|
Intel is a vital part of this game. By denying intel from the developers (mapmakers) side, you can open up for different playstyles. It is all there to create diversity, hence the 2, 3 and 4 player maps. Different intel requires different playstyles.
If everything was 2 player maps, you'd see a lot less variety in builds and strategies.
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it.
|
I think it's to either force earlier scouting, increase the strength of blind builds (like hatch first, six pool, etc), or to allow for better expo spread. Because there are any set of spawn positions (follow up to after the early non-knowledge) it allows different strategies being required on the same map. As an example, I know that an early Reaper against Protoss is slightly better in close air positions on Metalopolis then on cross or close positions. Close air also allows for better harassment, which sets up the person with an inferior air force to play a bit more defensively. Cross positions mitigates this until the very end game, while close doesn't get to this stage.
It boils down to laziness, now that I phrase it that way - why build 50 maps when you can have 50 spawn positions on 15 maps?
|
Wasn't there a few maps where you have to double scout so the timings would work on BW?
Lately I've been double-scouting on Tal'Darim, especially ZvZ.
Also to the "why", this creates diversity on the maps, and also maps with more than one main base per player increase the number of total expansions possible in the map without creating an awkward map architecture.
|
On April 06 2011 13:00 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Generally, it is the luck/randomness factor.
Like others said, this makes the strategy deeper and more diverse.
Of course, in the end, it is a bit of luck, but that is why you do "safe" builds, and that is why some people instead go for all-ins or risky builds.
how does this any possible way make strategy deeper?
your logic disturbs me to the point of sickness
hur dur let's limit information given to the players so strategy becomes deeper?
|
On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it.
I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post.
Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid?
User was warned for this post
|
Bad 4 player maps are those that require completely (!) different strategies for different locations. Like metalopolis, as much as I like this map compared to others.
Good 4 player maps are there to add some variety to the games, make the "feeling" different. Also it forces you to scout earlier and more thoroughly. Like Tal'Darim. Since this map is so huge, even the rotational symmetry doesn't really matter, there isn't the typical "close position" bs like on metalopolis.
And yes, limiting information is necessary in a game where scouting plays a crucial part and where even "sneaky" strategies are possible. Otherwise we could remove the fog of war as well.
|
On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid?
For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy.
Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here.
|
Not knowing the location of your opponent is one thing which makes the game more difficult and rewards better players.
- You have to scout
- Choose a strategy based on spawning locations (close air/ground, cross)
- Very difficult to be very cheesy (6pool)
It also makes the games more interesting I think, because it adds excitement to the often boring beginning of a match:
- When will he scout him
- Which build will he choose
|
It also makes the game less plain and boring in the begining.
You can take as an example game 1 between MKP and MC from gsl wc.
|
It's because Blizzard likes RNG. They've said it hundreds of times, they like random chance. That's it.
|
As casters have mentioned quite a few times, on 2p maps, you're more likely to see proxies because you immediately know where your opponent is spawned. If you have to find them first, something like cannon rushing/proxy gates/rax is trickier to pull off. It's just added variety.
I think a better question would be, why would they provide this information to you? Without vision, you never know where any of your opponents units are, so why would the start of the game be any different?
|
On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here.
I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little.
And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me?
Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough.
|
The point of denying the players vital information as to where their opponents spawned is the same as the point of denying any information to the players at all-to add uncertainty, and thus variety and some measure of gamesense/skill, to the game.
Most (real-time) strategy games rely on the element of surprise in some way, shape, or form, and that's only possible with incomplete information. A good player both exploits this and plans for it accordingly, while a bad player does not; some measure of skill gap is thus created.
|
On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough.
No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight.
Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you.
It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine.
However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential.
As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent!
Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up...
This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation.
|
On April 07 2011 04:23 Phinix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough. No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight. Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you. It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine. However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential. As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent! Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up... This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation.
What you fail to grasp is that I dont care about random noobs' opinions. I was asking if someone knew anything about this. I was not asking for random opinions.
|
On April 07 2011 04:48 Jordbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 04:23 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough. No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight. Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you. It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine. However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential. As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent! Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up... This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation. What you fail to grasp is that I dont care about random noobs' opinions. I was asking if someone knew anything about this. I was not asking for random opinions.
Who are you hoping to get response from, exactly?
I don't think David Kim posts here all that often.
|
On April 07 2011 04:53 Phinix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 04:48 Jordbo wrote:On April 07 2011 04:23 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough. No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight. Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you. It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine. However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential. As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent! Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up... This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation. What you fail to grasp is that I dont care about random noobs' opinions. I was asking if someone knew anything about this. I was not asking for random opinions. Who are you hoping to get response from, exactly? I don't think David Kim posts here all that often.
I tried my luck.
|
Why don't you just PM these pros and get messages from them instead of having us try and waste our time helping you since most of the people who have posted so far are random noobs?
As to the OP 3-4 player maps are added to add to variety of strategies. They also make hyper aggressive builds not as viable (proxy raxes/gates)
|
On April 07 2011 04:54 Jordbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 04:53 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 04:48 Jordbo wrote:On April 07 2011 04:23 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough. No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight. Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you. It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine. However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential. As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent! Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up... This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation. What you fail to grasp is that I dont care about random noobs' opinions. I was asking if someone knew anything about this. I was not asking for random opinions. Who are you hoping to get response from, exactly? I don't think David Kim posts here all that often. I tried my luck.
Others have already spelled it out for you: More possible spawns = more possible strategies = richer dynamics. Imperfect information improves the game so long as all crucial information is obtainable by active scouting (as spawn location obviously is). Same reason we have fog of war.
Frankly, this would be better in the simple questions simple answers thread.
|
Don't open a thread if all your going to do is bash everyone who posts trying to answer your questions. Email Blizzard if you want a "Response from the authorities".
|
|
|
|
|
|
15131
6110
575
EPT
