|
I'm making a topic on this because I would like to hear some high level opinions on a matter which I feel is being overlooked in favour of whining about individual unit/racial stats. I'm just a Gold player who doesn't play as much as he needs to in order to improve, but please consider my opinions and if anything is wrong then correct me without sounding condescending.
This game has some serious issues with map balance.
Maps need to be made smaller and map design needs to make a return to beta.
One of the issues I find is that Protoss and Zerg are allowed to take safe natural and third expansions, to turtle up for the next 8 minutes. This scenario is created seeing how a lot of maps have tiny ramps and a lot of third bases only have a single point of entrance. Not all maps though, for example Tal'darim altar. This map has no ramp at the natural and a double entrance at the third.
Not all players favour a 20 minute macro game, where a single engagement can be the difference between a win or a loss, a single so called deathball engagement if you will. Actually, I find the above to be the single most reason why the so called 'deathball gameplay' is so overwhelmingly favoured.
Why? Because Protoss and Zerg can and will just turtle up to the perfect 200/200 army composition, followed by a singular attack-command. This is not skillful nor entertaining to watch. Ohana is the single most guilty map of this, With its 3rd directly connected to the natural. I can't remember the last time I watched a VOD on this map where it wasn't a macro game.
In my honorable opinion, I find that there is no adequate way of stopping a zerg from (greedily) droning up for 8 minutes, seeing how queens will only have to move a short distance to cover all of the three bases, this is not to mention the potential spine crawlers in the available chokes. Also, a single forcefield is enough to block any attack past the 7 minute mark.
I find that this is a major reason why the terrans on battle.net are at a minority as of now.The Terran army relies on multi-pronged aggression, drops and general positional map control in the early-mid game. With the insanely large maps and million easily dependable ramps/chokes, the Terran army is at a disadvantage.
Why would Terrans spend their time working twice as hard as their Protoss/Zerg counterpart only to be swiftly raped once they realise that their drops and pushes barely did enough damage to halt the economy of their enemy? The Terrans have no 1A deathball. So with the long rush distances and lack of highground advantages, Terrans are getting shafted.
I recall how zerg was complaining heavily, when terrans were pushing through the destructible debry on Scrap Station. Now, two years later and Zergs can play passively as long as they want whilst Terran aggression gets shut down at every avenue.
The importance of controlling Xel'Naga towers has sharply been omitted in favour of playing the passive macro game and simply countering your opponents composition with the use of 1 or 2 scouts. This has more to due with the large distances between the Xel'Naga towers themselves and areas of tactical advantage. Take Shakuras Plateu for instance. We have 2 watch towers literally in the middle of nowhere. They act more as visual doodads than anything else. What happened to maps like Metropolis where we had Xel'Naga towers overlooking the middle bases in case of expos or proxies?
Map balances also affects unit balance. For instance, it is no secret how far Siege Tanks have fallen from their original role and concept. Rather then being deployed on crucial locations such as High Grounds, wide paths and ledges, they are used as meat shields to protect stimmed marines... Because there are now no such thing as the aforementioned. So the Tank is 'weak' as they say because none of the maps accommodate their strengths. Muta play (in general) has also fallen out of favour due to the closer proximity of bases and larger rush distances. They're meant to be harassing units, yet in order to get any return from them you need to build a flock of around 15 to mitigate the many static defences in the now easily defendable bases. Reaper harass can't be done due to the Zoning of main bases in outer space where there are no ledges (Daybreak) or just the lack of ledges and long rush distances (Ohana). Collosi would be less of stupid 1A unit with map balance. I don't recall collosi centred deathballs being prominent on Jungle Basin (or was it Steppes? I can't quite remember), because they could easily be sniped if you simply A-moved them.
With shorter rush distances, various ledges, larger ramps and more than 1 entrance to a natural or 3rd, all this greedy -> deathball play would be eliminated and we would see a greater diversity in army/build compositions from all 3 players. I don't care if the game shifts towards prolonged early aggression, at least that is more interesting to watch and is more intensive/rewarding to play with/against from the players perspective. Cheese and aggressive/allinish play has an unwarranted stigma attached due to certain players enforcing their beliefs on how the game should be played. Foremost to mind is EG.Idra who lost every single game where he wasn't allowed to mass drones, which is his favoured playstyle. In effect, his view on passive macro play being the appropriate way to play SC2 ushered in the new age of insanely large maps and 200/200 deathball play. Its boring and I don't like it.
I can foresee some possible problems if the maps were drastically changed however, I will briefly explore these:
Zergs need to always be 1 base ahead of Protoss/Terran and will die easily to early aggression from the small rush distances.
I do not think this is nearly as much as an issue as it was 1-2 years ago. The Queen/Overlord buffs were good enough to have Zergs only make Spine Crawlers and Queens as their defense. As a Warcraft 3 player myself, I'm confident that players will still be able to defend against early agression with good Queen Micro, Spine Crawler placement and Overlord placement to scout what may be coming. Players have learnt to read gas timings and combined with the usual 4 scouting Lings I think it is farfetched to say that Zerg will be at a major disadvantage.
As for always needing to be a base ahead, maybe if Zergs didn't rely on attack moving their way through 'cost-effective engagements/trades' then always being 1 base ahead to remax wouldn't be such an issue would it? There are plenty of good 2 base strats that may require a little more intensive micro management that can be effective provided appropriate map rehauls are carried forward. The introduction HoTS also provides some middle ground for Zergs arsenal. I think this isn't true, but Zergs are know for cost/supply-inefficient and generally weaker 1-on-1 units - prefering swarm tactics to overwhelm their opponent in order to remax quickly. Introduction of the Swarm Host should provide some coverage as right now its the contest most supply efficient unit in that game (because it spawns free units). Combined with in Infestors, I doubt always having to be a base ahead would be an issue.
Wider ramps means Zergs and Protoss won't be able to defend their naturals
Zergs have creep, whilst the Protoss should still be able to block off the main entrance of their naturals with FFE building placement. I personally think it is unfair that a Protoss can block his ramp with one simple forcefield. At the end of the day, the defending force will still have the high ground advantage. I know they won't have Terran bunkers, but is having to spend larvae/chronoboosts on warpgates really that bad? The aim is cut down on the 10 minute long passivity which leads to more passivity until the inevitable death ball battle.
Conversely, wider ramps means Zerg allins won't be so lacklustre.
Terrans will autowin
The days of Terran abuse are long gone seeing as everybody has gotten better. When was the last time you heard the term 'scrub terran'? I can't remember either. This won't be about who can cheese the best but who can take and control early-mid game engagements better. From a spectator perspective this is interesting to watch.
I realise drop play will become much better, but so will Mech (which will be complete when HoTS finally comes out), so will unorthodox strats such as Warp Prism plays, Overlord Drops, Nydus worms and possibly even Hydras. We may even see alot more Muta/Ling styles rather than Zerg always opting for the safer Infestor/Ling. I believe alot of units and compositions can be balanced with appropriate maps.
I tried my best with input from a certain poster. If this gets closed I won't try again and I'll go back to being inactive.
I will post my opinions on the current maps plus the maps which I feel should be making a return.
|
this is pretty funny. you honestly think the beta maps should come back or are you just trolling... ?
|
You're right. tal'darim altar is awesome and protoss shouldn't have force feild.
|
Not all players favour a 20 minute macro game, where a single engagement can be the difference between a win or a loss, a single so called deathball engagement if you will. Actually, I find the above to be the single most reason why the so called 'deathball gameplay' is so overwhelmingly favoured.
Why? Because Protoss and Zerg can and will just turtle up to the perfect 200/200 army composition, followed by a singular attack-command. This is not skillful nor entertaining to watch. Ohana is the single most guilty map of this, With its 3rd directly connected to the natural. I can't remember the last time I watched a VOD on this map where it wasn't a macro game.
I'm not sure if you wrote these paragraphs or not but it really makes you sound like some scrub on ladder who allins every game. There is a lot more to controlling maxed armies than a-moving, like In pvz there is a ton of micro involved with splitting units to not get fungalled or vortexed. anyone who a-moves will pretty much instantly lose, and that's not because of map imbalance, the fight will still turn out the same way on any map, but it is because of how fungal and vortex works. The first thread was closed for a number of reasons but one of them was that the poster didn't really understand this game that well, which seems to be the case here.
|
Canada16217 Posts
This post hurts my brain, old maps don't do anything good they were terribly designed, you have no idea what you are talking about.
|
Except the main point of my post wasn't to bring the old maps back but to reinvent maps with generally smaller rush distances, more ledges/strategic high ground areas and more than 1 entrance into the natural/3rd?
On October 03 2012 09:20 Minkus wrote:Show nested quote +Not all players favour a 20 minute macro game, where a single engagement can be the difference between a win or a loss, a single so called deathball engagement if you will. Actually, I find the above to be the single most reason why the so called 'deathball gameplay' is so overwhelmingly favoured.
Why? Because Protoss and Zerg can and will just turtle up to the perfect 200/200 army composition, followed by a singular attack-command. This is not skillful nor entertaining to watch. Ohana is the single most guilty map of this, With its 3rd directly connected to the natural. I can't remember the last time I watched a VOD on this map where it wasn't a macro game. I'm not sure if you wrote these paragraphs or not but it really makes you sound like some scrub on ladder who allins every game. There is a lot more to controlling maxed armies than a-moving, like In pvz there is a ton of micro involved with splitting units to not get fungalled or vortexed. anyone who a-moves will pretty much instantly lose, and that's not because of map imbalance, the fight will still turn out the same way on any map, but it is because of how fungal and vortex works. The first thread was closed for a number of reasons but one of them was that the poster didn't really understand this game that well, which seems to be the case here.
I try to allin most of the time because at the moment its the most gratifying way to play the game. And don't talk to me about a-moving. My primary game in WC3 and I micro every single engagement in that game. And if you call splitting units just to avoid a fungal or vortex then you sir don't really know what micro is.
And what is there to understand about the game outside of timings and build orders? If I want to go Infestor/Ling -> Broodlords I can do it to the letter vs any Protoss opponent for instance. Its not hard. Most of the people in Masters are there because of Build Order wins. Not because they 'understood' the game. The MAIN reason I am in Gold is because I don't play often and I have only around 200 total career games since I bought the game. I only started taking a greater interest only recently. There are barely any opportunities to micro as Zerg (maybe Overlord Drops or Infestor Micro but w/e), so the only way to incorporate some semblance of micro was to allin. This is why I'm trying to change to terran. But this isn't about me, this is about the maps. So don't derail the discussion.
|
i don't agree at all with pretty much any of this, in fact i was thinking maps need to get bigger, all i think that needs to happen for the game is tanks need to get a bit of a buff.
But saying that small maps need to come back i don't think that is correct. Not at all, i am not going to tell you my league, or belittle your opinion because everyone sees the game differently, however smaller maps didn't balance the game at all. The game is fine how it is now, also you said mech isn't very good, or implied it but i think mech is VERY good right now... in the right hands.
and i don't get how smaller maps will make muta's good. Muta's keep you in your base, they stop you from moving out and make you constantly afraid of getting back stabbed. In no way will smaller maps or beta maps will make mutas good, no no no, they will become even worse. If i don't have to move very far out to kill you, then what is the point of mutas, they cant make a base trade happen or force me to turn around because the map is so small!
I don't think zerg need to be 1 base ahead of terran and protoss players like you said, however they need 3 base's to get up to hive tech then they can get as many base's as they can with their powerful army. Old maps had hard to take thirds, and without gas, i can't see zergs being that competitive.
You also said terran are not doing that good, but terrans are doing fine? what game are you watching haha, Even in the GSL we have a equal number or races (or as equal as possible). I don't miss every tourney being a T v T final.
basically i don't really know where your reasoning is behind this post (no offense).
|
I guess everyone above me loves 20 minute long games that culminate in one deathball clash, over back and forth aggression.
For reference, BW maps were much smaller than the current SC2 map pool.
|
Addressing your major points one at a time:
1) Deathball play was still an issue when Blistering Sands and Steppes were in the map pool.
2) The tank has in no way fallen out of favor, it is arguably the strongest component of the Terran composition unless broods are out, in which case vikings win that one.
3) Mutas are still widely used to poke around the map and destroy mineral lines, the top korean Zergs are continuing to take
4) games using ling/bling/muta because of its sheer effectiveness.
5) Reapers can still get into mains, they just still suck. (Thanks MorroW)
6) The reason you only see Z and P turtle to 200 on ladder is because you're Terran and that is their job in that matchup. unless you're going Ling/Bane/Muta or an 8 gate or something, your main focus is teching up to the lategame without letting the Terran roll you with pressure and drops.
As for whether Terran is underpowered in the 200/200 battles, TaeJa would like a word with you.
|
On October 03 2012 09:29 Zombo Joe wrote:
I guess everyone above me loves 20 minute long games that culminate in one deathball clash, over back and forth aggression.
For reference, BW maps were much smaller than the current SC2 map pool.
Physically smaller, but more spaced out. Look at the difference between your base and third in BW vs. SC2. BW maps felt HUGE
|
Like i tried to say in my previous post you just dont get it. It's not an issue of the map which would create the so called changes you desire. You over look things like the amount of mineral patches and gas per base and how that accounts for unit composition and strategy. You want people to play more high risk reward styles but why should they? There are still tons of areas to be explored with strategy and unique styles of play but it only happens at the late game after people can secure 3 bases because it's safer to do so then, but it's also very difficult and apm intensive that many players have not yet refined those aspects.
How can you argue my point about zerg 1 base play when your only arguement is that you think. You think you think you think but you don't know. Like i tried to tell you this is a common misconception by people with lack of knowledge trying to theorycraft while only taking partial data into consideration.
The game is not bw you simply can't do more with less. Making the maps smaller and adding more ramps and postional advantages for siege tanks wont fix anything it will just create heavy imbalances.
Also looking at gsl win loss rates each race is at about 50/50 and you still think the game is unbalanced. These are the best of the best and thats the only place balance should be concerned.
|
So 1 player who is leagues ahead of everyone else is proof that terran isn't underpowered?
That's like saying GoOdy is proof that Mech is viable in TvP.
|
That's exactly how it works. This game is balanced around the highest level of play, they've stated that from the beginning. They want the game to be fair for those who can take full command of every unit their race has to offer.
I specifically name TaeJa because he's a standout example of the race who specifically loves the late 200/200 battles. I could have also listed mvp, MKP, KeeN, SlayerS, Happy, etc.
Incidentally, GoOdy does prove that it can be theoretically done, so he's actually a good example.
|
On October 03 2012 09:29 conut wrote:
i don't agree at all with pretty much any of this, in fact i was thinking maps need to get bigger, all i think that needs to happen for the game is tanks need to get a bit of a buff.
But saying that small maps need to come back i don't think that is correct. Not at all, i am not going to tell you my league, or belittle your opinion because everyone sees the game differently, however smaller maps didn't balance the game at all. The game is fine how it is now, also you said mech isn't very good, or implied it but i think mech is VERY good right now... in the right hands.
Many players will disagree with you that Mech is good. This is the reason why they introduced the Battle Hellion and Widow Mine in HoTS.
On October 03 2012 09:29 conut wrote:and i don't get how smaller maps will make muta's good. Muta's keep you in your base, they stop you from moving out and make you constantly afraid of getting back stabbed. In no way will smaller maps or beta maps will make mutas good, no no no, they will become even worse. If i don't have to move very far out to kill you, then what is the point of mutas, they cant make a base trade happen or force me to turn around because the map is so small!
Committing to mutas means delaying Hive tech and having little or no Infestors. With the maps as large as they are, there are plenty of pre-emptive ways an opponent can counter your mutas. If you harass one outlying base, you won't be able to do much to the others since they are so close together.
On October 03 2012 09:29 conut wrote:I don't think zerg need to be 1 base ahead of terran and protoss players like you said, however they need 3 base's to get up to hive tech then they can get as many base's as they can with their powerful army. Old maps had hard to take thirds, and without gas, i can't see zergs being that competitive.
I never said they did. But the whole SC2 community thinks so and I'm against that. Also with creep spread and the insane speed of Zerg units being so powerful, I don't see how Zergs wouldn't secure a 3rd if they really needed it.
On October 03 2012 09:29 conut wrote:You also said terran are not doing that good, but terrans are doing fine? what game are you watching haha, Even in the GSL we have a equal number or races (or as equal as possible). I don't miss every tourney being a T v T final.
I purposefully omitted GSL in an earlier post in probably an earlier thread. Korean terrans are mechanically better than everyone else. They do not count. I was more referring to Ladder Terrans Masters and Below.
|
to be honest, i'm suprised, but i really do see a lot of things that make sense in this thread. I think the maps really are pretty boring and too big now adays. it's like the maps are so big by the time my scout gets to their base it's already too late, i find myself having to chain scout like right when one dies i have to instantly send another just to be able to get there in a reasonable time to receive any intel... kulas ravine is a map that rings a bell when we talk about a large map with a lot of different advantages for strategical play, it was one of my favorite maps back in the day. it has some imbalances but if tweaked instead of just scrapped i think it could have been one of the best maps sc2 has ever had just due to how positional play was so important.
i don't really understand why every map has to revolve around being able to safely expand first builds... why can't their be different maps that you HAVE to play certain ways on, instead of the same boringness of commentators having to fill the first 5-8 minutes of each game with jokes since both sides are just powering economy...
|
So getting maps like crossfire back is your wish hm?
And show me 1 map where one forcefield is enough to block a natural ramp? (If you say daybreak now, you will always eliminate the rocks there or just go around from the 3rd)
Death balls aren't really fun to watch when there is like 1 deathball stomping the other. Besides that 2deathballs collashing is a ton of micro (storms/feedbacks/blink/(forcefields)/vortex/fungal/broodlordsplitting/deciding which units to focusfire with what counts for every race in any battle).
I do agree that I don't like the map design neither as it is right now, even tho I have no idea on how to fix the issue of this, cause every protoss will do 2base all-in if thirds are just to vurnable.
|
What a long winded thread about the evils of Terran and how Zerg just can't win every match up and should be given free wins.
|
On October 03 2012 09:40 Sacred Reich wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 09:29 conut wrote:
i don't agree at all with pretty much any of this, in fact i was thinking maps need to get bigger, all i think that needs to happen for the game is tanks need to get a bit of a buff.
But saying that small maps need to come back i don't think that is correct. Not at all, i am not going to tell you my league, or belittle your opinion because everyone sees the game differently, however smaller maps didn't balance the game at all. The game is fine how it is now, also you said mech isn't very good, or implied it but i think mech is VERY good right now... in the right hands. Many players will disagree with you that Mech is good. This is the reason why they introduced the Battle Hellion and Widow Mine in HoTS. Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 09:29 conut wrote:and i don't get how smaller maps will make muta's good. Muta's keep you in your base, they stop you from moving out and make you constantly afraid of getting back stabbed. In no way will smaller maps or beta maps will make mutas good, no no no, they will become even worse. If i don't have to move very far out to kill you, then what is the point of mutas, they cant make a base trade happen or force me to turn around because the map is so small! Committing to mutas means delaying Hive tech and having little or no Infestors. With the maps as large as they are, there are plenty of pre-emptive ways an opponent can counter your mutas. If you harass one outlying base, you won't be able to do much to the others since they are so close together. Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 09:29 conut wrote:I don't think zerg need to be 1 base ahead of terran and protoss players like you said, however they need 3 base's to get up to hive tech then they can get as many base's as they can with their powerful army. Old maps had hard to take thirds, and without gas, i can't see zergs being that competitive. I never said they did. But the whole SC2 community thinks so and I'm against that. Also with creep spread and the insane speed of Zerg units being so powerful, I don't see how Zergs wouldn't secure a 3rd if they really needed it. Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 09:29 conut wrote:You also said terran are not doing that good, but terrans are doing fine? what game are you watching haha, Even in the GSL we have a equal number or races (or as equal as possible). I don't miss every tourney being a T v T final. I purposefully omitted GSL in an earlier post in probably an earlier thread. Korean terrans are mechanically better than everyone else. They do not count. I was more referring to Ladder Terrans Masters and Below.
Korean terrans are mechanically better than everyone else so i omit them....
q
Please bro just stop. You could not look any more ignorant. At this point i just hope you get banned. All you post is worthless opinions and refrain from facts. Your just a spectator who is terrible at the game. No one cares what you think. The reason pros dont come in on these debates is because every day theres another gold league kid who makes theads like these and gives horrible advice and opinions like they know what theyre talking about. Its so annoying that they dont waste thier time explaning something youre never going to understand.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 03 2012 09:50 TheOGBlitzKrieg wrote:
to be honest, i'm suprised, but i really do see a lot of things that make sense in this thread. I think the maps really are pretty boring and too big now adays. it's like the maps are so big by the time my scout gets to their base it's already too late, i find myself having to chain scout like right when one dies i have to instantly send another just to be able to get there in a reasonable time to receive any intel... kulas ravine is a map that rings a bell when we talk about a large map with a lot of different advantages for strategical play, it was one of my favorite maps back in the day. it has some imbalances but if tweaked instead of just scrapped i think it could have been one of the best maps sc2 has ever had just due to how positional play was so important.
i don't really understand why every map has to revolve around being able to safely expand first builds... why can't their be different maps that you HAVE to play certain ways on, instead of the same boringness of commentators having to fill the first 5-8 minutes of each game with jokes since both sides are just powering economy...
Well you may have said it in a better way to be honest, every map and MU revolves around safely expand first builds - I think this omits alot of interesting strategy and positional play. Even timing windows are literally thrown out of the window. As the game is like 3 years, the old argument of 'there is still yet to be explored in the game' is becoming increasingly hollow.
@ Iodeet
If I squint just right, your name reads out 'idiot' to me. It doesn't get better for you when I notice how grammatically inept your post is.
|
So after 200 games you feel you understand what is wrong with the game. Regardless of the validity of your argument (one that I don't agree with, but I also haven't played much SC2), I don't think you should make judgements with your current exposure to the game.
Keep in mind the current state of the game is about to change heavily, so arguing specifics at this point is meaningless.
|
Tanks need a buff!!!! LOL have you ever tried attacked in a tank wall or tank protecting from high ground? I think they are pretty strong.
On October 03 2012 09:29 conut wrote:
i don't agree at all with pretty much any of this, in fact i was thinking maps need to get bigger, all i think that needs to happen for the game is tanks need to get a bit of a buff.
But saying that small maps need to come back i don't think that is correct. Not at all, i am not going to tell you my league, or belittle your opinion because everyone sees the game differently, however smaller maps didn't balance the game at all. The game is fine how it is now, also you said mech isn't very good, or implied it but i think mech is VERY good right now... in the right hands.
and i don't get how smaller maps will make muta's good. Muta's keep you in your base, they stop you from moving out and make you constantly afraid of getting back stabbed. In no way will smaller maps or beta maps will make mutas good, no no no, they will become even worse. If i don't have to move very far out to kill you, then what is the point of mutas, they cant make a base trade happen or force me to turn around because the map is so small!
I don't think zerg need to be 1 base ahead of terran and protoss players like you said, however they need 3 base's to get up to hive tech then they can get as many base's as they can with their powerful army. Old maps had hard to take thirds, and without gas, i can't see zergs being that competitive.
You also said terran are not doing that good, but terrans are doing fine? what game are you watching haha, Even in the GSL we have a equal number or races (or as equal as possible). I don't miss every tourney being a T v T final.
basically i don't really know where your reasoning is behind this post (no offense).
|
Op has absolutely zero idea what he is talking about and is generally being stupid.
|
Don't try to repost a thread if it gets closed, especially when monk said "OP comes off as balance whiny, has an overly aggressive tone, and shows some poor understanding of the game and map design. Calling someone a 'fucking retard' definitely doesn't help either."
I mean seriously. Second time remaking a thread...
|
What a long winded thread about the evils of Terran and how Zerg just can't win every match up and should be given free wins.
The OP is pretty much asking for the opposite, did you even read it?
-"Mech is not really viable". Yeah. no. Playing TvZ mech is really powerful, it's even pretty common those days. Some player don't like it, but saying that mech is not completely viable is just...
-"macro game are decided in one big clash" maybe in gold, but at better level there's a lot more. drop/harass (ling runby, prism, drop, hellion runby,..) and as people mentionned, spread units ,use spells (fungu, FF,...)
-"certain players enforcing their beliefs on how the game should be played". You're actually doing the same, maps evolved toward a more macro oriented style because that's what the majority of player/viewer wanted. Not everybody like watching allin every game. And allin are still really powerful, some player use them quite a bit. It's just not"never go past 2 base" like in WoL start.
Overall you're post basically advocate to go back to the sea of allin we had back in early WoL because you don't like macro games, doing so with pretty stupid arguments.
|
a mod better close this before this gets out of hand...this is a retarded thread and has no good points whatsoever.
|
There is only 1 thing I agree with in this post and that's that almost all the maps feature closed naturals, but despite your insistence they DO need to be that way because of hellion runbys vs zerg and roach ling vs protoss, the game just isn't set up for them at the moment (mothership core should help).
The rest is falsehoods, especially if you're referring to the ladder map pool rather than just tournaments, Ohana is definitely a small map compared to the rest of the pool, close by ground entombed is definitely a thing that requires you to play it out differently, condemned ridge's large airspace, dropable cliff and wide third make it a very different kind of map.
You claim that the maps are shaping the gameplay, then claim that terran's wouldn't dominate smaller maps with wider chokes because "people have gotten better". That's a complete contradiction, Terran's options for 1 base aggression are extremely diverse and it's one of the reasons the maps have gone in this direction.
Your comments about the tank is a double edge sword, tanks are "weak" (relative to BW tanks) because buffing them would make them insane, the combination of low-cost and high dps marines and long range tanks has meant there's no way to convert air control into an advantage (something that is going to change in HotS with the tempest/viper) but until then, tanks will have to remain relatively weak because their ability to push past static defense, while being protected by the 2nd cheapest unit in the game was and is a major problem. The tank isn't weak because it needs to be be buffed, it's weak because if it were buffed it would be far too strong, at least in it's current incarnation it has a place in the game in at least 2/3 match ups.
The problem with wide main ramps is also a mirror match up problem (which you don't address) ling baneling vs ling baneling on wide ramps or 4 gate vs 4 gate isn't interesting when it's the only thing you can do, and is 100x worse than "deathball vs deathball" because the game doesn't even get a chance for harassment, different unit compositions, unusual resource management or even a basetrade.
The map pool isn't ideal, but with the current balance of the game it's entertaining and at least diverse in the midgame portion, your changes just aren't viable until some of the HotS changes come in, and even then some parts are not addressed.
|
On October 03 2012 10:02 Sacred Reich wrote:
@ Iodeet
If I squint just right, your name reads out 'idiot' to me. It doesn't get better for you when I notice how grammatically inept your post is.
Ad hominem is totally the best argument.
When you omit the top tier of players for your argument's sake, you omit a fuck-ton of relevant data to prove your point. I'd rather this game be balanced for the best players, not me.
|
On October 03 2012 10:11 Dingobloo wrote:
There is only 1 thing I agree with in this post and that's that almost all the maps feature closed naturals, but despite your insistence they DO need to be that way because of hellion runbys vs zerg and roach ling vs protoss, the game just isn't set up for them at the moment (mothership core should help).
The rest is falsehoods, especially if you're referring to the ladder map pool rather than just tournaments, Ohana is definitely a small map compared to the rest of the pool, close by ground entombed is definitely a thing that requires you to play it out differently, condemned ridge's large airspace, dropable cliff and wide third make it a very different kind of map.
You claim that the maps are shaping the gameplay, then claim that terran's wouldn't dominate smaller maps with wider chokes because "people have gotten better". That's a complete contradiction, Terran's options for 1 base aggression are extremely diverse and is one of the reasons the maps have gone in this direction.
Your comments about the tank is a double edge sword, tanks are "weak" (relative to BW tanks) because buffing them would make them insane, the combination of low-cost and high dps marines and long range tanks has meant there's no way to convert air control into an advantage (something that is going to change in HotS with the tempest/viper) but until then, tanks will have to remain relatively weak because their ability to push past static defense, while being protected by the 2nd cheapest unit in the game was and is a major problem. The tank isn't weak because it needs to be be buffed, it's weak because if it were buffed it would be far too strong, at least in it's current incarnation it has a place in the game in at least 2/3 match ups.
The problem with wide main ramps is also a mirror match up problem (which you don't address) ling baneling vs ling baneling on wide ramps or 4 gate vs 4 gate isn't interesting when it's the only thing you can do, and is 100x worse than "deathball vs deathball" because the game doesn't even get a chance for harassment, different unit compositions, unusual resource management or even a basetrade.
The map pool isn't ideal, but with the current balance of the game it's entertaining and at least diverse in the midgame portion, your changes just aren't viable until some of the HotS changes come in, and even then some parts are not addressed.
I see, thanks for the rigorous post. But about tanks, I can't be the only one who sees them as being meat shields in T v Z???
To everyone calling me retarded etc etc. If I was bold enough to make a thread on this, then most probably a large portion of players all think the same. Are they retarded also?
|
I agree with the OP, i may not be a high level player myself but as a very active spectator i think maps are too big, there is few to no engagements for the first 10 minutes. It pretty rare to see a game where both players are trying to get some sort of map control. In TvZ for example, you'll see the zerg player having no map control, seating happy with his 2 to 3 bases for a while and just defending, when he gets to the 70 to 85 drones mark, he'll then take map control and the terran will be fulfilled just chillin' near his third/fourth until he push, dropping his heart out in the meantime.
As a player, i always feel like playing on the ladder but i'm not such a committed player, i just want to play some games, make some progress and all but i after one game or two, i feel like i've played enough, it's almost 1 hour for 2 games at most! It's like when you wanna buy some coke and there is this old woman at the checkout who's trying to pay with every cents she got since WW2 and you have to stay there for 10 minutes because she can't even see what she's doing.
What i mean is i like macro games but i like short games too. In fact, i'm prone to say that i'ld rather watch a proxy two rax game than a 3xCC vs 3 hatches before pool. I'm not even an all in player, in fact i don't know any all ins besides the basic ones. I just love to see how pros micro units to get the best out of them. And sometimes, games get pretty effy and you get a beautiful 30 minutes scrappy game where both players try their best to secure a mining location at a 600mins/min income. It's the best kind of game for me.
It probably is a matter of personnal opinion but i feel like we should have some smaller maps where macro games are possible but early agressions favorized.
My two cents.
|
On October 03 2012 08:49 Sacred Reich wrote:Protoss and Zerg can and will just turtle up to the perfect 200/200 army composition, followed by a singular attack-command.
I can't believe this is part of your argument and your thread hasn't already been closed.
|
On October 03 2012 10:21 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 08:49 Sacred Reich wrote:Protoss and Zerg can and will just turtle up to the perfect 200/200 army composition, followed by a singular attack-command. I can't believe this is part of your argument and your thread hasn't already been closed.
It has... twice.
|
On October 03 2012 09:29 Zombo Joe wrote:
I guess everyone above me loves 20 minute long games that culminate in one deathball clash, over back and forth aggression.
For reference, BW maps were much smaller than the current SC2 map pool.
I'ld like to see some traverse time data to back up your claim. BW maps were pretty large by the end.
|
On October 03 2012 10:22 Antylamon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 10:21 -orb- wrote:On October 03 2012 08:49 Sacred Reich wrote:Protoss and Zerg can and will just turtle up to the perfect 200/200 army composition, followed by a singular attack-command. I can't believe this is part of your argument and your thread hasn't already been closed. It has... twice.
I spoke to Monk and he gave me permission to remake the thread provided I altered my tone and cut out anything that sounded like whining.
|
On October 03 2012 10:15 Sacred Reich wrote:
To everyone calling me retarded etc etc. If I was bold enough to make a thread on this, then most probably a large portion of players all think the same. Are they retarded also?
So because nobody else makes threads like this that means a large portion of players secretly believe this but don't want to be 'bold' and talk about it? That makes less sense than your actual argument, which is retarded.
And yes, they would also be retarded.
|
On October 03 2012 10:02 Sacred Reich wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 09:50 TheOGBlitzKrieg wrote:
to be honest, i'm suprised, but i really do see a lot of things that make sense in this thread. I think the maps really are pretty boring and too big now adays. it's like the maps are so big by the time my scout gets to their base it's already too late, i find myself having to chain scout like right when one dies i have to instantly send another just to be able to get there in a reasonable time to receive any intel... kulas ravine is a map that rings a bell when we talk about a large map with a lot of different advantages for strategical play, it was one of my favorite maps back in the day. it has some imbalances but if tweaked instead of just scrapped i think it could have been one of the best maps sc2 has ever had just due to how positional play was so important.
i don't really understand why every map has to revolve around being able to safely expand first builds... why can't their be different maps that you HAVE to play certain ways on, instead of the same boringness of commentators having to fill the first 5-8 minutes of each game with jokes since both sides are just powering economy... Well you may have said it in a better way to be honest, every map and MU revolves around safely expand first builds - I think this omits alot of interesting strategy and positional play. Even timing windows are literally thrown out of the window. As the game is like 3 years, the old argument of 'there is still yet to be explored in the game' is becoming increasingly hollow. @ Iodeet If I squint just right, your name reads out 'idiot' to me. It doesn't get better for you when I notice how grammatically inept your post is.
Nice one, but the name clearly reads Lodeet. And im on my cell phone so i dont care for grammer. Just keep ignorning the fact that everyone thinks your moronic. Closed minded simpletons like you should remain in the dark.
|
On October 03 2012 11:15 JamesArk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 10:15 Sacred Reich wrote:
To everyone calling me retarded etc etc. If I was bold enough to make a thread on this, then most probably a large portion of players all think the same. Are they retarded also?
So because nobody else makes threads like this that means a large portion of players secretly believe this but don't want to be 'bold' and talk about it? That makes less sense than your actual argument, which is retarded. And yes, they would also be retarded.
Ever been to school? Ever had the lecturer say to you:
'If you have a question, don't be afraid to ask because probably other people have the same question'.
Most of the posting in this thread are from fanboys who can't fathom that their precious game may not be perfect. As a result they circle against the OP. Its a damn shame that the more constructive posts in this thread (both for and against my opinion) are lost in the rabble.
Just don't post here, there are plenty of other threads on TL.
|
Ouch, so much hate on this thread. Sure, i, like most rational players, agree that most (well frankly all) of his points dont make sense, i feel that the unnecessary name calling on both sides aren't helping any one. *side note* saying a large portion of people think the same thing you do, but no one is brave enough to post anything is not really smart at all. if anyone could possibly agree with any of the points you made, they would probably join the other side of the argument after hearing that ignorant statement.
Also, if you hate the constant macro oriented games and "200 maxed A-move armies," a great person to check out would be Heart, who is renowned for his successful all-in's in all matchups
|
To be honest. I kinda miss the excitement of rushes. Much more exciting then alot of the crap deathball we see. Although I'm learning Zerg, and loving it, I often lose because I simply hate going BL + Infestor. Ultra Ling is okay, but I which Ultras were as mobile as they were in BW.
|
Haha I love this forum. OP asks for people not to be condescending to him, yet repeatedly acts condescending to others. And of course the game isn't perfect. Will it ever be? I find it funny that players like you who can't commit time to practicing macro and actually getting good late-game with your race have the audacity to come on here and whine that your gimmicky, all-in builds aren't good enough. Honestly, this whole thread is pointless.
|
This is nostalgia at its finest. Go watch the Ye Olde Map Tournament IPL ran 9 or so months back. The games were awful. The maps were awful. Smaller maps are coming back in to the game (Muspelheim is a decent size IMO), but OP has no idea what he's actually wishing for, or is completely blinded by nostalgia for...I don't even know, the worst maps Starcraft has ever seen?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Closing this thread because it hurts my head. Either trolling, or seriously misinformed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
