EPTTL Map Making Contest - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Shade_FR
France378 Posts
| ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
Conversely, Blizzard are trying to maintain some level of control over the maps on the ladder so they can balance the game. If we are creating maps which provide a more reasonable balance for the game with specific map designs then Blizzard can't balance the game properly as that map would skew win rates - hence the standardisation. I thought they said it was because they didn't want anything to confuse casual players on the ladder. Hasn't telling tournaments to make their own maps already messed this up they can't balance for the GSL and ladder at the same time with the different map pools what is the standard? Even without changing minerals maps can really effect balance. the guy in bronze doesn't understand when there are less patches at a base or they have less in them, I'm also surprised by how many people think there is a large number of people playing this game who can't understand that they have less of something when there is less of something.(there are lots of different mineral sizes in single player did anybody complain it was confusing?) Or that if they can't it will be the one thing that will completely ruin the game for them instead of any other thing in the game they might not understand. Does anyone have any evidence of a bronze playing a map with different minerals (against a similarly skilled bronze) and it ruining all the fun he would have had on a ladder map? What if the loading screen told them to watch out for the base with less minerals? | ||
|
garbanzo
United States4046 Posts
| ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
On September 28 2011 20:35 RogerX wrote: Don't forget to put lots of rocks to get a 10/10 from Dustin Browders eyes I'm putting rocks over the minerals in the main, so the initial workers have to break them down to start mining. | ||
|
Lumi
United States1616 Posts
I mean, lol. Blizzard ladder map pool standards? While they insist on keeping close spawn shattered in, and left close spawn metal in for ages. Thumbs down and a fart noise for Blizzard on this matter. | ||
|
Jongl0
631 Posts
| ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On September 29 2011 01:38 coolcor wrote: I thought they said it was because they didn't want anything to confuse casual players on the ladder. Hasn't telling tournaments to make their own maps already messed this up they can't balance for the GSL and ladder at the same time with the different map pools what is the standard? Even without changing minerals maps can really effect balance. I'm also surprised by how many people think there is a large number of people playing this game who can't understand that they have less of something when there is less of something.(there are lots of different mineral sizes in single player did anybody complain it was confusing?) Or that if they can't it will be the one thing that will completely ruin the game for them instead of any other thing in the game they might not understand. Does anyone have any evidence of a bronze playing a map with different minerals (against a similarly skilled bronze) and it ruining all the fun he would have had on a ladder map? What if the loading screen told them to watch out for the base with less minerals? They said they balance by the number of bases and not by the number of mineral patches. I've tried looking for the source of this, but I couldn't find it.  I'm sure it was David Kim who said it. It's ridiculous to expect balance across all mineral patch combos anyways. For the purpose of balance, they likely want to keep the number of variables down. Tournaments that mess with it do so at their own risk. | ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
| ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
People are pretty fucking retarded yes, this is true, but they are playing equally stupid opponents so its not actually gonna have much of an impact -- | ||
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
On September 29 2011 01:38 coolcor wrote: I'm also surprised by how many people think there is a large number of people playing this game who can't understand that they have less of something when there is less of something.(there are lots of different mineral sizes in single player did anybody complain it was confusing?) Or that if they can't it will be the one thing that will completely ruin the game for them instead of any other thing in the game they might not understand. Does anyone have any evidence of a bronze playing a map with different minerals (against a similarly skilled bronze) and it ruining all the fun he would have had on a ladder map? What if the loading screen told them to watch out for the base with less minerals? Blizzard has stated that they want people to decide their strategies on how many bases they have, not how many mineral paths they have. SC2 is already a hard game, they dont want to mess with lowbies heads with additional info like varying mineral path counts. Also, its very possible to make unique maps without the balancing tool of varying mineral path/geyser counts of bases. | ||
|
Sighstorm
Netherlands116 Posts
I wish it was 10 years ago... in all likelyhood i would have been more active with mapmaking and the mapmaking community and actually know people to test the map(s) before submitting it. :\ | ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
| ||
|
Psyqo
United States401 Posts
| ||
|
WArped
United Kingdom4845 Posts
 | ||
|
ClysmiC
United States2192 Posts
| ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On September 28 2011 21:39 Plexa wrote: Conversely, Blizzard are trying to maintain some level of control over the maps on the ladder so they can balance the game. If we are creating maps which provide a more reasonable balance for the game with specific map designs then Blizzard can't balance the game properly as that map would skew win rates - hence the standardisation. I understand that Blizz may be trying to set a standard, but gas and minerals at expansions play just as big of a part in the map as the terrain. Crevasse with a full backdoor expansion is entirely different from what it is normally. Similarly, destructible rocks are absolutely crucial to how a map functions. For example, with the d-rock they put on Tal'Darim's third, now Zerg can't play agressively with units in a forward position while expanding to that location (Granted, it isn't much of an issue with Tal'Darim since FE is so popular). | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
 | ||
|
The Final Boss
United States1839 Posts
On September 28 2011 15:29 Torte de Lini wrote: [image blocked] Still excited! ProdiG gonna give it a shot? I might even bother fiddling with the thing. Maybe Barrin? ;D This is so sadly true I'm sure that even if the community produces a great map (which they will <3) and Blizzard actually puts it into the ladder pool, they'll just throw a plethora of destructible rocks down just to piss everybody off. Also, I really don't understand why it's against fixed spawn locations. Isn't the problem with a lot of Blizzard maps the fact that they don't have fixed spawn points so you wind up with close spawns Metal or ST? And who honestly doesn't like Shakuras (the one map with fixed spawns...)? This competition could be great, but knowing Blizzard they'll just shrink the winning maps down to half size to create "rush" maps and throw destructible rocks everywhere. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Also, I really don't understand why it's against fixed spawn locations. Isn't the problem with a lot of Blizzard maps the fact that they don't have fixed spawn points so you wind up with close spawns Metal or ST? And who honestly doesn't like Shakuras (the one map with fixed spawns...)? Maps balanced around not fixing spawns are preferred. | ||
| ||
