaly more zerg players and are gonna share their experiences/views with others. I'm quite happy to read this from the other side - although i personally don't agree with every point made i do find it interesting. What people need to stop doing is seeing this article as a whinefest or what ever, i found it pretty nice seeing it from the other side of the table (a zerg's POV) and while i do like discussing stuff, alot of people failed to see the point, Maybe releasing an article on zerg's weaker maps first was a mistake - and should of maybe talked about 1 bad map, and 1 good map for zerg each week to look less biased or what ever - to cause less problems with viewers.
This article was to share with others what zerg players have came to the conclusion over on certain maps - with fairly detailed reasons why, i'm pretty thankful, while some things like DO i would always class as a zerg map - i can some what see it from the other side. People need to stop being so heavy handed with their judgements and opinions - if someone chooses to share something, which he has also talked with friends, top level gamers about then by all means. If i chose to share my opinions - i wouldn't want this kind of response purely because some people disagree with what was said - this is what the beta was for after all, if everybody stayed silent - the game would of advanced on a set of foundations made of badness. People seem to forget that.
On June 21 2010 00:08 jamesr12 wrote: Artosis why dont you just play terran and dominate everyone if terran is so good and zerg is so bad?
How would that solve anything? I'm not on artosis' side, but this is a terrible argument, hypothetically assuming there are balance issues.
I think his point is that there aren't that many balance issues and Artosis needs to stop whining. Maybe it would solve something if Artosis played terran and got his ass handed to him.
I also think that Artosis has some great points as well. Im so sick and tired of hearing someone saying the word biased.... It's kind of like the word awesome, it's been used so much that it doesn't have any meaning anymore, especially in this thread. From a zergs point of view Artosis does a good job of communicating his worries,
On June 21 2010 01:03 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm not going to go into alternate tactical use on these maps right, though I did touch on this briefly earlier, like using drops/nydus/burrowed movement to get around cramped area, but rather to incite the complete shutdown of this thread, on the grounds that there are only enough total games of SC2 played to date for 1 person (if they played every game to date) to be an expert at a race (not the game).
What everyone doesn't seem to realize is that SC2 is NOT SC:BW. It also HASN"T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET. Any discussion by anyone (besides Blizzard themselves) is completely ignorant. At this point in the game nobody has fleshed out ANY single build to its fullest potential.
In case y'all don't remember, Brood War had many many many times where 1 race would dominate, and then someone would come around and revoutionize the matchup creatively and it would switch. Boxer started playing Terran when it was seen as underpowered. Savior (cheating asshole) was practically unbeatable until Bisu 3-0 him. Very rarely was there "balance" at any point in Starcraft history. And remember people, Blizzard has all the race stats globally, and divided by skill, matchup, region, server, etc. They can see if there is a discrepency in win rates, but the rates are different on different leagues and servers, like in the Asia sector where Zerg is dominating.
Think back to TvZ in Brood War. There was so much tactical positioning and response to the enemy it was insane. Terran opens with MMF, which have their own micro idosyncracies, but then the Zerg respond with Lurkers. Lurkers normally pwned marines. Then we learned to micro the marines. Then Zerg throws down Dark Swarms, then we learn to tactically retreat our forces in battle. Or the Zerg learns Muta Micro and learns lots of delaying tactics. For instance, a zergling outside the natural tells you when T moves out, and you throw down sunken colonies only after.
None of these ideas where around when SC was young, they came over a long learning period of years. SC 1 was very unbalanced until a good while after it came out, it wasn't until 1.08/1.09 that the game got really competitive. That's because strategy games have to evolve to even work. Blizzard had no idea how the balance was going to work out when they started SC 1. They let the community figure everything out. And that's the point. We have yet to figure out the many many aspects of SC2.
All of Starcraft has EVOLVED over time. And since SC2 IS NOT SC:BW, no player anywhere, no matter his rank, can yet speak about issues like this. Even Artosis and Idra, with their heavy practice in their builds, still have yet to explore the entirety of their own builds, because SC2 will continue to evolve and throw new challenges towards their builds. I have a lot of respect for Artosis and Idra's skill in SC Brood War, but Brood War skill does not make you an expert at SC2. We have to look at SC2 play only to talk about SC2, and completely ignore any leftover biases or tendencies from Brood War, because they don't apply. And all of us are only playing a BETA, there is not enough SC2 data around for there to be any experts yet. The people that know most about the balance right now are the Blizzard testers. They're the only ones that can actually be objective at this point in development, since SC2 is still in utero.
The idea that people are already so knowledgeable about a game(which isn't even FINISHED yet) that they are completely infallible and make absolutist claims (Z cannot beat T on DO), is completely insane.
That's cool and dandy until you notice there were 15 patches. How do you know this game is balanced or not? You said it yourself that it is not finished yet. The only bad thing I can say about this article is it's name and I think it's the only thing that you read because at the beginning of the article itself Artosis uses word "discussion" multiple times. I can't see any claims about him mastering the Zerg race.
Read this
PLEASE NOTE #1: This article addresses only top-level play. Balance is impossible to properly address at lower levels because there are so many other factors to consider when looking at that level of play.
and tell me what skill and experience do you have to call what Artosis writes inaccurate - this is what you mean by saying it's to early and we should wait for this game to evolve more.
This
PLEASE NOTE #2: I will be ignoring Mech vs Zerg. Properly played Mech is a very powerful strategy that is not yet fully understood which means it skews map and balance analysis in general, so we will discuss non-mech balance when talking about ZvT in this article.
is the same as him saying that his knowledge about Zerg MUs isn't perfect, it isn't complete. And somehow you accuse him of making "absolutist claims". If someone says "let's discuss this" it's the same as "hey, I can be wrong" and once you dig into this thread and find his posts you can see that making absolutist claims is the last thing he wanted to make when writing this article.
edit: BW has evolved but before each step people had problems with certain strategies. Since they had noticed it, they were talking and writing about it. I don't understand what's wrong about people writing what they find problematic. The worst thing that can happen is other top players sharing their point of view and experience they've earned on other servers. Don't forget that playstyles can differ between servers.
On June 21 2010 01:41 v3chr0 wrote: I really don't agree with you, Artosis busts his ass to go around and get opinions from people, someone did say there should have been a bigger discussion in a state of the game cast or something and I agree, but saying Artosis is favoring Zerg and pushing these articles for his own race is non-sense. He obviously understands, experienced and knows things you do not and you think this is what hes doing. However this was recently one of the more controversial posts because many feel differently about DO but a solution has already been imposed by doing a state of the realm with a few more progamers. These are Artosis's thoughts and experiences from his perspective + others of the same race, this is clearly stated and of course it will sound like hes talking down on Zerg, thats the Race the post is mostly about!
I don't think there is a single person in this thread that does not know Artosis has done leaps and bounds for the community.
What I think the collective is upset about is since the release of SCII most of Artosis' main written pieces have become increasingly about bitching about how bad Zerg is and how every patch and well everything hurts them and makes them the weakest race in the game.
For example this article would not get so much hate if he had consulted someone that was non Zerg. Frankly the old anolgy of "it true cause Idra said it" does not hold water anymore. He's not the top player in SCII and is known for his lack of innovation. As soon as he cannot mass one unit he cries IMBA.
Artosis is the fucking man and I love u dude, but the community as a whole seems to be tired of you screaming Zerg are weak. When's the last time you have done any major balance discussion on Protoss? You have access to the same people in the community as me (ie: everyone) so use it.
This week when we do the big map breakdown cast I'm planning I will include all Terran, Protoss, and Zerg. To get two Zerg players together (that play together non stop and have almost mirror styles) is not a good poll. You should look to include other players such as members of .Root, EG, Liquid, etc.....
Again I love Artosis and watch everything he puts out for the community more than once but I feel this is what the community (me included) is really trying to say.
Pretty much agreed with this whole post....I definitely think the maps Artosis discussed are bad. Hell I checked off DO a long time ago cause I just hate playing it. Kulas would be decent if they opened it up a bit though. However, it gets old seeing Artosis talk about how terrible zerg is and how strong other races are in every single artlice/post he makes =\
On June 21 2010 00:07 Salv wrote: I think it's entirely fair to be criticizing Artosis for this post. Personally, I feel Artosis is known for having the opinion that the race he plays is the weakest and all the other races are stronger and/or have imbalanced units/strategies whatever. I would suspect that if you looked at all of the articles written by Artosis about balance, the vast, vast majority would be favourable towards Zerg in SC2, or Terran in SC1. The point is that I don't think Artosis is objective at all, so when ever I read any thing by him, I'm generally suspicious.
That being said, it's also really hard to comment on what Artosis actually said. If you post any of your own experiences, the rebuttal will be that you're not a top player and that you don't know what you're talking about, or that Idra & Artosis himself disagree. That argument has already been made by Artosis here:
On June 19 2010 22:13 Artosis wrote:
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the 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.
The only comments you can make is if it's statistical arguments against what Artosis is saying, or if you're a top player. If you're just someone talking about their own experiences, that doesn't matter, unless you're supporting the OP, in which case we can probably let that slide.
I really don't agree with you, Artosis busts his ass to go around and get opinions/interviews with people, and do write ups. Someone did say there should have been a bigger discussion in a state of the game cast or something and I agree, but saying Artosis is favoring Zerg and pushing these articles for his own race is non-sense. He obviously understands, experienced and knows things you do not and you think this is what hes doing. However this was recently one of the more controversial posts because many feel differently about DO but a solution has already been imposed by doing a state of the realm with a few more progamers. These are Artosis's thoughts and experiences from his perspective + others of the same race, this is clearly stated and of course it will sound like hes talking down on Zerg, thats the Race the post is mostly about!
And I definitely agree with him on many of the concerns he has addressed, he isn't just making this stuff up.
Like ICCup.Diamond & Hider said, this has nothing to do with Artosis doing a lot for the community. Clearly there are a lot of people with the opinion that Artosis is far too biased towards his own race, which I personally find irritating when others and himself insist that he is being objective. This is a general complaint, as maybe Artosis will release another article detailing maps that Zerg is too strong on, but the overwhelming majority of Artosis' posts and articles always seem to favour Zerg if it's SC2 or Terran if it's SC1. It's a legitimate gripe.
On June 21 2010 02:32 DeMusliM wrote: Think most people here are seeing this article wrongly. It's pretty much a general conclusion that a couple of zergs have come up with - which by all means everyone is entitled to do so, and are sharing their view with others. People are seeing this as whine, or simply disagreeing with what is written because - something different happens to them. This article - along with the future few (which are going to talk about zerg's stronger maps) are all going to hit areas that both Artosis and Idra have touched on, and probaly more zerg players and are gonna share their experiences/views with others. I'm quite happy to read this from the other side - although i personally don't agree with every point made i do find it interesting. What people need to stop doing is seeing this article as a whinefest or what ever, i found it pretty nice seeing it from the other side of the table (a zerg's POV) and while i do like discussing stuff, alot of people failed to see the point, Maybe releasing an article on zerg's weaker maps first was a mistake - and should of maybe talked about 1 bad map, and 1 good map for zerg each week to look less biased or what ever - to cause less problems with viewers.
This article was to share with others what zerg players have came to the conclusion over on certain maps - with fairly detailed reasons why, i'm pretty thankful, while some things like DO i would always class as a zerg map - i can some what see it from the other side. People need to stop being so heavy handed with their judgements and opinions - if someone chooses to share something, which he has also talked with friends, top level gamers about then by all means. If i chose to share my opinions - i wouldn't want this kind of response purely because some people disagree with what was said - this is what the beta was for after all, if everybody stayed silent - the game would of advanced on a set of foundations made of badness. People seem to forget that.
Demuslim is definitely right, you guys have a different opinion and make it seem like if it's not in favor of your opinion, it's bias annoying slander. Don't read his articles if you think it's biased, it clearly isn't and he is just relaying all his experience playing Zerg, whats the big damn deal? Some things have to be written in one perspective so its not diluted and the points get across. Instead of Artosis filling the job of 8 people doing write ups and playing each race really thoroughly maybe more emphasis should be on others reading/doing more Terran and Protoss write ups if people are really threatened that Artosis complaints will turn Zerg into a landslide of death, which isn't the case, just sharing his/others perspective and ideas.
On June 21 2010 01:03 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm not going to go into alternate tactical use on these maps right, though I did touch on this briefly earlier, like using drops/nydus/burrowed movement to get around cramped area, but rather to incite the complete shutdown of this thread, on the grounds that there are only enough total games of SC2 played to date for 1 person (if they played every game to date) to be an expert at a race (not the game).
What everyone doesn't seem to realize is that SC2 is NOT SC:BW. It also HASN"T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET. Any discussion by anyone (besides Blizzard themselves) is completely ignorant. At this point in the game nobody has fleshed out ANY single build to its fullest potential.
In case y'all don't remember, Brood War had many many many times where 1 race would dominate, and then someone would come around and revoutionize the matchup creatively and it would switch. Boxer started playing Terran when it was seen as underpowered. Savior (cheating asshole) was practically unbeatable until Bisu 3-0 him. Very rarely was there "balance" at any point in Starcraft history. And remember people, Blizzard has all the race stats globally, and divided by skill, matchup, region, server, etc. They can see if there is a discrepency in win rates, but the rates are different on different leagues and servers, like in the Asia sector where Zerg is dominating.
Think back to TvZ in Brood War. There was so much tactical positioning and response to the enemy it was insane. Terran opens with MMF, which have their own micro idosyncracies, but then the Zerg respond with Lurkers. Lurkers normally pwned marines. Then we learned to micro the marines. Then Zerg throws down Dark Swarms, then we learn to tactically retreat our forces in battle. Or the Zerg learns Muta Micro and learns lots of delaying tactics. For instance, a zergling outside the natural tells you when T moves out, and you throw down sunken colonies only after.
None of these ideas where around when SC was young, they came over a long learning period of years. SC 1 was very unbalanced until a good while after it came out, it wasn't until 1.08/1.09 that the game got really competitive. That's because strategy games have to evolve to even work. Blizzard had no idea how the balance was going to work out when they started SC 1. They let the community figure everything out. And that's the point. We have yet to figure out the many many aspects of SC2.
All of Starcraft has EVOLVED over time. And since SC2 IS NOT SC:BW, no player anywhere, no matter his rank, can yet speak about issues like this. Even Artosis and Idra, with their heavy practice in their builds, still have yet to explore the entirety of their own builds, because SC2 will continue to evolve and throw new challenges towards their builds. I have a lot of respect for Artosis and Idra's skill in SC Brood War, but Brood War skill does not make you an expert at SC2. We have to look at SC2 play only to talk about SC2, and completely ignore any leftover biases or tendencies from Brood War, because they don't apply. And all of us are only playing a BETA, there is not enough SC2 data around for there to be any experts yet. The people that know most about the balance right now are the Blizzard testers. They're the only ones that can actually be objective at this point in development, since SC2 is still in utero.
The idea that people are already so knowledgeable about a game(which isn't even FINISHED yet) that they are completely infallible and make absolutist claims (Z cannot beat T on DO), is completely insane.
That's cool and dandy until you notice there were 15 patches. How do you know this game is balanced or not? You said it yourself that it is not finished yet. The only bad thing I can say about this article is it's name and I think it's the only thing that you read because at the beginning of the article itself Artosis uses word "discussion" multiple times. I can't see any claims about him mastering the Zerg race.
PLEASE NOTE #1: This article addresses only top-level play. Balance is impossible to properly address at lower levels because there are so many other factors to consider when looking at that level of play.
and tell me what skill and experience do you have to call what Artosis writes inaccurate - this is what you mean by saying it's to early and we should wait for this game to evolve more.
PLEASE NOTE #2: I will be ignoring Mech vs Zerg. Properly played Mech is a very powerful strategy that is not yet fully understood which means it skews map and balance analysis in general, so we will discuss non-mech balance when talking about ZvT in this article.
is the same as him saying that his knowledge about Zerg MUs isn't perfect, it isn't complete. And somehow you accuse him of making "absolutist claims". If someone says "let's discuss this" it's the same as "hey, I can be wrong" and once you dig into this thread and find his posts you can see that making absolutist claims is the last thing he wanted to make when writing this article.
edit: BW has evolved but before each step people had problems with certain strategies. Since they had noticed it, they were talking and writing about it. I don't understand what's wrong about people writing what they find problematic. The worst thing that can happen is other top players sharing their point of view and experience they've earned on other servers. Don't forget that playstyles can differ between servers.
You misunderstand me. I would very much wish that this be a discussion. However, this article is not written to foster discussion. My main gripe is the complete lack of detail in the article. I did the read the entire thing more than once, and my problem is that he glosses over every single aspect he brings up. If you want to discuss something, discuss it, don't just mention it and give an ultimatum that the matchup is impossible on the map.
Every single point brung up in the original article is explained quite shallowly. No responses to problems are discussed, only that they exist, and many of them overlap (wide open expansion, ledge behind rocks). Instead of trying to explore solutions the article merely dismisses any attempt the Zerg could make to do anything against the problems. This article is not discussion. This article is a rant.
I agree, Zerg is imbalanced. Could the spell checker for this site include into the reference "zerg" so that it doesn't get underlined as having the incorrect spelling? Protoss should be added to the spell checker reference.
I really liked the Blizzard map pool during the beta. The maps had variety and you saw a wide range of play styles on each of them. Sure, there might be some issues with particular maps and a given play style, but without this variety in the map pool many aspects of the game would have gone untouched and untested. Having a base with a breakable back door was really frustrating to me, but Blizzard had to test the idea out to see if it could work. The breakable rock back doors actually added a lot of value to certain maps as variant strategies were available.
The more I read here and the more streams I watch, the more I get the impression that people want this game to be just like Brood War. Creating the game to be exactly like Brood War would be boring and there is already very little difference in the units that are currently in the game compared with BW. To me the main difference between the two games is user interface and graphics. With that said, I hope it is not the case that a Zerg player MUST do a quick expansion just like I hope it is not the case that Protoss MUST FE vs. a Zerg.
On June 21 2010 01:03 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm not going to go into alternate tactical use on these maps right, though I did touch on this briefly earlier, like using drops/nydus/burrowed movement to get around cramped area, but rather to incite the complete shutdown of this thread, on the grounds that there are only enough total games of SC2 played to date for 1 person (if they played every game to date) to be an expert at a race (not the game).
What everyone doesn't seem to realize is that SC2 is NOT SC:BW. It also HASN"T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET. Any discussion by anyone (besides Blizzard themselves) is completely ignorant. At this point in the game nobody has fleshed out ANY single build to its fullest potential.
In case y'all don't remember, Brood War had many many many times where 1 race would dominate, and then someone would come around and revoutionize the matchup creatively and it would switch. Boxer started playing Terran when it was seen as underpowered. Savior (cheating asshole) was practically unbeatable until Bisu 3-0 him. Very rarely was there "balance" at any point in Starcraft history. And remember people, Blizzard has all the race stats globally, and divided by skill, matchup, region, server, etc. They can see if there is a discrepency in win rates, but the rates are different on different leagues and servers, like in the Asia sector where Zerg is dominating.
Think back to TvZ in Brood War. There was so much tactical positioning and response to the enemy it was insane. Terran opens with MMF, which have their own micro idosyncracies, but then the Zerg respond with Lurkers. Lurkers normally pwned marines. Then we learned to micro the marines. Then Zerg throws down Dark Swarms, then we learn to tactically retreat our forces in battle. Or the Zerg learns Muta Micro and learns lots of delaying tactics. For instance, a zergling outside the natural tells you when T moves out, and you throw down sunken colonies only after.
None of these ideas where around when SC was young, they came over a long learning period of years. SC 1 was very unbalanced until a good while after it came out, it wasn't until 1.08/1.09 that the game got really competitive. That's because strategy games have to evolve to even work. Blizzard had no idea how the balance was going to work out when they started SC 1. They let the community figure everything out. And that's the point. We have yet to figure out the many many aspects of SC2.
All of Starcraft has EVOLVED over time. And since SC2 IS NOT SC:BW, no player anywhere, no matter his rank, can yet speak about issues like this. Even Artosis and Idra, with their heavy practice in their builds, still have yet to explore the entirety of their own builds, because SC2 will continue to evolve and throw new challenges towards their builds. I have a lot of respect for Artosis and Idra's skill in SC Brood War, but Brood War skill does not make you an expert at SC2. We have to look at SC2 play only to talk about SC2, and completely ignore any leftover biases or tendencies from Brood War, because they don't apply. And all of us are only playing a BETA, there is not enough SC2 data around for there to be any experts yet. The people that know most about the balance right now are the Blizzard testers. They're the only ones that can actually be objective at this point in development, since SC2 is still in utero.
The idea that people are already so knowledgeable about a game(which isn't even FINISHED yet) that they are completely infallible and make absolutist claims (Z cannot beat T on DO), is completely insane.
That's cool and dandy until you notice there were 15 patches. How do you know this game is balanced or not? You said it yourself that it is not finished yet. The only bad thing I can say about this article is it's name and I think it's the only thing that you read because at the beginning of the article itself Artosis uses word "discussion" multiple times. I can't see any claims about him mastering the Zerg race.
PLEASE NOTE #1: This article addresses only top-level play. Balance is impossible to properly address at lower levels because there are so many other factors to consider when looking at that level of play.
and tell me what skill and experience do you have to call what Artosis writes inaccurate - this is what you mean by saying it's to early and we should wait for this game to evolve more.
PLEASE NOTE #2: I will be ignoring Mech vs Zerg. Properly played Mech is a very powerful strategy that is not yet fully understood which means it skews map and balance analysis in general, so we will discuss non-mech balance when talking about ZvT in this article.
is the same as him saying that his knowledge about Zerg MUs isn't perfect, it isn't complete. And somehow you accuse him of making "absolutist claims". If someone says "let's discuss this" it's the same as "hey, I can be wrong" and once you dig into this thread and find his posts you can see that making absolutist claims is the last thing he wanted to make when writing this article.
edit: BW has evolved but before each step people had problems with certain strategies. Since they had noticed it, they were talking and writing about it. I don't understand what's wrong about people writing what they find problematic. The worst thing that can happen is other top players sharing their point of view and experience they've earned on other servers. Don't forget that playstyles can differ between servers.
You misunderstand me. I would very much wish that this be a discussion. However, this article is not written to foster discussion. My main gripe is the complete lack of detail in the article. I did the read the entire thing more than once, and my problem is that he glosses over every single aspect he brings up. If you want to discuss something, discuss it, don't just mention it and give an ultimatum that the matchup is impossible on the map.
Every single point brung up in the original article is explained quite shallowly. No responses to problems are discussed, only that they exist, and many of them overlap (wide open expansion, ledge behind rocks). Instead of trying to explore solutions the article merely dismisses any attempt the Zerg could make to do anything against the problems. This article is not discussion. This article is a rant.
You're right, it's a rant, and on most forums rants in balance forums get closed almost immediately, and the only reason this one isn't still is because Artosis wrote it and mentioned IdrA.
Also, Artosis hasn't posted since like page 10, so I'm hoping he realized it wasn't a very thought out article and there's really nothing to discuss until he presents substantiated arguments.
If anyone is interested in exploring solutions to the problems, please post on this thread. However, if you aren't going to advance any ideas of how to deal with problems please refrain from posting and flaming any of the venerable members.
I would very much like to discuss any solutions to the perceived problems. Let's make this thread actually have a point, instead of just being a shoutfest.
I agree, Zerg is imbalanced. Could the spell checker for this site include into the reference "zerg" so that it doesn't get underlined as having the incorrect spelling? Protoss should be added to the spell checker reference.
There is no spell checker - if you are using firefox, that's probably the built in spell checker you are seeing.
Instead of looking at how Zerg are deficient against other races i think its best to look at where erg cani be improved.
I think that the consensus of this thread is that terrain matters.... And it matters big time. Quite frankly the zerg race are incredibly deficient at using the terrain to there advantage. In many ways this makes sense as their units are not made to do so (a la the siege tank).
To me instead of saying a map needs to be changed i think it should be more along the lines of, how can zerg better deal with the problems that terrain creates. Right now there are no answers and i think we can all agree that we want maps with cliffs and other great terrain features.
On June 21 2010 03:33 Fyrewolf wrote: If anyone is interested in exploring solutions to the problems, please post on this thread. However, if you aren't going to advance any ideas of how to deal with problems please refrain from posting and flaming any of the venerable members.
I would very much like to discuss any solutions to the perceived problems. Let's make this thread actually have a point, instead of just being a shoutfest.
good point there.
btt: i wonder if most of the adressed problems are really map issues.
imo the problem lies in zergs need of a very early expansion and therefore struggling defending both while saturating.
just writing this feals wrong, since i kinda want zerg to need a fast expansion just because i am used to due to SC:BW.
On June 21 2010 00:07 Salv wrote: I think it's entirely fair to be criticizing Artosis for this post. Personally, I feel Artosis is known for having the opinion that the race he plays is the weakest and all the other races are stronger and/or have imbalanced units/strategies whatever. I would suspect that if you looked at all of the articles written by Artosis about balance, the vast, vast majority would be favourable towards Zerg in SC2, or Terran in SC1. The point is that I don't think Artosis is objective at all, so when ever I read any thing by him, I'm generally suspicious.
That being said, it's also really hard to comment on what Artosis actually said. If you post any of your own experiences, the rebuttal will be that you're not a top player and that you don't know what you're talking about, or that Idra & Artosis himself disagree. That argument has already been made by Artosis here:
On June 19 2010 22:13 Artosis wrote:
On June 19 2010 22:08 Hider wrote: Every interview/article I read about Artosis, he always talk about how weak zerg is and how strong all other races are. Then he interviews Tester and make a new thread with the subject that he thinks terran is the strongest race. If he had answered zerg, I am sure we would not have seen any new threads.
While I do agree that zerg is the weakest race right now, I think that a person with such a respected name as Artosis should be a lot more objective, and not be too biased. And zerg definately has the 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.
The only comments you can make is if it's statistical arguments against what Artosis is saying, or if you're a top player. If you're just someone talking about their own experiences, that doesn't matter, unless you're supporting the OP, in which case we can probably let that slide.
I really don't agree with you, Artosis busts his ass to go around and get opinions/interviews with people, and do write ups. Someone did say there should have been a bigger discussion in a state of the game cast or something and I agree, but saying Artosis is favoring Zerg and pushing these articles for his own race is non-sense. He obviously understands, experienced and knows things you do not and you think this is what hes doing. However this was recently one of the more controversial posts because many feel differently about DO but a solution has already been imposed by doing a state of the realm with a few more progamers. These are Artosis's thoughts and experiences from his perspective + others of the same race, this is clearly stated and of course it will sound like hes talking down on Zerg, thats the Race the post is mostly about!
And I definitely agree with him on many of the concerns he has addressed, he isn't just making this stuff up.
Like ICCup.Diamond & Hider said, this has nothing to do with Artosis doing a lot for the community. Clearly there are a lot of people with the opinion that Artosis is far too biased towards his own race, which I personally find irritating when others and himself insist that he is being objective. This is a general complaint, as maybe Artosis will release another article detailing maps that Zerg is too strong on, but the overwhelming majority of Artosis' posts and articles always seem to favour Zerg if it's SC2 or Terran if it's SC1. It's a legitimate gripe.
On June 21 2010 02:32 DeMusliM wrote: Think most people here are seeing this article wrongly. It's pretty much a general conclusion that a couple of zergs have come up with - which by all means everyone is entitled to do so, and are sharing their view with others. People are seeing this as whine, or simply disagreeing with what is written because - something different happens to them. This article - along with the future few (which are going to talk about zerg's stronger maps) are all going to hit areas that both Artosis and Idra have touched on, and probaly more zerg players and are gonna share their experiences/views with others. I'm quite happy to read this from the other side - although i personally don't agree with every point made i do find it interesting. What people need to stop doing is seeing this article as a whinefest or what ever, i found it pretty nice seeing it from the other side of the table (a zerg's POV) and while i do like discussing stuff, alot of people failed to see the point, Maybe releasing an article on zerg's weaker maps first was a mistake - and should of maybe talked about 1 bad map, and 1 good map for zerg each week to look less biased or what ever - to cause less problems with viewers.
This article was to share with others what zerg players have came to the conclusion over on certain maps - with fairly detailed reasons why, i'm pretty thankful, while some things like DO i would always class as a zerg map - i can some what see it from the other side. People need to stop being so heavy handed with their judgements and opinions - if someone chooses to share something, which he has also talked with friends, top level gamers about then by all means. If i chose to share my opinions - i wouldn't want this kind of response purely because some people disagree with what was said - this is what the beta was for after all, if everybody stayed silent - the game would of advanced on a set of foundations made of badness. People seem to forget that.
Demuslim is definitely right, you guys have a different opinion and make it seem like if it's not in favor of your opinion, it's bias annoying slander. Don't read his articles if you think it's biased, it clearly isn't and he is just relaying all his experience playing Zerg, whats the big damn deal? Some things have to be written in one perspective so its not diluted and the points get across. Instead of Artosis filling the job of 8 people doing write ups and playing each race really thoroughly maybe more emphasis should be on others reading/doing more Terran and Protoss write ups if people are really threatened that Artosis complaints will turn Zerg into a landslide of death, which isn't the case, just sharing his/others perspective and ideas.
Artosis is free to share his bias, and I'm free to criticize it. The idea that I should just not view the thread is illogical. Why should we close any threads then? Why do threads full of bias with out any supporting evidence get closed? You could say in any of those cases that it's a perspective and we should just ignore it. Why did you even respond to my comment? If you don't like it, don't read it *eyeroll*.
Artosis wanted feedback, and I am giving it to him: I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously because he consistently presents a biased viewpoint.
EDIT: The point is a general complaint about Artosis' articles, not necessarily pointing at this direct article. I've stated that in a previous post.
One thing I would like to see more of from high-level zerg play (other than nydus worms, which rule and have been used more recently), would be to see more delaying/harrass tactics involving the Zergs incredible map control. Like having Unburrow on autocast and planting some units to cover those narrow attack paths. There are so many possibilities left to explore in SC2.
Zerg does feel weaker on tier 1, but I think it's supposed to feel weaker. Protoss has naturally stronger units the same way. This means that zerg doesn't want direct confrontation, because of the squishyness of units. The zerg also can have vision over the entire map for free pretty much with creep tumours. Also I feel that territorial power is a new power to SC2 that was less prominent in Brood War, just like economic power, army power, production power, tech power, or even threat power (BW Mutas keep you from leaving your base early). Xel-naga towers make territorial power much more interesting, as if you can maintain the territory, you get free map vision, as well as many maps having multiple entrances to bases that are best covered from an point more towards the middle of the map, the so-called "sweet spot" on maps like Blistering Sands.
In Brood War I don't assault a Terran Main and wonder why his siege expand slaughtered the hydras. I drop the hydras in the back and take out his base. While true for every race its more true for Zerg, that you should never ever EVER attack where your enemy wants you to. Thus I want to see the use of map control with the right pressure in the right places to completely overrun opponents more, with abilities and units like Burrow and Nydus especially.
I think most of these players are not playing for the map and playing for the MU
why should they bend their play to the map? you can notice from several turnaments that idra forces his strategy to work via overlord drops and flanking rather than abandone his entire gameplan, its nothing new.
What?...Because if they want to win then they have to take the map into consideration....Because they are different. Have you ever played Starcraft before?
With that said, I hope it is not the case that a Zerg player MUST do a quick expansion just like I hope it is not the case that Protoss MUST FE vs. a Zerg.
I actually hope that zerg do have to fast expo, or at least outexpand their opponent. My reasoning for this is that if they don't, then Zerg would have to become a lot more similiar to Terran or Protoss, to be able to play 1 base effectively.
On June 21 2010 01:03 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm not going to go into alternate tactical use on these maps right, though I did touch on this briefly earlier, like using drops/nydus/burrowed movement to get around cramped area, but rather to incite the complete shutdown of this thread, on the grounds that there are only enough total games of SC2 played to date for 1 person (if they played every game to date) to be an expert at a race (not the game).
What everyone doesn't seem to realize is that SC2 is NOT SC:BW. It also HASN"T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET. Any discussion by anyone (besides Blizzard themselves) is completely ignorant. At this point in the game nobody has fleshed out ANY single build to its fullest potential.
In case y'all don't remember, Brood War had many many many times where 1 race would dominate, and then someone would come around and revoutionize the matchup creatively and it would switch. Boxer started playing Terran when it was seen as underpowered. Savior (cheating asshole) was practically unbeatable until Bisu 3-0 him. Very rarely was there "balance" at any point in Starcraft history. And remember people, Blizzard has all the race stats globally, and divided by skill, matchup, region, server, etc. They can see if there is a discrepency in win rates, but the rates are different on different leagues and servers, like in the Asia sector where Zerg is dominating.
Think back to TvZ in Brood War. There was so much tactical positioning and response to the enemy it was insane. Terran opens with MMF, which have their own micro idosyncracies, but then the Zerg respond with Lurkers. Lurkers normally pwned marines. Then we learned to micro the marines. Then Zerg throws down Dark Swarms, then we learn to tactically retreat our forces in battle. Or the Zerg learns Muta Micro and learns lots of delaying tactics. For instance, a zergling outside the natural tells you when T moves out, and you throw down sunken colonies only after.
None of these ideas where around when SC was young, they came over a long learning period of years. SC 1 was very unbalanced until a good while after it came out, it wasn't until 1.08/1.09 that the game got really competitive. That's because strategy games have to evolve to even work. Blizzard had no idea how the balance was going to work out when they started SC 1. They let the community figure everything out. And that's the point. We have yet to figure out the many many aspects of SC2.
All of Starcraft has EVOLVED over time. And since SC2 IS NOT SC:BW, no player anywhere, no matter his rank, can yet speak about issues like this. Even Artosis and Idra, with their heavy practice in their builds, still have yet to explore the entirety of their own builds, because SC2 will continue to evolve and throw new challenges towards their builds. I have a lot of respect for Artosis and Idra's skill in SC Brood War, but Brood War skill does not make you an expert at SC2. We have to look at SC2 play only to talk about SC2, and completely ignore any leftover biases or tendencies from Brood War, because they don't apply. And all of us are only playing a BETA, there is not enough SC2 data around for there to be any experts yet. The people that know most about the balance right now are the Blizzard testers. They're the only ones that can actually be objective at this point in development, since SC2 is still in utero.
The idea that people are already so knowledgeable about a game(which isn't even FINISHED yet) that they are completely infallible and make absolutist claims (Z cannot beat T on DO), is completely insane.
That's cool and dandy until you notice there were 15 patches. How do you know this game is balanced or not? You said it yourself that it is not finished yet. The only bad thing I can say about this article is it's name and I think it's the only thing that you read because at the beginning of the article itself Artosis uses word "discussion" multiple times. I can't see any claims about him mastering the Zerg race.
PLEASE NOTE #1: This article addresses only top-level play. Balance is impossible to properly address at lower levels because there are so many other factors to consider when looking at that level of play.
and tell me what skill and experience do you have to call what Artosis writes inaccurate - this is what you mean by saying it's to early and we should wait for this game to evolve more.
PLEASE NOTE #2: I will be ignoring Mech vs Zerg. Properly played Mech is a very powerful strategy that is not yet fully understood which means it skews map and balance analysis in general, so we will discuss non-mech balance when talking about ZvT in this article.
is the same as him saying that his knowledge about Zerg MUs isn't perfect, it isn't complete. And somehow you accuse him of making "absolutist claims". If someone says "let's discuss this" it's the same as "hey, I can be wrong" and once you dig into this thread and find his posts you can see that making absolutist claims is the last thing he wanted to make when writing this article.
edit: BW has evolved but before each step people had problems with certain strategies. Since they had noticed it, they were talking and writing about it. I don't understand what's wrong about people writing what they find problematic. The worst thing that can happen is other top players sharing their point of view and experience they've earned on other servers. Don't forget that playstyles can differ between servers.
You misunderstand me. I would very much wish that this be a discussion. However, this article is not written to foster discussion. My main gripe is the complete lack of detail in the article. I did the read the entire thing more than once, and my problem is that he glosses over every single aspect he brings up. If you want to discuss something, discuss it, don't just mention it and give an ultimatum that the matchup is impossible on the map.
Every single point brung up in the original article is explained quite shallowly. No responses to problems are discussed, only that they exist, and many of them overlap (wide open expansion, ledge behind rocks). Instead of trying to explore solutions the article merely dismisses any attempt the Zerg could make to do anything against the problems. This article is not discussion. This article is a rant.
I thought that was your 1st post in this thread.
I guess it shouldn't be a problem for him to add few details like opening builds and replays. I think he decided to focus on what's the problem with maps only because otherwise article would at least double in size but not necessarily be that much better. All we can say about doing something different is theorycrafting with all servers down and no date for the next phase set yet.
I agree with this:
On June 20 2010 06:31 Paramore wrote: I like how zerg players feel that they should automatically have a free expansion. They have no clue that they could easily play one-base and expand later, like every other race. Its like if they can't have 2-base they think its imbalanced. Too bad protoss production buildlings can't act as an extra nexus that we can put at our natural and just saturate with probes while building an army.
Not saying that its an imbalanced matchup, but seriously, you can't call a map bad just because the other races can put pressure early on a fast expansion. If you want an expansion, you should have to defend it. Its not fuckin free.
except in BW every race can fast expand in ZvsX, inability for every race to do this in SC2 was and I think it remains a huge concern.
On June 21 2010 01:03 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm not going to go into alternate tactical use on these maps right, though I did touch on this briefly earlier, like using drops/nydus/burrowed movement to get around cramped area, but rather to incite the complete shutdown of this thread, on the grounds that there are only enough total games of SC2 played to date for 1 person (if they played every game to date) to be an expert at a race (not the game).
What everyone doesn't seem to realize is that SC2 is NOT SC:BW. It also HASN"T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET. Any discussion by anyone (besides Blizzard themselves) is completely ignorant. At this point in the game nobody has fleshed out ANY single build to its fullest potential.
In case y'all don't remember, Brood War had many many many times where 1 race would dominate, and then someone would come around and revoutionize the matchup creatively and it would switch. Boxer started playing Terran when it was seen as underpowered. Savior (cheating asshole) was practically unbeatable until Bisu 3-0 him. Very rarely was there "balance" at any point in Starcraft history. And remember people, Blizzard has all the race stats globally, and divided by skill, matchup, region, server, etc. They can see if there is a discrepency in win rates, but the rates are different on different leagues and servers, like in the Asia sector where Zerg is dominating.
Think back to TvZ in Brood War. There was so much tactical positioning and response to the enemy it was insane. Terran opens with MMF, which have their own micro idosyncracies, but then the Zerg respond with Lurkers. Lurkers normally pwned marines. Then we learned to micro the marines. Then Zerg throws down Dark Swarms, then we learn to tactically retreat our forces in battle. Or the Zerg learns Muta Micro and learns lots of delaying tactics. For instance, a zergling outside the natural tells you when T moves out, and you throw down sunken colonies only after.
None of these ideas where around when SC was young, they came over a long learning period of years. SC 1 was very unbalanced until a good while after it came out, it wasn't until 1.08/1.09 that the game got really competitive. That's because strategy games have to evolve to even work. Blizzard had no idea how the balance was going to work out when they started SC 1. They let the community figure everything out. And that's the point. We have yet to figure out the many many aspects of SC2.
All of Starcraft has EVOLVED over time. And since SC2 IS NOT SC:BW, no player anywhere, no matter his rank, can yet speak about issues like this. Even Artosis and Idra, with their heavy practice in their builds, still have yet to explore the entirety of their own builds, because SC2 will continue to evolve and throw new challenges towards their builds. I have a lot of respect for Artosis and Idra's skill in SC Brood War, but Brood War skill does not make you an expert at SC2. We have to look at SC2 play only to talk about SC2, and completely ignore any leftover biases or tendencies from Brood War, because they don't apply. And all of us are only playing a BETA, there is not enough SC2 data around for there to be any experts yet. The people that know most about the balance right now are the Blizzard testers. They're the only ones that can actually be objective at this point in development, since SC2 is still in utero.
The idea that people are already so knowledgeable about a game(which isn't even FINISHED yet) that they are completely infallible and make absolutist claims (Z cannot beat T on DO), is completely insane.
That's cool and dandy until you notice there were 15 patches. How do you know this game is balanced or not? You said it yourself that it is not finished yet. The only bad thing I can say about this article is it's name and I think it's the only thing that you read because at the beginning of the article itself Artosis uses word "discussion" multiple times. I can't see any claims about him mastering the Zerg race.
PLEASE NOTE #1: This article addresses only top-level play. Balance is impossible to properly address at lower levels because there are so many other factors to consider when looking at that level of play.
and tell me what skill and experience do you have to call what Artosis writes inaccurate - this is what you mean by saying it's to early and we should wait for this game to evolve more.
PLEASE NOTE #2: I will be ignoring Mech vs Zerg. Properly played Mech is a very powerful strategy that is not yet fully understood which means it skews map and balance analysis in general, so we will discuss non-mech balance when talking about ZvT in this article.
is the same as him saying that his knowledge about Zerg MUs isn't perfect, it isn't complete. And somehow you accuse him of making "absolutist claims". If someone says "let's discuss this" it's the same as "hey, I can be wrong" and once you dig into this thread and find his posts you can see that making absolutist claims is the last thing he wanted to make when writing this article.
edit: BW has evolved but before each step people had problems with certain strategies. Since they had noticed it, they were talking and writing about it. I don't understand what's wrong about people writing what they find problematic. The worst thing that can happen is other top players sharing their point of view and experience they've earned on other servers. Don't forget that playstyles can differ between servers.
Problem is, he never says it is supposed to be a discussion. The article is a summary of the things that he and Idra find issues with on these maps and conclusions are drawn when they shouldnt be. Whether they were unintended conclusions I dont know, but the fact that they are in there make this article rubbish, especially when he makes a claim that it is to be an objective look. An objective look at map balance would imply that he would want to look at all of the angles, even from other races, but he only focuses on zerg.
I also dislike how you call somebody out on skill. Personally I am only high ranked diamond, but thats all I can really say. I have been unable to really participate in any tournaments or try for a #1 spot because of work and other things. Does this mean that my opinion on the matter is invalid?
EDIT: To clarify. If I write an article, I can say discuss multiple times, but that does not mean I want to have an active discussion about it with people. It merely means I want to bring the point up.
one observation that the flamers neglect to realize about Artosis' article is that he never actually discusses a mech "strategy". Rather, he comments about the viability of certain openings and "tactics", some of which include mech units, i.e. Thor, Viking, Hellion. It is important to distinguish discussion between certain mech-incorporated tactics and a mech-oriented build/strategy. Artosis does not contradict himself and discuss the latter.
tbh, the TvZ harassment tactics viable on maps like KR are leagues less viable on DO b/c of the differences in terrain for each of the maps. True, the nat is difficult to defend on DO, but unlike KR, there is no abusable high grd that Vikings and Thors can exploit so effectively. Due to the same reason, the main fairly easily defended as well. And once the spire tech is complete, mutas are able to contain the Terran very effectively since they will find it difficult to expand. The early game does not encourage fast expo for the Zerg, but as midgame arises, the ability of Zerg to expand creep and secure their expos feel far more manageable than the other races.
so while Artosis has claimed that these 3 are the worst maps for Zerg, and whether this may be true or not, I feel that DO is far better than the other two mentioned.
I think Artosis should have led with the "Zerg is OP on these maps" article.
He's been getting a reputation, less so than Idra though, about complaining that Zerg is too weak. I think too many people took this as another "omg another zerg whinefest" without actually bothering to open their minds a little, and had that perspective while reading the entire article.
Think Artosis should have started with maps that favour Zerg, so people realise that he can do something else.
Alright, let me address a few things in this thread.
If you actually read the article, you would realize, I did not say anything about Zerg being too weak or underpowered.
If you actually read the article, you would realize, that more articles are coming, ones on the maps that are "OK" and "GOOD" for Zerg. Perhaps I should have known that a bunch of flamers would come in and started with the good Zerg maps.
Calling me biased because I disagree with you on a single map's balance, and personally flaming me, seems a bit rough, doesn't it?
Obviously things can/will change over time. A ton of thought, discussion, and thousands of games vs some of the best players in the world, went into the creation of this article. I haven't seen any other top players produce an article like this. Now I doubt we ever will. They will just get flamed.
I've given everyone a straight view into what IdrA and I, (two of the top Zerg players), are thinking on these 3 maps in SC2. You may disagree. To flame me, call my article garbage, call me biased, flame me personally, say that I only play 1 style and want everything to fit into that (complete BS btw), or any of the other ridiculous things I've seen in this thread, is something that should not be done.
The SC community has always been the greatest community in eSports. No question. Everyone agrees with that. But, this thread feels like the CS community, not the SC community.
On June 21 2010 10:11 Artosis wrote: The SC community has always been the greatest community in eSports. No question. Everyone agrees with that. But, this thread feels like the CS community, not the SC community.
buh-zing!
Seriously though, it feels like quite a few posts these days are people setting up or defending their SC2 egos before the game is even released. If you truly believe anything you write, which I assume you do, I wouldn't worry to much about any reply stating your bias. Either you'll be right or wrong in time, but your opinion will be valid regardless as you've been around forever and live at the heart of it.
It was nice to learn few map specific tricks from between lines of your article. Was generaly entertaining to read as well. Keep up the good work for people who actualy appriciate it and dont mind flamers.
On June 21 2010 10:11 Artosis wrote: The SC community has always been the greatest community in eSports. No question. Everyone agrees with that. But, this thread feels like the CS community, not the SC community.
Do you think "Zerg can't defeat Terran on Desert Oasis" is an unbiased and critically thought-out statement?
Do you think that a month before the game is released, anyone has enough knowledge to say this?
On June 21 2010 10:11 Artosis wrote: The SC community has always been the greatest community in eSports. No question. Everyone agrees with that. But, this thread feels like the CS community, not the SC community.
Do you think "Zerg can't defeat Terran on Desert Oasis" is an unbiased and critically thought-out statement?
Do you think that a month before the game is released, anyone has enough knowledge to say this?
Still though, its just his opinion on the worst maps to play zerg on. Anyways, I found the article an interesting read, even though I don't entirely agree with it (Desert Oasis is one of the best Zerg maps). Its always nice to find other peoples opinions on certain matters.
On June 21 2010 10:11 Artosis wrote: The SC community has always been the greatest community in eSports. No question. Everyone agrees with that. But, this thread feels like the CS community, not the SC community.
Do you think "Zerg can't defeat Terran on Desert Oasis" is an unbiased and critically thought-out statement?
Do you think that a month before the game is released, anyone has enough knowledge to say this?
I go into great detail as to why we feel this way. Our win %'s on this map for ZvT are even worse than Incineration Zone. Now I have a question for you. Do you think that all of your flames throughout this thread are called for?
As for "does anyone have enough knowledge to say this?", I've stated several times, that this is a window into what we are experiencing. I guess, really, I just shouldn't write articles and contribute to the community then? Your thoughts?
On June 21 2010 11:11 Artosis wrote: I go into great detail as to why we feel this way. Our win %'s on this map for ZvT are even worse than Incineration Zone. Now I have a question for you. Do you think that all of your flames throughout this thread are called for?
As for "does anyone have enough knowledge to say this?", I've stated several times, that this is a window into what we are experiencing. I guess, really, I just shouldn't write articles and contribute to the community then? Your thoughts?
You definitely don't deserve to get flamed! U rock!
I think what we are seeing here is a case of a whole communities SCII withdrawals.
On June 21 2010 10:11 Artosis wrote: Perhaps I should have known that a bunch of flamers would come in and started with the good Zerg maps.
This is what I thought as soon as I read the article. Few people have done more for the foreign SC community than Artosis and he gets a ton of respect for it. But there's a fly in the ointment, he complains about imbalance more than most of his peers. This isn't a damning offense, but it doesn't help when he comes out with an episodic article about map balance and starts with the ugliest section.
On June 21 2010 10:11 Artosis wrote: The SC community has always been the greatest community in eSports. No question. Everyone agrees with that. But, this thread feels like the CS community, not the SC community.
Do you think "Zerg can't defeat Terran on Desert Oasis" is an unbiased and critically thought-out statement?
Do you think that a month before the game is released, anyone has enough knowledge to say this?
Now I have a question for you. Do you think that all of your flames throughout this thread are called for?. I guess, really, I just shouldn't write articles and contribute to the community then? Your thoughts?
I've never flamed you, and it's really irritating how whenever anyone has criticism of your articles, you go on the defensive and say "well maybe I shouldn't just help the community" then (or sometimes attack their post count). It's really immature. I just posted two fair questions that were not personal attacks in any way and you acted like I physically hurt you.
Everyone knows that strategy evolves throughout the lifespan of a game. Right now we're a month away from the game releasing. Do you not understand how short-sighted that statement is (saying a matchup on a map is unbeatable)?
On June 21 2010 10:11 Artosis wrote: Perhaps I should have known that a bunch of flamers would come in and started with the good Zerg maps.
This is what I thought as soon as I read the article. Few people have done more for the foreign SC community than Artosis and he gets a ton of respect for it. But there's a fly in the ointment, he complains about imbalance more than most of his peers. This isn't a damning offense, but it doesn't help when he comes out with an episodic article about map balance and starts with the ugliest section.
That actually isn't true. What is true, is that I am more vocal, more helping, to the community. I write more, I discuss more, I try to help more, than the vast majority of top players. I am extremely truthful about my thoughts, as I think they offer good insight.
I still don't quite understand what people want from this. It's not supposed to be unbiased; it's supposed to be about Zerg concerns from the observations of two Zerg players. It's also not supposed to explore everything about the maps, the match ups, or the entire meta-game and futures evolutions of the game that some people seem to want; all Artosis can do is share what he has observed and the reasons he thinks people struggle on some specific maps. He can only speak from his own experience. It's his opinion; take what insight you can glean from it, or don't.
On June 21 2010 10:11 Artosis wrote: The SC community has always been the greatest community in eSports. No question. Everyone agrees with that. But, this thread feels like the CS community, not the SC community.
Do you think "Zerg can't defeat Terran on Desert Oasis" is an unbiased and critically thought-out statement?
Do you think that a month before the game is released, anyone has enough knowledge to say this?
Now I have a question for you. Do you think that all of your flames throughout this thread are called for?. I guess, really, I just shouldn't write articles and contribute to the community then? Your thoughts?
I've never flamed you, and it's really irritating how whenever anyone has criticism of your articles, you go on the defensive and say "well maybe I shouldn't just help the community" then (or sometimes attack their post count). It's really immature. I just posted two fair questions that were not personal attacks in any way and you acted like I physically hurt you.
Everyone knows that strategy evolves throughout the lifespan of a game. Right now we're a month away from the game releasing. Do you not understand how short-sighted that statement is (saying a matchup on a map is unbeatable)?
you do realize that your response to me asking you why you flame me, is to infact, flame me again? I've stated so many times, more than anyone, how much games evolve. These things most likely WILL change in time. This is a window into right now.
stop posting in this thread please, you are one of the people who have really ruined it. take your reality elsewhere.
More vocal about imbalances? If you go through all your interviews/videos you focus on imbalance a lot, and how terrible other players are. Perhaps Idra has been rubbing off on you a little too much?
On June 21 2010 11:20 w_Ender_w wrote: It's not supposed to be unbiased;
Do you understand what the word 'objective' means?
Edit:
Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
What do you want him to change in order for it to be more objective in your eyes? Do you want him to not draw any conclusions from what he has seen? Then why make the article?
Do you want him to address the positives of the map as well? That's not a part of the article, nor was it written to do so. He's going to write later ones about the pro's of certain maps.
Do you want him to address the other races? This is about Zerg only.
Do you want him to talk about build orders? The only build orders he mentions are to expressly un-include them from the balance discussion.
If you don't like the article, don't read it. Some of us like to hear from the pro's. It's an opinion, it's not dead fact that you have to believe merely because he wrote it. It's nice to be able to get inside the head of people that play this game at a high level.
Half these posts in this thread serve NO other purpose then to drive professional players away from interacting with the community. Good work people.
On June 21 2010 10:11 Artosis wrote: The SC community has always been the greatest community in eSports. No question. Everyone agrees with that. But, this thread feels like the CS community, not the SC community.
Do you think "Zerg can't defeat Terran on Desert Oasis" is an unbiased and critically thought-out statement?
Do you think that a month before the game is released, anyone has enough knowledge to say this?
Now I have a question for you. Do you think that all of your flames throughout this thread are called for?. I guess, really, I just shouldn't write articles and contribute to the community then? Your thoughts?
I've never flamed you, and it's really irritating how whenever anyone has criticism of your articles, you go on the defensive and say "well maybe I shouldn't just help the community" then (or sometimes attack their post count). It's really immature. I just posted two fair questions that were not personal attacks in any way and you acted like I physically hurt you.
Everyone knows that strategy evolves throughout the lifespan of a game. Right now we're a month away from the game releasing. Do you not understand how short-sighted that statement is (saying a matchup on a map is unbeatable)?
you do realize that your response to me asking you why you flame me, is to infact, flame me again?
I didn't flame you anywhere in my entire post If I'm being out of line, I'd love for someone to tell me where in my post I flamed you, because I'm looking for it and I just can't find it.
Obviously this is going nowhere, so I'll stop arguing with you. But when 3/4ths of the people in the thread are pretty much saying that your bias is getting really tiring, you should actually consider it instead of just going on the defensive or attack peoples' post counts.
On June 21 2010 11:20 w_Ender_w wrote: It's not supposed to be unbiased;
Do you understand what the word 'objective' means?
Edit:
Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
What do you want him to change in order for it to be more objective in your eyes? Do you want him to not draw any conclusions from what he has seen? Then why make the article?
I actually just want you to stop saying it's not supposed to be unbiased.
On June 21 2010 11:27 iEchoic wrote: I actually just want you to stop saying it's not supposed to be unbiased.
You can not have an opinion about something you do and you have observed that is truly unbiased. Of course there is bias. It's inherent in an article written FOR a specific group about specific concerns that only the group will care about.
I'll make a deal. I'll stop saying the word unbiased for the duration of this thread if you stop what appears to be an otherwise senseless attempt to push away a pro player from being involved with the community.
IMO this thread is done - it's no longer about the article, or map balance. When part 2 comes out, hopefully we can have another 20 page thread, but hopefully without the needless antagonism.
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/Schmyesh/Neo-Kulas20.jpg)
If I'm being out of line, I'd love for someone to tell me where in my post I flamed you, because I'm looking for it and I just can't find it.
