EPTi.e. The wall off is not as sturdy, or players are forced to make building placements that they are not used to on the ladder.
[D] Alternative to neutral supply depot - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
desarrisc
Canada226 Posts
i.e. The wall off is not as sturdy, or players are forced to make building placements that they are not used to on the ladder. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
| ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On August 09 2012 14:48 desarrisc wrote: I think changing the ramp building grid might confuse the players who don't usually play on the tournament map. Particularly in an MLG style open tournament, this might be bit tricky for players to adjust. i.e. The wall off is not as sturdy, or players are forced to make building placements that they are not used to on the ladder. This would then be Blizzard's fault for not adjusting the ladder maps to correspond with tournament standards (not that they would, given their record with stuff like depots and 3/4 bases) | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On August 09 2012 14:43 SiskosGoatee wrote: 14 hatch has not been standard for a loooooong time. 15 hatch has been standard for a while though 16 hatch is definitely not uncommon at all. With all due respect, you don't seem to know what is standard, no one goes 14 hatch any more, I'd reckon it's about 70% 15 and 30% 16 hatch. You'd be hard pressed to find a single tournament game in the last year where a Zerg went 14 hatch against a Terran. There's just no use in going 14 hatch 14 pool because both 15 hatch 15 pool and 16 hatch 15 pool in fact give you a slightly earlier pool and a better drone count, even though your pool is one drone earlier, with 14 hatch 14 pool, the fact that you had those 2 extra drones mining for that time means a 15 hatch 15 pool gives you an earlier pool. 16 hatch 15 pool again gives you an earlier pool because one more drone mining for a longer time, but a later hatch. Because they can be dealt with, you also didn't see them all the time before neutral depots, because even then, when they were far more powerful, they could be dealt with. Mapmakers and tournaments have done a lot more bizarre things like keeping the ridiculously imbalanced map crossfire in circulation for very long. Blizzard has all the stats and they don't consider it imbalanced or they would've changed it, they have the power to make any change they want including modifying ramp footprints to require 4 pylons and 3 bunkers if they want, yet they choose not to, no doubt because Dustid, Kimder, the balancing archon, doesn't consider it imbalanced with the vast array of stats to their disposal. Hmmhmm, so how about you give me a single replay of the last 10 months in tournament play where a Zerg went 14 hatch in ZvT? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Hatchery_First As the hatch first article says, 15 hatch is the standard. (though Liquipedia at various places will claim that extremely outdated strategies are "the current standard" because no one updates those articles. It also claims that one base colossus is "currently the standard PvT opener".) Oh, you're right about 15 hatch. Haven't paid close enough attention to the Zerg supply; always ended up seeing 14 supply after the hatch was placed down, but that's because of the drone loss. My bad in assuming it was still the 14 hatch. All right, so now I'm on page with the fact that what I've assumed was 14 hatch is actually 15 hatch, I've still never come across a 16 hatch ZvT unless it was pool first. The only information I can find for hatch first on 16 are old beta/early release builds that were basically considered situational or rejected as dying to any sort of early aggression. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=122716 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=143175 I still stand by the statement that hatch first on 16 is non-standard. Also, Blizzard has things like non-forced cross spawn Antiga Shipyard, Shakuras Plateau, and Tal'Darim Altar in the map pool still in the map pool. That's far worse than Crossfire outstaying its welcome (and has long since been removed). That's not really a solid argument to discredit the efforts put into denying ramp block. Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by trying to discredit the mapmakers that brought us maps like Daybreak, Ohana, and Cloud Kingdom, arguably the most balanced and solid maps in the pool (and even earning a place on the Blizzard ladder). Like, are you trying to make some sort of argument that nothing needs to be adjusted at the bottom of main base ramps? It kinda seems that way (trying to argue things like ebay block/bunkers behind minerals are as bad and/or worse, implying supply depot solution is "bizzare", etc.). If that's the case, why are you here? o_O Make your own thread about why tournament maps don't need neutral supply depots, or something. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On August 09 2012 14:54 Blazinghand wrote: The basic problem that immediately jumps into my mind is the non-destructibility of the non-building-pathable terrain. The ability to wall from the front of your ramp, or even to do a low-ground wall after you've killed your own neutral depot, is crucial to both Terran and Protoss in the vZ matchup. I direct you to this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=358984#17  | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On August 09 2012 15:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: This would then be Blizzard's fault for not adjusting the ladder maps to correspond with tournament standards (not that they would, given their record with stuff like depots and 3/4 bases) I do think that part of the problem here is Blizzard's implementation of maps in the map pool. I honestly don't have a problem with burrowed depots, and although they're a little ungainly, they can be destroyed, making them the best solution. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On August 09 2012 15:25 Blazinghand wrote: I do think that part of the problem here is Blizzard's implementation of maps in the map pool. I honestly don't have a problem with burrowed depots, and although they're a little ungainly, they can be destroyed, making them the best solution. I can understand why Blizzard doesn't want to implement neutral depots on the ladder (I explain in the OP). I'd say the "dream" solution would be to have Blizzard create a new type of ladder-friendly, destructible unit made specifically for the purpose that mapmakers could make use of. However, that kind of thing is reliant on Blizzard taking the time to make such a thing, so that's not useful to us now. | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On August 09 2012 15:21 iamcaustic wrote: No biggy, but you do realize that admitting that you don't actually play Zerg severely discredits you from having an informed opinion about the supposed overpoweredness of this build?Oh, you're right about 15 hatch. Haven't paid close enough attention to the Zerg supply; always ended up seeing 14 supply after the hatch was placed down, but that's because of the drone loss. My bad in assuming it was still the 14 hatch. All right, so now I'm on page with the fact that what I've assumed was 14 hatch is actually 15 hatch, I've still never come across a 16 hatch ZvT unless it was pool first. The only information I can find for hatch first on 16 are old beta/early release builds that were basically considered situational or rejected as dying to any sort of early aggression. 16 hatch and 15 hatch are essentially pretty much the same build, this is the difference between 12 rax and 13 rax, 12 gate and 13 gate. 15 OC versus 16 OC. The difference is extremely minute and most certainly is not going to affect if you're going to hold of a 2rax or if you're going to be put behind by an engineering bay block more or less. If you go 15 hatch you basically have an idle larva around for like 10 seconds, if you go 16 hatch you never have any idle larvae at the cost of a 10 second later hatch or something. It really comes down to preference.http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=122716 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=143175 I still stand by the statement that hatch first on 16 is non-standard. Or this topic: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=332438 ? Which is fairly new which also uses 15/16 hatch in its title, because as I said, the two are basically nearly identical. Almost any build you can execute with 15 hatch you can also execute with 16 hatch, the difference is really very minute. It's one of those things which is going to save you like 10 minerals in the long run Also, Blizzard has things like non-forced cross spawn Antiga Shipyard, Shakuras Plateau, and Tal'Darim Altar in the map pool still in the map pool. That's far worse than Crossfire outstaying its welcome (and has long since been removed). No it's not, those maps never had imbalances ranging in the 30-70, you realize that Dual Sight and Crossfire have a 30% ZvP winrate right?Blizzard, for all the flack a lot of people who like to jump on bandwagons give them, actually cares a lot more about balance than GSL ever did. That's not really a solid argument to discredit the efforts put into denying ramp block. Indeed, my argument is then again quite simple:- Ramp blocks are not imbalanced at all - Depots look ugly and are confusing - Zerg is currently the strongest race, nerfing Zerg slightly is acceptable. Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by trying to discredit the mapmakers that brought us maps like Daybreak, Ohana, and Cloud Kingdom, arguably the most balanced and solid maps in the pool (and even earning a place on the Blizzard ladder). I'm not discrediting anyone here, I'm not sure where you are going with.Ohana however is known to be very Terran favoured, especially in TvZ, Cloud Kingdom is known to be protoss favoured in PvT. Like, are you trying to make some sort of argument that nothing needs to be adjusted at the bottom of main base ramps? Yap, I don't consider ramp blocks to be imbalanced at all. I never had any problems dealing with them, I consider things like the sentry/immortal push to be far more imbalanced than someone trying to get 3 pylons up. I've died many a times to a sentry/immortal push that I knew was coming, if I know a ramp block is coming because I have an ovie there it's not gonna get up in a billion years.It kinda seems that way (trying to argue things like ebay block/bunkers behind minerals are as bad and/or worse, implying supply depot solution is "bizzare", etc.). If that's the case, why are you here? o_O Make your own thread about why tournament maps don't need neutral supply depots, or something. As I said, I offer a third road. This thread asks how to deal with the supposed imbalance of ramp blocks, I say the way to deal with it is not at all, as they are not imbalanced. Not any more anyway, they were imbalanced a long time ago, but so much of the game has changed in the mean while. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On August 09 2012 15:45 -NegativeZero- wrote: Except that forge FE's commonly see pylons as part of the wall, this is essential on antiga and other maps with a similarly large maps, emergency pylon walls are often used to plug holes against ling runbies, the colision of pylons is pretty essential to pull a good cannon rush off, pylon colision is generally used to set up an expansion and to tuck in cannons nicely so lings can't get good surface area on them, 3 pylon walls are essential to stop certain marine/scv all in tactics, pylon wallins are essential for cannon rushing in PvP as well.Even better solution: Blizzard changes the pylon/bunker collision box so they physically can't wall (sort of like spine crawlers) - this would be especially good for pylons because they don't even look like they wall. This might hurt protoss walls slightly, but players don't usually wall with pylons anyway since they're weak. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On August 09 2012 15:33 iamcaustic wrote: I can understand why Blizzard doesn't want to implement neutral depots on the ladder (I explain in the OP). I'd say the "dream" solution would be to have Blizzard create a new type of ladder-friendly, destructible unit made specifically for the purpose that mapmakers could make use of. However, that kind of thing is reliant on Blizzard taking the time to make such a thing, so that's not useful to us now. Maybe like some sort of pebbles or something, some spikey debris that units can walk over easily but obviously block the construction of buildings? Ultimately, it would act a lot like a burrowed depot. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: Ohana however is known to be very Terran favoured, especially in TvZ, Cloud Kingdom is known to be protoss favoured in PvT. Ohana: TvZ: 108-112 (49.1%) ZvP: 124-133 (48.2%) PvT: 98-96 (50.5%) Cloud Kingdom: TvZ: 275-297 (48.1%) ZvP: 369-327 (53%) PvT: 274-250 (52.3%) | ||
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
The supply depot works just fine, the surface around the ramp does not and would be even less suggestive and "map design breaking" than the supply depot. If blizzard doesn't want to put them on ladder maps leave them be, there are about 1 out of 100 situation in which a rush can actually kill the zerg due to it not being there if the zergs plays properly. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: No biggy, but you do realize that admitting that you don't actually play Zerg severely discredits you from having an informed opinion about the supposed overpoweredness of this build? I play Terran. I claim free wins on the ladder all the time with bunker ramp block. My knowledge comes from being the one doing and benefiting from the exploiting, rather than the one who suffers from it. That I didn't notice the slight adjustment from 14 to 15 supply for hatch first (the difference in timing is inconsequential for performing a ramp block) means nothing in regards to having an informed opinion on the matter. On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: 16 hatch and 15 hatch are essentially pretty much the same build, this is the difference between 12 rax and 13 rax, 12 gate and 13 gate. 15 OC versus 16 OC. The difference is extremely minute and most certainly is not going to affect if you're going to hold of a 2rax or if you're going to be put behind by an engineering bay block more or less. If you go 15 hatch you basically have an idle larva around for like 10 seconds, if you go 16 hatch you never have any idle larvae at the cost of a 10 second later hatch or something. It really comes down to preference. Or this topic: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=332438 ? Which is fairly new which also uses 15/16 hatch in its title, because as I said, the two are basically nearly identical. Almost any build you can execute with 15 hatch you can also execute with 16 hatch, the difference is really very minute. It's one of those things which is going to save you like 10 minerals in the long run Yet later hatch still opens you up more to getting ebay blocked, from a timing perspective. Also, 15/14 gets the pool out faster than 16/15, which means better defence against early bunker shenanigans and also earlier removal of an ebay block. Good find on the thread, though. I've also managed to find this one from mid-2011: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231964 So anyway, are we able to conclude that 16 hatch is more vulnerable to ebay blocks and bunker rushes and move on? You know, the original point I was trying to make? It's great that I've brushed up on the subtle details of current early game Zerg meta, but seriously. On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: No it's not, those maps never had imbalances ranging in the 30-70, you realize that Dual Sight and Crossfire have a 30% ZvP winrate right? Blizzard, for all the flack a lot of people who like to jump on bandwagons give them, actually cares a lot more about balance than GSL ever did. Seriously? The only reason Antiga is even playable at a competitive level is because of the balance changes made by tournaments such as GSL. Forcing cross-spawn (the only remotely balanced spawn), removing the rich minerals in favour of standard minerals, etc. Even Blizzard uses forced cross-spawn and removal of rich minerals on this map in its WCS edition. What does that tell you? Maps like Tal'Darim appear to have balanced stats because the collective imbalances even out. For example, in TvZ, cross spawn is heavily Zerg-favoured, while close positions that place the Terran close to the Zerg's natural cliff is heavily Terran-favoured. These heavy imbalances negate one another to create what appears to be a balanced average. Antiga is quite similar, except its cross spawns are decently balanced. The ladder map is broken as hell, though (much to my benefit as a Terran player). In regards to Crossfire, just look at the swing in balance from version 1.0 to 1.1 -- both International and Korean. It was definitely an imbalanced map, but the balance didn't just stay in one race's favour as if the tournament admins were incompetent. Once that swing ended up revealing itself as being more of one imbalanced matchup becomes balanced while a balanced matchup becomes imbalanced, alongside the community's general displeasure toward the map, it was finally removed from the GSL. For some reason, non-Korean tournaments kept it on life support for a little while longer, but it was eventually completely phased out. A map like Shakuras Plateau, however, is still in the ladder pool. It was introduced back in 2010. The Korean tournament winrates on this map were just as bad as -- nay, worse than -- Crossfire. Internationally, the stats are not as bad, but still imbalanced PvT in favour of Protoss. On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: Indeed, my argument is then again quite simple: - Ramp blocks are not imbalanced at all - Depots look ugly and are confusing - Zerg is currently the strongest race, nerfing Zerg slightly is acceptable. Ok, though I naturally disagree with your believe that ramp blocks aren't imbalanced. On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm not discrediting anyone here, I'm not sure where you are going with. Ohana however is known to be very Terran favoured, especially in TvZ, Cloud Kingdom is known to be protoss favoured in PvT. Um, I'm surprised you'd take the time to look up winrate stats for Crossfire but not spend some time on Ohana and Cloud Kingdom. Internationally, Ohana is fairly balanced except in TvZ, which is currently Zerg-favoured with a Terran winrate of 42.7%. In Korea, none of the match ups fall outside of Blizzard's 45/55 rule. Internationally, Cloud Kingdom does not have any match ups that fall outside of Blizzard's 45/55 rule. In Korea, the same is true, but moreover none of the match ups fall outside of a 2% difference (i.e. no race has a winrate of 52% or greater in any matchup). Like Crossfire, these winrates aren't masking imbalances due to being averaged out by different imbalanced spawns (as is the case with TDA), with all of them being 2-player maps and all. On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yap, I don't consider ramp blocks to be imbalanced at all. I never had any problems dealing with them, I consider things like the sentry/immortal push to be far more imbalanced than someone trying to get 3 pylons up. I've died many a times to a sentry/immortal push that I knew was coming, if I know a ramp block is coming because I have an ovie there it's not gonna get up in a billion years. As I said, I offer a third road. This thread asks how to deal with the supposed imbalance of ramp blocks, I say the way to deal with it is not at all, as they are not imbalanced. Not any more anyway, they were imbalanced a long time ago, but so much of the game has changed in the mean while. I believe you're fundamentally wrong in this regard, just as you were fundamentally wrong in your assumptions about racial favour/balance on current balanced maps. Ultimately, you've based everything on your personal perceptions (with exception to calling Crossfire imbalanced), which I'd like to note go completely against collective stats and professional observation. With that said, I'm going to retire from this specific debate. If you feel that strongly about ramp block no longer being imbalanced, I encourage that you make a separate discussion thread with your arguments so that people can discuss whether it's really imbalanced or not in more detail. I'll even link to it in my OP as an alternative opinion on the whole ramp block subject if you like. This thread is more about alternative anti-ramp block solutions from the neutral depot. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On August 09 2012 17:20 Aterons_toss wrote: This is one of the dumbest idea ever, it would affect so many types of protoss and even terran wall offs which the supply depot does not, please think about every race and how it affects them before suggesting things. The supply depot works just fine, the surface around the ramp does not and would be even less suggestive and "map design breaking" than the supply depot. If blizzard doesn't want to put them on ladder maps leave them be, there are about 1 out of 100 situation in which a rush can actually kill the zerg due to it not being there if the zergs plays properly. First off, I am a Terran player. Second, I direct you to this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=358984#17 | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On August 09 2012 17:03 IronManSC wrote: Ohana: TvZ: 108-112 (49.1%) ZvP: 124-133 (48.2%) PvT: 98-96 (50.5%) Cloud Kingdom: TvZ: 275-297 (48.1%) ZvP: 369-327 (53%) PvT: 274-250 (52.3%) Out of curiosity IronMan, how does ESV record its map winrates? Is it like Korean Weekly-only, all games played in any tournament, games played only in certain tournaments (and which ones), etc? User was warned for triple posting | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On August 09 2012 17:03 IronManSC wrote: Care to share where those stats come from though? I used these:Ohana: TvZ: 108-112 (49.1%) ZvP: 124-133 (48.2%) PvT: 98-96 (50.5%) Cloud Kingdom: TvZ: 275-297 (48.1%) ZvP: 369-327 (53%) PvT: 274-250 (52.3%) http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/xeos4/july_tlpd_winrates_by_map/ It was the last look into map stats I took. On August 09 2012 17:22 iamcaustic wrote: Oh, okay, in my opinion it's perfectly holdable, I seldom lose to it, but then again, I seldom attempt it either, the last time I attempted a 3 pylon block was when he went hatch first, no ovie at his expo and a super late pool, naturally it was super effective.I play Terran. I claim free wins on the ladder all the time with bunker ramp block. My knowledge comes from being the one doing and benefiting from the exploiting, rather than the one who suffers from it. I've levelled 3 separate accounts, one for each race, to top 25 EU master by the way, if that means anything. ' That I didn't notice the slight adjustment from 14 to 15 supply for hatch first (the difference in timing is inconsequential for performing a ramp block) means nothing in regards to having an informed opinion on the matter. Oh, okay, so why did you claim that my use of 16 hatch then apparently disqualifies me from having an opinion here? Because the difference between 15/16 hatch is much smaller than 14/15 hatch, which is actually a different build leading to a noticibly different economy.All right, so now I'm on page with the fact that what I've assumed was 14 hatch is actually 15 hatch, I've still never come across a 16 hatch ZvT unless it was pool first. The only information I can find for hatch first on 16 are old beta/early release builds that were basically considered situational or rejected as dying to any sort of early aggression. 16 hatch and 15 hatch are essentially pretty much the same build, this is the difference between 12 rax and 13 rax, 12 gate and 13 gate. 15 OC versus 16 OC. The difference is extremely minute and most certainly is not going to affect if you're going to hold of a 2rax or if you're going to be put behind by an engineering bay block more or less. If you go 15 hatch you basically have an idle larva around for like 10 seconds, if you go 16 hatch you never have any idle larvae at the cost of a 10 second later hatch or something. It really comes down to preference.Yet later hatch still opens you up more to getting ebay blocked, from a timing perspective. Also, 15/14 gets the pool out faster than 16/15, which means better defence against early bunker shenanigans and also earlier removal of an ebay block. Good find on the thread, though. I've also managed to find this one from mid-2011: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231964 So anyway, are we able to conclude that 16 hatch is more vulnerable to ebay blocks and bunker rushes and move on? You know, the original point I was trying to make? It's great that I've brushed up on the subtle details of current early game Zerg meta, but seriously. 1. No one uses 15 hatch 14 pool, the standard is 15 hatch 15 pool currently. 2. 16 hatch 15 pool gives you a later hatch but an earlier pool than 15 hatch 15 pool (this is seconds difference, nothing impactful) 3. You claim that with my build these things are harder to stop, yet I still feel they are balanced even when using this build, imagine how easy they are with 15/15. Apart from that, if they send an early worker out to ebay block, whatever hatch timing you pick, it will go down, it's designed to always go down, they send it early enough for that. On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: It tells me people confuse 'balance' with 'entertainment value', people like to see long macro games. I don't even believe that close spawns metalopolis was imbalanced against Zerg. It just didn't lead to macro games.Seriously? The only reason Antiga is even playable at a competitive level is because of the balance changes made by tournaments such as GSL. Forcing cross-spawn (the only remotely balanced spawn), removing the rich minerals in favour of standard minerals, etc. Even Blizzard uses forced cross-spawn and removal of rich minerals on this map in its WCS edition. What does that tell you? Non cross spawn antiga still doesn't have a 30% winrate in whatever matchup (if it did, Blizzard would change this, they've shown willingless to lock out certain spawns if they feel it impacts balance and/or make changes to maps when it actually impacts balance(. Maps like Tal'Darim appear to have balanced stats because the collective imbalances even out. For example, in TvZ, cross spawn is heavily Zerg-favoured, while close positions that place the Terran close to the Zerg's natural cliff is heavily Terran-favoured. These heavy imbalances negate one another to create what appears to be a balanced average. Antiga is quite similar, except its cross spawns are decently balanced. The ladder map is broken as hell, though (much to my benefit as a Terran player). If you have any stats on that, that would be great, but currently it's just a 'yes - no' issue. You'd be hard pressed to topple these stats though:http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/maps/421_Crossfire SE There's a reason Wolf couldn't contain his happiness when they removed it. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/maps/498_Bel'Shir Beach Winter This one isn't looking pretty either. In regards to Crossfire, just look at the swing in balance from version 1.0 to 1.1 -- both International and Korean. It was definitely an imbalanced map, but the balance didn't just stay in one race's favour as if the tournament admins were incompetent. Once that swing ended up revealing itself as being more of one imbalanced matchup becomes balanced while a balanced matchup becomes imbalanced, alongside the community's general displeasure toward the map, it was finally removed from the GSL. For some reason, non-Korean tournaments kept it on life support for a little while longer, but it was eventually completely phased out. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are trying to say here, could you rephrase?A map like Shakuras Plateau, however, is still in the ladder pool. It was introduced back in 2010. The Korean tournament winrates on this map were just as bad as -- nay, worse than -- Crossfire. Internationally, the stats are not as bad, but still imbalanced PvT in favour of Protoss. THe KR winrates on it have an extremely small sample size compared to the international winrates which show a slight TvP dominance though, not in reverse.Ok, though I naturally disagree with your believe that ramp blocks aren't imbalanced. I believe you're fundamentally wrong in this regard, just as you were fundamentally wrong in your assumptions about racial favour/balance on current balanced maps. Ultimately, you've based everything on your personal perceptions (with exception to calling Crossfire imbalanced), which I'd like to note go completely against collective stats and professional observation. With that said, I'm going to retire from this specific debate. If you feel that strongly about ramp block no longer being imbalanced, I encourage that you make a separate discussion thread with your arguments so that people can discuss whether it's really imbalanced or not in more detail. I'll even link to it in my OP as an alternative opinion on the whole ramp block subject if you like. Okikido. This thread is more about alternative anti-ramp block solutions from the neutral depot. | ||
|
TibblesEvilCat
United Kingdom766 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On August 10 2012 00:11 SiskosGoatee wrote: Care to share where those stats come from though? I used these: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/xeos4/july_tlpd_winrates_by_map/ I'm pretty sure IronMan's data is cumulative, not just from July and given that he's from the mapmaking team that made both of those maps, and he is literally the guy who made Ohana, I see no reason to cast any doubt on his data. On August 10 2012 02:56 TibblesEvilCat wrote: i use 1 loss blocker at the side of the ramp function same way as the depo and fits in with more themes then just terran wize. This wouldn't be destructible like a depot, though-- Terran and Protoss often destroy the depot to place buildings there later on to wall. | ||
| ||
14 hatch (ZvT)
