|
UPDATE November 24, 2012 This discussion has now been rendered moot, with Blizzard's inclusion of the "unbuildable rocks" and "unbuildable debris" neutral units in Heart of the Swarm, which provide a ladder-friendly version of what the neutral supply depot did. Feel free to read through if you're interested anyway, though.
------
UPDATE August 9, 2012 I've refined how the alternative solution works, to better accommodate FFE and anti-"ling run-by" walls.
------
Feedback from the thread
(Discussing outdated version) ESV's Diamond weighs in, and my response: + Show Spoiler +On August 08 2012 16:18 Diamond wrote: ESV literally spent 100% of our resources for like 3 weeks trying to find a replacement for the depot, nothing acts the same while allowing itself to be destroyed for "OH SHIT, LING RUNBY!" walls. Also no visual indication I think will confuse more people than a depot.
There is literally nothing that works as well as the neutral depot, too bad Blizz won't implement it. Regarding walls, I think this is more of a terrain development issue. Why is there an assumed requirement for walls to connect right against the ramp? Why not just in front of the ramp, or some other solution? Regarding visual indication, this is building pathing; this is shown as a grid for people who have building grid turned on, and for those who don't you still get the visual indication that you cannot place a building there when attempting. It's more than just a temporary fix; it's about re-adjusting pathing behaviour at the bottom of a single-width ramp. Perhaps the best argument against it in terms of confusion would be that building pathing at your main base ramp would behave differently at the bottom than any other ramp on the map. I'm not sure if that's a really big deal, though, as who tries to deliberately construct buildings at the bottom of any other ramp to block it off? ----------- Also keep in mind that small adjustments can be made -- I just posted what's in the OP as an example. Here's an alternate example that reduces how far the unpathable terrain extends by 1 unit, and a demonstrative Protoss FFE wall at the ramp, without the need for any major terrain adjustments. Pardon my sim-city skills; I cooked this up in 2 seconds. I'm sure a sturdier wall could be devised.
-----------------
Hey there. So the point of this thread is to discuss a possible alternative solution to using neutral supply depots in tournament maps. Before I get into that, let's review exactly what that problem is, and what the current "tournament standard" solution happens to be (and why).
The Problem The way single-width ramps work in StarCraft 2, it's possible for a Protoss or Terran to completely block the bottom of a single-width ramp with just two or three structures. This is particularly painful when the victim happens to be a Zerg player, as they become unable to get that early expansion they need to remain competitive -- or worse, find themselves walled off from their natural hatchery, and helplessly watch as it is destroyed, putting them irreparably behind their opponent.
The cries of Zerg players could be heard echoing across the Koprulu Sector
The Current Solution To prevent this from happening in tournament-level matches, mapmakers came up with the creative solution to add neutral lowered supply depots at the bottom of single-width ramps which lead into a main base. The cheesy tactic is no longer viable, and the neutral depot can be later destroyed so it no longer has any impact on the game.
The great saviour of Zerg, ironically of Terran origin.
For all practical purposes, this solution works well. However, it can have the negative aspect of confusing the uninitiated (I mean, we have a random Terran building sitting at the base of your main ramp -- and it's especially out of place if neither player is Terran), whether they be players or spectators. For this reason, we don't see this solution implemented on the ladder, much to the detriment of everyone who ladders 1v1 competitively. You can't entirely blame Blizzard for this. They have to take into consideration even the people who are still in the practice league, let alone Bronze.
Like I already mentioned, it can also be confusing to newbie spectators watching these tournament-level games. So, what do we do about it?
An Alternative Solution So if we can't use neutral race buildings as a universal solution, even if it works well enough for tournaments, what could we do? It's obvious the standard single-width ramp on its own is fundamentally broken if left on its own. I figure, why not use our old friend the pathing tool? There is a specific options for painting unbuildable pathing onto the map. Making use of it opens up some creative possibilities.
A modified single-width ramp, courtesy of the pathing tool.
Adding unbuildable pathing in this manner completely shuts down the possibility of blocking the ramp, while having minimal to zero impact on gameplay. As a bonus, it also doesn't require use of interactive objects like racial structures that create visual noise and confusion to the uninitiated. Because of this, it might even be possible to convince Blizzard to adjust their ladder maps in a similar fashion, fixing the ramp block issue for the ladder as well.
Behold, no more 2 bunker or 3 pylon blocks:
Bunker blocks work so poorly, a depot has to come in to pick up the slack
If you're a Protoss and you find yourself actually trying this, you might want to rethink your PvZ
And of course, minimal impact on current FE trends for Terran and Protoss vs. Zerg:
A Terran anti-ling wall
A Protoss FFE wall
+ Show Spoiler [Protoss FFE on Antiga Shipyard] +The weird top-right spawn: Compare to the FFE example given in Liquipedia for this spawn:
Thoughts and/or opinions?
|
I think the problem with blocking building placement is that it can cause confusion. There is no way to signify that you can't build buildings there. In addition, at least from your picture, it would block ramp to nexus wall offs.
I think the solution needs to be temporary. Something we see the importance of in the early game, but loses it's relevance in the mid-late game. I think the depot fits this purpose perfectly.
|
On August 08 2012 12:31 GDR wrote: I think the problem with blocking building placement is that it can cause confusion. There is no way to signify that you can't build buildings there. In addition, at least from your picture, it would block ramp to nexus wall offs.
To expand on this. The problem with using the no-building pathing tool to paint out that area is that is generates zero information to the player that that particular area is non-buildable. This can seriously hinder the players as they need to be able to read, recognize, and make decisions based on the information they see in front of them. If they see that they can't build there but there is no obvious informational identifier (i.e. a structure or other building blocker) placed there, than their ability to perform is hindered. This is compounded if it is a newer player or a player that chooses not to enable the build grid. At the basis of everygame is the key condition that players are assessing information and making decisions based on that information (whether perfect or not). We should strive to give them as much information as possible without giving undue advantage such that they are not hindered.
The neutral supply depot fits this. That is not to say there are not other possible solutions, just that this one works particularly well. And lets not forget the possibility of players using the drone drill -- which works just fine to circumvent this particular issue.
|
On August 08 2012 12:46 SigmaFiE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:31 GDR wrote: I think the problem with blocking building placement is that it can cause confusion. There is no way to signify that you can't build buildings there. In addition, at least from your picture, it would block ramp to nexus wall offs. To expand on this. The problem with using the no-building pathing tool to paint out that area is that is generates zero information to the player that that particular area is non-buildable. This can seriously hinder the players as they need to be able to read, recognize, and make decisions based on the information they see in front of them. If they see that they can't build there but there is no obvious informational identifier (i.e. a structure or other building blocker) placed there, than their ability to perform is hindered. This is compounded if it is a newer player or a player that chooses not to enable the build grid. At the basis of everygame is the key condition that players are assessing information and making decisions based on that information (whether perfect or not). We should strive to give them as much information as possible without giving undue advantage such that they are not hindered. The neutral supply depot fits this. That is not to say there are not other possible solutions, just that this one works particularly well. And lets not forget the possibility of players using the drone drill -- which works just fine to circumvent this particular issue. I don't know about this - BW maps are full of random unbuildable terrain, often with almost zero visibility (you can usually tell if you look closely enough that the tiles have been specifically chosen and edited to be unbuildable), but this doesn't really hurt players at all.
In fact, it might be interesting if it became accepted for certain textures to be associated and used only with unbuildable terrain - it might make for some interesting map design, such as limiting the possible locations for proxy pylons, etc.
|
400HP 2x2 Destructible rocks on a 3minute timer. Edit: they'd have to be burrowed.
Now they're neutral, not from a race, and timed. You could even eliminate the timer.
|
What about another lowered structure, such as the Zhakul'Das library? It can be resized to be 2x2 if necessary. It would remove the feel caused by a known structure like the Supply Depot and have the exact same effect.
|
China6282 Posts
Simply change it to something more fitting the map's athetics, i.e. supply depot on daybreak or antiga is acceptable since the map itself is a human space station, and on whirlwind or ohana, rocks works just fine.
|
Frankly this seems it would cause more confusion than a depot. At least a depot has a visual indicator of its presence. I think what is really needed is a new model of the blocking object, something which is not connected to any race but makes sense in its context. What does that look like? not really sure yet.
|
This idea would hurt Protoss Forge Fast Expanding on some maps, as well: Note the gap that stops you from blocking off your own ramp with a building. I like the idea of finding an alternative, but this isn't it.
|
On August 08 2012 13:22 Ktk wrote: 400HP 2x2 Destructible rocks on a 3minute timer. Edit: they'd have to be burrowed.
Now they're neutral, not from a race, and timed. You could even eliminate the timer.
This seems like the best idea so far. Just make it destructible rocks instead of a supply depot. Problem solved.
|
ESV literally spent 100% of our resources for like 3 weeks trying to find a replacement for the depot, nothing acts the same while allowing itself to be destroyed for "OH SHIT, LING RUNBY!" walls. Also no visual indication I think will confuse more people than a depot.
There is literally nothing that works as well as the neutral depot, too bad Blizz won't implement it.
|
You have to be kinda stupid for people to think that with this new advanced map editor that people haven't thought of better ways to block things than a lowered supply depot.
Unbuildable pathing is a problem because it's PERMANENT. The purpose of the depot is so that it's destructible, so that it's still possible to wall later on.
I think the best solution would be a small and/or short doodad placed in the middle of the area that would vary depending on the map (such as a bush, crystal, small boulder bones, tree, or debris). That's not all; The doodad would have 1 health, and be unselectable, untargettable, and invulnerable for the first 3 or so minutes of the game. It would either have a small movement-blocking footprint (static doodads can have very small footprints) that wouldn't hinder unit movement much, or even no movement-hindering footprint at all (which would be less realistic to have units moving through them though). Regardless, it would still have at least 1 square blocked for building placement.
By doing it this way it: • would not distract new players. As the OP pointed out, new players may get confused at the sight of a neutral building, especially with the name "supply depot" • would not be permanent, making for less impact on the game than it's intended purpose • would not waste any significant amount of time for the players to get rid of once it's timer is elapsed.
Problems: It kinda goes against "standard melee rules", but I don't think this is an issue? At least the only people who might have a problem with it is Blizzard, since they may not like having custom units or triggers in ladder maps. Aside from that I don't think it's an issue because as far as I know unlike in SC1 melee maps can have all sorts of special units and triggers.
|
On August 08 2012 13:21 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:46 SigmaFiE wrote:On August 08 2012 12:31 GDR wrote: I think the problem with blocking building placement is that it can cause confusion. There is no way to signify that you can't build buildings there. In addition, at least from your picture, it would block ramp to nexus wall offs. To expand on this. The problem with using the no-building pathing tool to paint out that area is that is generates zero information to the player that that particular area is non-buildable. This can seriously hinder the players as they need to be able to read, recognize, and make decisions based on the information they see in front of them. If they see that they can't build there but there is no obvious informational identifier (i.e. a structure or other building blocker) placed there, than their ability to perform is hindered. This is compounded if it is a newer player or a player that chooses not to enable the build grid. At the basis of everygame is the key condition that players are assessing information and making decisions based on that information (whether perfect or not). We should strive to give them as much information as possible without giving undue advantage such that they are not hindered. The neutral supply depot fits this. That is not to say there are not other possible solutions, just that this one works particularly well. And lets not forget the possibility of players using the drone drill -- which works just fine to circumvent this particular issue. I don't know about this - BW maps are full of random unbuildable terrain, often with almost zero visibility (you can usually tell if you look closely enough that the tiles have been specifically chosen and edited to be unbuildable), but this doesn't really hurt players at all. In fact, it might be interesting if it became accepted for certain textures to be associated and used only with unbuildable terrain - it might make for some interesting map design, such as limiting the possible locations for proxy pylons, etc. This was along my line of thinking as well. I don't think enough time has been spent on these sorts of alternative possibilities, despite there being a lot of precedence in Brood War. Kind of strange IMO.
Most of the arguments against seem to be along the lines of "but it won't work because players are used to X and some maps will lose the ability to wall like Y". However, what players are used to is dependent on what's currently out there -- if this were to be implemented across the board, suddenly this would be what players become used to. As for wall-offs, we need to ask ourselves the question: do we make maps assuming ramp-to-townhall walls, or do we adjust the terrain to encourage/make possible wall-offs in a different manner?
|
On August 08 2012 16:18 Diamond wrote: ESV literally spent 100% of our resources for like 3 weeks trying to find a replacement for the depot, nothing acts the same while allowing itself to be destroyed for "OH SHIT, LING RUNBY!" walls. Also no visual indication I think will confuse more people than a depot.
There is literally nothing that works as well as the neutral depot, too bad Blizz won't implement it. Regarding walls, I think this is more of a terrain development issue. Why is there an assumed requirement for walls to connect right against the ramp? Why not just in front of the ramp, or some other solution? Regarding visual indication, this is building pathing; this is shown as a grid for people who have building grid turned on, and for those who don't you still get the visual indication that you cannot place a building there when attempting. It's more than just a temporary fix; it's about re-adjusting pathing behaviour at the bottom of a single-width ramp.
Perhaps the best argument against it in terms of confusion would be that building pathing at your main base ramp would behave differently at the bottom than any other ramp on the map. I'm not sure if that's a really big deal, though, as who tries to deliberately construct buildings at the bottom of any other ramp to block it off?
|
On August 08 2012 16:08 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:22 Ktk wrote: 400HP 2x2 Destructible rocks on a 3minute timer. Edit: they'd have to be burrowed.
Now they're neutral, not from a race, and timed. You could even eliminate the timer. This seems like the best idea so far. Just make it destructible rocks instead of a supply depot. Problem solved. Why is there a requirement to design maps to FFE off of the ramp? Why not design terrain to allow FFE without the need of the ramp (like on BW maps)? I do, however, agree that this wouldn't be a viable solution for some current maps in the ladder/tournament map pools, such as Antiga Shipyard. There are plenty of problems with maps like that anyway though, and should probably be rotated out of pools.
|
On August 08 2012 16:56 Xapti wrote: You have to be kinda stupid for people to think that with this new advanced map editor that people haven't thought of better ways to block things than a lowered supply depot.
Unbuildable pathing is a problem because it's PERMANENT. The purpose of the depot is so that it's destructible, so that it's still possible to wall later on.
I think the best solution would be a small and/or short doodad placed in the middle of the area that would vary depending on the map (such as a bush, crystal, small boulder bones, tree, or debris). That's not all; The doodad would have 1 health, and be unselectable, untargettable, and invulnerable for the first 3 or so minutes of the game. It would either have a small movement-blocking footprint (static doodads can have very small footprints) that wouldn't hinder unit movement much, or even no movement-hindering footprint at all (which would be less realistic to have units moving through them though). Regardless, it would still have at least 1 square blocked for building placement.
By doing it this way it: • would not distract new players. As the OP pointed out, new players may get confused at the sight of a neutral building, especially with the name "supply depot" • would not be permanent, making for less impact on the game than it's intended purpose • would not waste any significant amount of time for the players to get rid of once it's timer is elapsed.
Problems: It kinda goes against "standard melee rules", but I don't think this is an issue? At least the only people who might have a problem with it is Blizzard, since they may not like having custom units or triggers in ladder maps. Aside from that I don't think it's an issue because as far as I know unlike in SC1 melee maps can have all sorts of special units and triggers. Of course it's permanent. This alternative is more than just a band-aid fix, it's about re-thinking the behaviour of pathing and terrain between the main and natural bases. As a number of people in the thread have mentioned, certain solutions for openings like FFE utilized on some current maps (such as Antiga Shipyard) would not work with this. However, if we're looking at a modern solution to a problem, is it reasonable to expect it to fit perfectly within old maps for it to be a true solution? Or rather, should we consider that perhaps a slight adjustment to terrain design might be more reasonable?
It's like in software development, if you create a new feature or update underlying concepts, you can't possibly make it 100% backwards-compatible. With patch 1.5, there was a recent controversy over Blizzard dropping support for Mac OS X 10.5.8 despite it being part of the original minimum requirements.
Perhaps we can't use this method for some current/older maps, but what about maps that are made going forward that take this concept into consideration?
|
Also keep in mind that small adjustments can be made -- I just posted what's in the OP as an example. Here's an alternate example that reduces how far the unpathable terrain extends by 1 unit, and a demonstrative Protoss FFE wall at the ramp, without the need for any major terrain adjustments.
Pardon my sim-city skills; I cooked this up in 2 seconds. I'm sure a sturdier wall could be devised.
|
It would need to be done by Blizzard otherwise people will create their own non-standard unpathable terrain patterns around ramps, and it would be a disaster for competitive gaming. Blizzard are the only ones who can force all ramps to have a particular set of unpathable terrain. The reason the neutral supply depot sort of works is because it is idiot-proof, there are only 3 places you can put it and they all work well enough to prevent the wall.
|
On August 08 2012 20:23 XenoX101 wrote: It would need to be done by Blizzard otherwise people will create their own non-standard unpathable terrain patterns around ramps, and it would be a disaster for competitive gaming. Blizzard are the only ones who can force all ramps to have a particular set of unpathable terrain. The reason the neutral supply depot sort of works is because it is idiot-proof, there are only 3 places you can put it and they all work well enough to prevent the wall. For maps made by random amateur mapmakers, yes this could be an issue. However, for premier tournaments and mapmaking teams I'm not sure why a de-facto standard can't be agreed upon; everyone seems to have agreed upon the neutral lowered supply depot pretty easily.
Frankly, I don't see it as too difficult to figure out and agree upon a specific pathing setup. In this regard it'd only be 1 pattern to be had, rather than the 3 possible placements for the neutral depot. The trick is just coming up with what pathing pattern is the best solution.
|
On August 08 2012 20:30 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:23 XenoX101 wrote: It would need to be done by Blizzard otherwise people will create their own non-standard unpathable terrain patterns around ramps, and it would be a disaster for competitive gaming. Blizzard are the only ones who can force all ramps to have a particular set of unpathable terrain. The reason the neutral supply depot sort of works is because it is idiot-proof, there are only 3 places you can put it and they all work well enough to prevent the wall. For maps made by random amateur mapmakers, yes this could be an issue. However, for premier tournaments and mapmaking teams I'm not sure why a de-facto standard can't be agreed upon; everyone seems to have agreed upon the neutral lowered supply depot pretty easily. Frankly, I don't see it as too difficult to figure out and agree upon a specific pathing setup. In this regard it'd only be 1 pattern to be had, rather than the 3 possible placements for the neutral depot. The trick is just coming up with what pathing pattern is the best solution.
We still don't even have a universal map pool that all tournaments agree on, so the chances of every single tournament adopting the standard are slim to none. It will only cause further complications about map versions if one version has un-pathable terrain and another has a neutral supply depot, hardly worth the slight visual improvement of not having the depot. And you can always tell when a map has been modded with a neutral supply depot, not so with unpathable terrain. It's a nice idea, but it's far too ambitious for the map framework or lack-thereof that we have now.
|
On August 08 2012 21:43 XenoX101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:30 iamcaustic wrote:On August 08 2012 20:23 XenoX101 wrote: It would need to be done by Blizzard otherwise people will create their own non-standard unpathable terrain patterns around ramps, and it would be a disaster for competitive gaming. Blizzard are the only ones who can force all ramps to have a particular set of unpathable terrain. The reason the neutral supply depot sort of works is because it is idiot-proof, there are only 3 places you can put it and they all work well enough to prevent the wall. For maps made by random amateur mapmakers, yes this could be an issue. However, for premier tournaments and mapmaking teams I'm not sure why a de-facto standard can't be agreed upon; everyone seems to have agreed upon the neutral lowered supply depot pretty easily. Frankly, I don't see it as too difficult to figure out and agree upon a specific pathing setup. In this regard it'd only be 1 pattern to be had, rather than the 3 possible placements for the neutral depot. The trick is just coming up with what pathing pattern is the best solution. We still don't even have a universal map pool that all tournaments agree on, so the chances of every single tournament adopting the standard are slim to none. It will only cause further complications about map versions if one version has un-pathable terrain and another has a neutral supply depot, hardly worth the slight visual improvement of not having the depot. And you can always tell when a map has been modded with a neutral supply depot, not so with unpathable terrain. It's a nice idea, but it's far too ambitious for the map framework or lack-thereof that we have now. I don't think every tournament should have the exact same map pool. It's perfectly reasonable for some tournaments to introduce new maps before others (e.g. GSL), and for some tournaments to take their time before updating their pool (e.g. MLG, though they are a bit too slow). This kind of solution isn't dependent on which maps are being used at the time, just like how the neutral supply depot wasn't dependent on it.
I'd also like to note the concept of disabling spawn locations on certain maps. We've seen different tournaments have different versions of this kind of non-visual change for certain maps, and the answer to let people know was for the tournament to announce the changes. If GSL were to make an announcement that they've updated their map pool to use this kind of solution, that's enough to let pros know that ramp blocking still won't work despite there being no neutral depot.
|
To your credit, the OP is fairly exhaustive (if slanted) in its treatment of the subject. However, you don't really make a powerful case against the neutral depot. Clearly it does the job just fine. What are the objections to it? I gather your two objections are: 1) its cosmetic effect (more of an allusion), and 2) it may confuse newbs / non-competitive players.
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the neutral depot has the appearance of function over form, but by the same token its purpose is very clear to anyone with a passing familiarity with competitive sc2. If this is really a problem, you can duplicate the unit, name it "destructible wall obstruction", and shade it a special colour or what have you, even give it a new appearance entirely. A tooltip can help new players understand the purpose of it if a new name doesn't make it immediately clear.
Fancier solutions will only confuse the issue, and anything besides a 1x1 square of destructible unbuildable is overkill. The idea is to change the playing field as little as possible while preventing a wall at the bottom of the ramp. This is as much to prevent the rax depot anti-scout wall as much as the PvZ wall-in.
If you have an object that makes intuitive sense that fits the environment, is named clearly, and has an explanatory tooltip, that would serve, but I don't think you can really make a perfectly apparent, coherent solution for something which is by its nature a "workaround" to a game balance problem.
|
Eh, is the pylon wall-in really that big of a problem anymore? I mean, with the queen range buff it is a lot easier to break down walls. I used to play as zerg on ladder and although I've had the pylon wall in used against me, I've never lost to it - you can just use a queen to break down the wall and runby with maybe 20 lings and win outright since the toss is really far behind. I never understood why that one cheesy strat is disallowed, when cannon rushing, etc is totally fine. I actually found the pylon wall to be easier to deal with than a cannon rush.
Also, i feel like painted no-building is just going to confuse players even more than the neutral dept.
|
I'm going to apply the third road here:
3 pylon blocks / 2 bunker blocks are not imbalanced any more:
The neutral depot dates from a time that you could use 2 pylons to block, bunkers built quicker, rax built quicker, the drone drill wasn't discovered, queens had less range, overlords were slower. Furthermore, even then, it was never proven that it was imbalanced. If it was so truly imbalanced this strat would be far more popular on the ladder than it actually is. I see 2 bunker blocks attempted at me if they 11/11 proxy me, or if I don't have an ovie at my expo, I don't see them otherwise attempted, and they surely shouldn't attempt it, because I will hold it, I will most likely stop it from going up if I know it's coming. I see pylon blocks only attempted if there is no ovie at the expo, if you react in time you can drone drill to salvation quite easily. (though my results are a bit skewed since I go 11overpool standard ZvP)
Yes, if it gets up you're in a bad spot. But there are so many ways to stop it from getting up. Yeah, if you don't have a zealot blocking your wall and lings get in, you're in a bad spot, put a zealot there to stop that, put a drone on patrol to stop this if you feel like it (I personally never put a drone on patrol since I'm confident in holding it off without a drone on patrol, but I'm completely sure it would be child's play with a drone on patrol)
The only reason in the current metagame that these things can still get up is if you make a mistake and let them go up. They are quite easy to prevent from getting up.
Also, it's not like Zerg in the current metagame can't use the ever so slight nerf of missing one worker in the early game for 20 seconds to be put on patrol there.
|
On August 09 2012 04:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm going to apply the third road here:
3 pylon blocks / 2 bunker blocks are not imbalanced any more:
The neutral depot dates from a time that you could use 2 pylons to block, bunkers built quicker, rax built quicker, the drone drill wasn't discovered, queens had less range, overlords were slower. Furthermore, even then, it was never proven that it was imbalanced. If it was so truly imbalanced this strat would be far more popular on the ladder than it actually is. I see 2 bunker blocks attempted at me if they 11/11 proxy me, or if I don't have an ovie at my expo, I don't see them otherwise attempted, and they surely shouldn't attempt it, because I will hold it, I will most likely stop it from going up if I know it's coming. I see pylon blocks only attempted if there is no ovie at the expo, if you react in time you can drone drill to salvation quite easily. (though my results are a bit skewed since I go 11overpool standard ZvP)
Yes, if it gets up you're in a bad spot. But there are so many ways to stop it from getting up. Yeah, if you don't have a zealot blocking your wall and lings get in, you're in a bad spot, put a zealot there to stop that, put a drone on patrol to stop this if you feel like it (I personally never put a drone on patrol since I'm confident in holding it off without a drone on patrol, but I'm completely sure it would be child's play with a drone on patrol)
The only reason in the current metagame that these things can still get up is if you make a mistake and let them go up. They are quite easy to prevent from getting up.
Also, it's not like Zerg in the current metagame can't use the ever so slight nerf of missing one worker in the early game for 20 seconds to be put on patrol there. I'm not convinced that balance was the reason the depot was implemented. Blocking off a ramp and getting a quick win is boring to watch. Nothing's exciting's happened, yet the game is over. It might not have been imbalanced, but eliminating the strategy makes it more likely to see either a straight up game, or a more skillful cheese, both of which are a lot more fun to watch.
|
On August 09 2012 02:57 EatThePath wrote: To your credit, the OP is fairly exhaustive (if slanted) in its treatment of the subject. However, you don't really make a powerful case against the neutral depot. Clearly it does the job just fine. What are the objections to it? I gather your two objections are: 1) its cosmetic effect (more of an allusion), and 2) it may confuse newbs / non-competitive players.
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the neutral depot has the appearance of function over form, but by the same token its purpose is very clear to anyone with a passing familiarity with competitive sc2. If this is really a problem, you can duplicate the unit, name it "destructible wall obstruction", and shade it a special colour or what have you, even give it a new appearance entirely. A tooltip can help new players understand the purpose of it if a new name doesn't make it immediately clear.
Fancier solutions will only confuse the issue, and anything besides a 1x1 square of destructible unbuildable is overkill. The idea is to change the playing field as little as possible while preventing a wall at the bottom of the ramp. This is as much to prevent the rax depot anti-scout wall as much as the PvZ wall-in.
If you have an object that makes intuitive sense that fits the environment, is named clearly, and has an explanatory tooltip, that would serve, but I don't think you can really make a perfectly apparent, coherent solution for something which is by its nature a "workaround" to a game balance problem. In terms of just having a solution for the ramp block issue in tournament play, the neutral depot works just fine. Like I state in the OP, it's a practical solution that serves its purpose, even if slightly inelegant.
The point of this thread isn't to claim that the neutral depot is somehow broken or antiquated, but rather to introduce an alternative solution that works just as well and/or slightly better (or so is the hope) than the neutral depot, while eliminating some of the perceived drawbacks that keeps the neutral depot from being implemented outside of premier tournaments, such as in the Blizzard ladder.
Any other solutions -- such as what you suggest with a unique structural object -- creates the need for a custom solution rather than utilizing something from the standard melee mod, and thus is plagued by a similar drawback to the neutral depot: Blizzard would never implement it on the ladder. In this regard, it's more reasonable to stick with the neutral depot, as it's just as effective and requires far less work to implement.
Overall, that's why I call this an alternative, rather than necessarily a replacement.
|
On August 09 2012 04:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm going to apply the third road here:
3 pylon blocks / 2 bunker blocks are not imbalanced any more:
The neutral depot dates from a time that you could use 2 pylons to block, bunkers built quicker, rax built quicker, the drone drill wasn't discovered, queens had less range, overlords were slower. Furthermore, even then, it was never proven that it was imbalanced. If it was so truly imbalanced this strat would be far more popular on the ladder than it actually is. I see 2 bunker blocks attempted at me if they 11/11 proxy me, or if I don't have an ovie at my expo, I don't see them otherwise attempted, and they surely shouldn't attempt it, because I will hold it, I will most likely stop it from going up if I know it's coming. I see pylon blocks only attempted if there is no ovie at the expo, if you react in time you can drone drill to salvation quite easily. (though my results are a bit skewed since I go 11overpool standard ZvP)
Yes, if it gets up you're in a bad spot. But there are so many ways to stop it from getting up. Yeah, if you don't have a zealot blocking your wall and lings get in, you're in a bad spot, put a zealot there to stop that, put a drone on patrol to stop this if you feel like it (I personally never put a drone on patrol since I'm confident in holding it off without a drone on patrol, but I'm completely sure it would be child's play with a drone on patrol)
The only reason in the current metagame that these things can still get up is if you make a mistake and let them go up. They are quite easy to prevent from getting up.
Also, it's not like Zerg in the current metagame can't use the ever so slight nerf of missing one worker in the early game for 20 seconds to be put on patrol there. We just recently seen Byun defeat NesTea on Metropolis due to the ramp block, thanks to a mistake which caused the neutral depots to not be present on the map during their match. There was quite a controversy about it. I also take a few quick free wins on the ladder now and again when facing Zergs. To say that the issue doesn't exist anymore is a faulty premise, in my opinion.
Edit: I do get what you're saying, how Zergs can implement certain tactics to avoid the issue from occurring in most cases, but I do feel like this is one of those things that simply shouldn't be viable to begin with.
|
If we are going to use a 1x1 object, I worked out some placings that require 4 buildings to wall off (everything else could be done with 3 building combinations of bunkers and depots.
I used a LOS blocker for demonstration purposes, though it might be one way to go.
|
On August 09 2012 06:47 iamcaustic wrote:
Edit: I do get what you're saying, how Zergs can implement certain tactics to avoid the issue from occurring in most cases, but I do feel like this is one of those things that simply shouldn't be viable to begin with. Should 6pools or early bunkers in general be? A bunker at a ramp attempt really is not that much more scary than just two early bunkers behind minerals in hard to reach places honestly.
I also feel more 'Oh great, now I'm behind' when a Terran decides to send a 10 scv and I find a half completed engineering bay at the place my 16 hatch was supposed to go. I absolutely don't feel confident in taking my third versus Terran and I'm not sure what to do after that.
What about the tactic where they make a hatch and a queen and try to get a creep tumour ZvP? I feel this is about as hard to stop from going up as a pylon block, it's a similar investment, and it puts the P about as much behind if it gets up as Z is put behind if the 3 pylon wall with a cannon behind it gets up.
|
I just don't understand the urgency to "fix" what isn't a problem in the first place. The supply depot works great - why not devote your resources to something more useful?
|
On August 09 2012 09:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 06:47 iamcaustic wrote:
Edit: I do get what you're saying, how Zergs can implement certain tactics to avoid the issue from occurring in most cases, but I do feel like this is one of those things that simply shouldn't be viable to begin with. Should 6pools or early bunkers in general be? A bunker at a ramp attempt really is not that much more scary than just two early bunkers behind minerals in hard to reach places honestly. I also feel more 'Oh great, now I'm behind' when a Terran decides to send a 10 scv and I find a half completed engineering bay at the place my 16 hatch was supposed to go. I absolutely don't feel confident in taking my third versus Terran and I'm not sure what to do after that. What about the tactic where they make a hatch and a queen and try to get a creep tumour ZvP? I feel this is about as hard to stop from going up as a pylon block, it's a similar investment, and it puts the P about as much behind if it gets up as Z is put behind if the 3 pylon wall with a cannon behind it gets up. Bunker ramp block is actually a lot more damaging than bunkers behind minerals. Sure, both will put a Zerg behind, but the ramp block is of a greater scale. At least with bunkers behind minerals, Zergs have opportunities to set up spine crawlers at the natural, make a bunch of lings, and basically overpower the bunkers before they're able to kill the hatchery. With a proper ramp block, that hatchery is going down no matter what the Zerg does. I can say this with confidence as a Terran player who does this tactic on the ladder.
6-pool is easily stoppable with a simple wall, and an engineering bay is only a minor delay for a 16 hatch (which means you went pool first and thus have access to lings to take down the ebay fairly quickly). Again, definitely a different scale of damage. Also, how do you "find" a half-complete ebay? There should be an overlord spotting the area, or else you're doing something wrong.
|
On August 09 2012 09:34 Fatam wrote: I just don't understand the urgency to "fix" what isn't a problem in the first place. The supply depot works great - why not devote your resources to something more useful? As an upcoming mapmaker that's wanting to make quality maps, these sorts of things cross my mind. Essentially, "is there a better solution?" is a question that's always in the back of my mind when doing things. In this case, while working on a map and doing the main base ramp, this thought crossed my mind and I made some quick conceptual screenshots to present in a thread. That's about all there is to it. No urgency or over-devotion of resources.
|
On August 09 2012 04:44 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm going to apply the third road here:
3 pylon blocks / 2 bunker blocks are not imbalanced any more:
The neutral depot dates from a time that you could use 2 pylons to block, bunkers built quicker, rax built quicker, the drone drill wasn't discovered, queens had less range, overlords were slower. Furthermore, even then, it was never proven that it was imbalanced. If it was so truly imbalanced this strat would be far more popular on the ladder than it actually is. I see 2 bunker blocks attempted at me if they 11/11 proxy me, or if I don't have an ovie at my expo, I don't see them otherwise attempted, and they surely shouldn't attempt it, because I will hold it, I will most likely stop it from going up if I know it's coming. I see pylon blocks only attempted if there is no ovie at the expo, if you react in time you can drone drill to salvation quite easily. (though my results are a bit skewed since I go 11overpool standard ZvP)
Yes, if it gets up you're in a bad spot. But there are so many ways to stop it from getting up. Yeah, if you don't have a zealot blocking your wall and lings get in, you're in a bad spot, put a zealot there to stop that, put a drone on patrol to stop this if you feel like it (I personally never put a drone on patrol since I'm confident in holding it off without a drone on patrol, but I'm completely sure it would be child's play with a drone on patrol)
The only reason in the current metagame that these things can still get up is if you make a mistake and let them go up. They are quite easy to prevent from getting up.
Also, it's not like Zerg in the current metagame can't use the ever so slight nerf of missing one worker in the early game for 20 seconds to be put on patrol there.
I agree. This discussion really need to really be taken up when we start getting into the HOTS beta. It really seems like the right time to start this discussion.
On August 09 2012 05:29 NewSunshine wrote: I'm not convinced that balance was the reason the depot was implemented. Blocking off a ramp and getting a quick win is boring to watch. Nothing's exciting's happened, yet the game is over. It might not have been imbalanced, but eliminating the strategy makes it more likely to see either a straight up game, or a more skillful cheese, both of which are a lot more fun to watch.
It is not our decision to decide which cheeses are "too boring to watch". Leave that decision to blizzard. The thing about this cheese is that is that it was possible to eliminate it. Tournement would have done this a hundred times over if other cheeses could be stopped with simple map features. Imagen if something could have been done to block the 1-1-1.
On August 09 2012 06:47 iamcaustic wrote:We just recently seen Byun defeat NesTea on Metropolis due to the ramp block, thanks to a mistake which caused the neutral depots to not be present on the map during their match. There was quite a controversy about it. I also take a few quick free wins on the ladder now and again when facing Zergs. To say that the issue doesn't exist anymore is a faulty premise, in my opinion. Edit: I do get what you're saying, how Zergs can implement certain tactics to avoid the issue from occurring in most cases, but I do feel like this is one of those things that simply shouldn't be viable to begin with.
Can't be compared really. Nestea may be one of the best zerg but in that game it wasn't an option he considered. He was taken by surprise. I am sure he would have reacted better if he knew the depots was missing.
In either case we need to see what happens between pros when they do it, and know from start it is possible.
|
On August 09 2012 09:52 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 09:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 09 2012 06:47 iamcaustic wrote:
Edit: I do get what you're saying, how Zergs can implement certain tactics to avoid the issue from occurring in most cases, but I do feel like this is one of those things that simply shouldn't be viable to begin with. Should 6pools or early bunkers in general be? A bunker at a ramp attempt really is not that much more scary than just two early bunkers behind minerals in hard to reach places honestly. I also feel more 'Oh great, now I'm behind' when a Terran decides to send a 10 scv and I find a half completed engineering bay at the place my 16 hatch was supposed to go. I absolutely don't feel confident in taking my third versus Terran and I'm not sure what to do after that. What about the tactic where they make a hatch and a queen and try to get a creep tumour ZvP? I feel this is about as hard to stop from going up as a pylon block, it's a similar investment, and it puts the P about as much behind if it gets up as Z is put behind if the 3 pylon wall with a cannon behind it gets up. Bunker ramp block is actually a lot more damaging than bunkers behind minerals. Sure, both will put a Zerg behind, but the ramp block is of a greater scale. At least with bunkers behind minerals, Zergs have opportunities to set up spine crawlers at the natural, make a bunch of lings, and basically overpower the bunkers before they're able to kill the hatchery. With a proper ramp block, that hatchery is going down no matter what the Zerg does. I can say this with confidence as a Terran player who does this tactic on the ladder. If the bunkers get up yeah, but it's so much easier to stop them from going up if they do a ramp block than if they use certain mineral spots on certrain maps where you can't use drone drilling. Ramp bunkers are amongst the easiest bunkers to stop if you know they are making them because they're the closet to your main so the least travel distance. Surface area used to be a problem but just isn't any more with the drone drill, if you just bring 8 drones down in time before they even start they have a really tough time getting them up, much tougher than certain mineral line spots.
6-pool is easily stoppable with a simple wall Tell that to the many Protoss players who stopped 6pools without losing a single probe only to get a 'normal macro game' out of it almost. The risk/reward ratio of 7pools in ZvP is really skewed in my opinion. It is not nearly all in enough for something that can kill a protoss player easily who doesn't scout as early as 9 (the only matchup where scouting that early is still common, just because of the thread of this tactic).
and an engineering bay is only a minor delay for a 16 hatch (which means you went pool first and thus have access to lings to take down the ebay fairly quickly) Nope, I go 16 hatch first, if you constantly make drones and don't save larvae at any point you will only get enough minerals for a hatch at 16. My preferred opener in ZvT is 16 hatch 18 pool, 18 gas. Which is actually completely safe against gasless expand or reactored hellions, but if they 2rax you you're pretty dead so you have to drone scout in order to verify their opening or gamble on the fact that 2rax has fallen out of fashion.
Again, definitely a different scale of damage. Also, how do you "find" a half-complete ebay? There should be an overlord spotting the area, or else you're doing something wrong. No there shouldn't, overlord simply isn't there yet when you are about to start your hatch, and when you're about to start it the ebay is already half way done if they send a 9/10 scv on a lot of maps (I know this, because I am that jerk that sends a 10 scv just to block hatch firsts).
The only way to know that is going on is to just send a drone early to check for ebay blocks or to have that early scv pass an ovie and be like 'that's a really early scv'. And even then, even if you have 1 drone waiting there, he can probablty get it up to 25% construction before he can halt construction.
I find that stuff to be far more annoying myself than 2rax with bunker block, which is pretty all innish and can be dealt with, I'm not sure how to deal with this tactic myself. You just save up 300 minerals for your 16 hatch, rally your 15th drone to your natural to make it, and bam, an engie bay there when it arrives there at 280 mins and you're like 'Well, 16 pool it is then'
|
have something like "Uneven Floor" or something, design it to look like a standing platform that you'd see at the bottom of stairs or a ramp, and have it act like a pathable/unconstructable force-field. Once a massive unit goes over it, it is 'flattened' and buildable area.
|
On August 08 2012 16:08 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:22 Ktk wrote: 400HP 2x2 Destructible rocks on a 3minute timer. Edit: they'd have to be burrowed.
Now they're neutral, not from a race, and timed. You could even eliminate the timer. This seems like the best idea so far. Just make it destructible rocks instead of a supply depot. Problem solved.
Or it could be called like a "underground destructible rock" or maybe something indicating that you can walk over it but that it's unfit for building on.
|
Why is this thread even here? The lowered supply depot works perfectly. You can destroy it pretty fast, stops all the nonsense. what's the point of coming up with something new? It's not a new metagame, map design, or anything.
EDIT: I read the thread a bit more, and You could change the texture of the depot or something so it's not just some random terran building for once, and it's just part of the game now. noone is complaining about it :/ Also, there are people who deliberately wall of below the ramp, with supply depots for example, so you have like a double entrance vs baneling busts.
By the way, you can do the mineral trick to kill the pylons really quick as well. See catz's video i think.
|
On August 09 2012 13:24 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 09:52 iamcaustic wrote:On August 09 2012 09:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 09 2012 06:47 iamcaustic wrote:
Edit: I do get what you're saying, how Zergs can implement certain tactics to avoid the issue from occurring in most cases, but I do feel like this is one of those things that simply shouldn't be viable to begin with. Should 6pools or early bunkers in general be? A bunker at a ramp attempt really is not that much more scary than just two early bunkers behind minerals in hard to reach places honestly. I also feel more 'Oh great, now I'm behind' when a Terran decides to send a 10 scv and I find a half completed engineering bay at the place my 16 hatch was supposed to go. I absolutely don't feel confident in taking my third versus Terran and I'm not sure what to do after that. What about the tactic where they make a hatch and a queen and try to get a creep tumour ZvP? I feel this is about as hard to stop from going up as a pylon block, it's a similar investment, and it puts the P about as much behind if it gets up as Z is put behind if the 3 pylon wall with a cannon behind it gets up. Bunker ramp block is actually a lot more damaging than bunkers behind minerals. Sure, both will put a Zerg behind, but the ramp block is of a greater scale. At least with bunkers behind minerals, Zergs have opportunities to set up spine crawlers at the natural, make a bunch of lings, and basically overpower the bunkers before they're able to kill the hatchery. With a proper ramp block, that hatchery is going down no matter what the Zerg does. I can say this with confidence as a Terran player who does this tactic on the ladder. If the bunkers get up yeah, but it's so much easier to stop them from going up if they do a ramp block than if they use certain mineral spots on certrain maps where you can't use drone drilling. Ramp bunkers are amongst the easiest bunkers to stop if you know they are making them because they're the closet to your main so the least travel distance. Surface area used to be a problem but just isn't any more with the drone drill, if you just bring 8 drones down in time before they even start they have a really tough time getting them up, much tougher than certain mineral line spots. Tell that to the many Protoss players who stopped 6pools without losing a single probe only to get a 'normal macro game' out of it almost. The risk/reward ratio of 7pools in ZvP is really skewed in my opinion. It is not nearly all in enough for something that can kill a protoss player easily who doesn't scout as early as 9 (the only matchup where scouting that early is still common, just because of the thread of this tactic). Show nested quote +and an engineering bay is only a minor delay for a 16 hatch (which means you went pool first and thus have access to lings to take down the ebay fairly quickly) Nope, I go 16 hatch first, if you constantly make drones and don't save larvae at any point you will only get enough minerals for a hatch at 16. My preferred opener in ZvT is 16 hatch 18 pool, 18 gas. Which is actually completely safe against gasless expand or reactored hellions, but if they 2rax you you're pretty dead so you have to drone scout in order to verify their opening or gamble on the fact that 2rax has fallen out of fashion. Show nested quote +Again, definitely a different scale of damage. Also, how do you "find" a half-complete ebay? There should be an overlord spotting the area, or else you're doing something wrong. No there shouldn't, overlord simply isn't there yet when you are about to start your hatch, and when you're about to start it the ebay is already half way done if they send a 9/10 scv on a lot of maps (I know this, because I am that jerk that sends a 10 scv just to block hatch firsts). The only way to know that is going on is to just send a drone early to check for ebay blocks or to have that early scv pass an ovie and be like 'that's a really early scv'. And even then, even if you have 1 drone waiting there, he can probablty get it up to 25% construction before he can halt construction. I find that stuff to be far more annoying myself than 2rax with bunker block, which is pretty all innish and can be dealt with, I'm not sure how to deal with this tactic myself. You just save up 300 minerals for your 16 hatch, rally your 15th drone to your natural to make it, and bam, an engie bay there when it arrives there at 280 mins and you're like 'Well, 16 pool it is then' Standard ZvT hatch-first is the 14 hatch (ZvT). If you want to argue what is more potentially damaging, don't do it based on your personal, non-standard opening. Ok, cool, ebay block sucks big time for you, but in the average ZvT it's not nearly as big a deal as you claim it to be.
As for bunker ramp block vs. bunkers behind the mineral lines, there's a reason why we don't see TvZ bunker rushes all the time in competitive play, while mapmakers and tournaments have gone out of their way to remove the ability to ramp block (and when the opportunity happens to present itself, it's exploited in favour of previously prepared strategies -- see Byun vs. NesTea). You can try to downplay it as much as you want, but it doesn't help me take you seriously.
|
On August 09 2012 14:15 Semmo wrote: Why is this thread even here? The lowered supply depot works perfectly. You can destroy it pretty fast, stops all the nonsense. what's the point of coming up with something new? It's not a new metagame, map design, or anything.
EDIT: I read the thread a bit more, and You could change the texture of the depot or something so it's not just some random terran building for once, and it's just part of the game now. noone is complaining about it :/ Also, there are people who deliberately wall of below the ramp, with supply depots for example, so you have like a double entrance vs baneling busts.
By the way, you can do the mineral trick to kill the pylons really quick as well. See catz's video i think. I direct you to this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=358984¤tpage=2#26
Edit: Also this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=358984¤tpage=2#32
|
On August 09 2012 14:25 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 13:24 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 09 2012 09:52 iamcaustic wrote:On August 09 2012 09:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 09 2012 06:47 iamcaustic wrote:
Edit: I do get what you're saying, how Zergs can implement certain tactics to avoid the issue from occurring in most cases, but I do feel like this is one of those things that simply shouldn't be viable to begin with. Should 6pools or early bunkers in general be? A bunker at a ramp attempt really is not that much more scary than just two early bunkers behind minerals in hard to reach places honestly. I also feel more 'Oh great, now I'm behind' when a Terran decides to send a 10 scv and I find a half completed engineering bay at the place my 16 hatch was supposed to go. I absolutely don't feel confident in taking my third versus Terran and I'm not sure what to do after that. What about the tactic where they make a hatch and a queen and try to get a creep tumour ZvP? I feel this is about as hard to stop from going up as a pylon block, it's a similar investment, and it puts the P about as much behind if it gets up as Z is put behind if the 3 pylon wall with a cannon behind it gets up. Bunker ramp block is actually a lot more damaging than bunkers behind minerals. Sure, both will put a Zerg behind, but the ramp block is of a greater scale. At least with bunkers behind minerals, Zergs have opportunities to set up spine crawlers at the natural, make a bunch of lings, and basically overpower the bunkers before they're able to kill the hatchery. With a proper ramp block, that hatchery is going down no matter what the Zerg does. I can say this with confidence as a Terran player who does this tactic on the ladder. If the bunkers get up yeah, but it's so much easier to stop them from going up if they do a ramp block than if they use certain mineral spots on certrain maps where you can't use drone drilling. Ramp bunkers are amongst the easiest bunkers to stop if you know they are making them because they're the closet to your main so the least travel distance. Surface area used to be a problem but just isn't any more with the drone drill, if you just bring 8 drones down in time before they even start they have a really tough time getting them up, much tougher than certain mineral line spots. 6-pool is easily stoppable with a simple wall Tell that to the many Protoss players who stopped 6pools without losing a single probe only to get a 'normal macro game' out of it almost. The risk/reward ratio of 7pools in ZvP is really skewed in my opinion. It is not nearly all in enough for something that can kill a protoss player easily who doesn't scout as early as 9 (the only matchup where scouting that early is still common, just because of the thread of this tactic). and an engineering bay is only a minor delay for a 16 hatch (which means you went pool first and thus have access to lings to take down the ebay fairly quickly) Nope, I go 16 hatch first, if you constantly make drones and don't save larvae at any point you will only get enough minerals for a hatch at 16. My preferred opener in ZvT is 16 hatch 18 pool, 18 gas. Which is actually completely safe against gasless expand or reactored hellions, but if they 2rax you you're pretty dead so you have to drone scout in order to verify their opening or gamble on the fact that 2rax has fallen out of fashion. Again, definitely a different scale of damage. Also, how do you "find" a half-complete ebay? There should be an overlord spotting the area, or else you're doing something wrong. No there shouldn't, overlord simply isn't there yet when you are about to start your hatch, and when you're about to start it the ebay is already half way done if they send a 9/10 scv on a lot of maps (I know this, because I am that jerk that sends a 10 scv just to block hatch firsts). The only way to know that is going on is to just send a drone early to check for ebay blocks or to have that early scv pass an ovie and be like 'that's a really early scv'. And even then, even if you have 1 drone waiting there, he can probablty get it up to 25% construction before he can halt construction. I find that stuff to be far more annoying myself than 2rax with bunker block, which is pretty all innish and can be dealt with, I'm not sure how to deal with this tactic myself. You just save up 300 minerals for your 16 hatch, rally your 15th drone to your natural to make it, and bam, an engie bay there when it arrives there at 280 mins and you're like 'Well, 16 pool it is then' Standard ZvT hatch-first is the 14 hatch (ZvT). 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.
If you want to argue what is more potentially damaging, don't do it based on your personal, non-standard opening. Ok, cool, ebay block sucks big time for you, but in the average ZvT it's not nearly as big a deal as you claim it to be. 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.
As for bunker ramp block vs. bunkers behind the mineral lines, there's a reason why we don't see TvZ bunker rushes all the time in competitive play 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.
while mapmakers and tournaments have gone out of their way to remove the ability to ramp block 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.
You can try to downplay it as much as you want, but it doesn't help me take you seriously. 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".)
|
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.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
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.
|
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)
|
On August 09 2012 14:43 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 14:25 iamcaustic wrote:On August 09 2012 13:24 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 09 2012 09:52 iamcaustic wrote:On August 09 2012 09:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 09 2012 06:47 iamcaustic wrote:
Edit: I do get what you're saying, how Zergs can implement certain tactics to avoid the issue from occurring in most cases, but I do feel like this is one of those things that simply shouldn't be viable to begin with. Should 6pools or early bunkers in general be? A bunker at a ramp attempt really is not that much more scary than just two early bunkers behind minerals in hard to reach places honestly. I also feel more 'Oh great, now I'm behind' when a Terran decides to send a 10 scv and I find a half completed engineering bay at the place my 16 hatch was supposed to go. I absolutely don't feel confident in taking my third versus Terran and I'm not sure what to do after that. What about the tactic where they make a hatch and a queen and try to get a creep tumour ZvP? I feel this is about as hard to stop from going up as a pylon block, it's a similar investment, and it puts the P about as much behind if it gets up as Z is put behind if the 3 pylon wall with a cannon behind it gets up. Bunker ramp block is actually a lot more damaging than bunkers behind minerals. Sure, both will put a Zerg behind, but the ramp block is of a greater scale. At least with bunkers behind minerals, Zergs have opportunities to set up spine crawlers at the natural, make a bunch of lings, and basically overpower the bunkers before they're able to kill the hatchery. With a proper ramp block, that hatchery is going down no matter what the Zerg does. I can say this with confidence as a Terran player who does this tactic on the ladder. If the bunkers get up yeah, but it's so much easier to stop them from going up if they do a ramp block than if they use certain mineral spots on certrain maps where you can't use drone drilling. Ramp bunkers are amongst the easiest bunkers to stop if you know they are making them because they're the closet to your main so the least travel distance. Surface area used to be a problem but just isn't any more with the drone drill, if you just bring 8 drones down in time before they even start they have a really tough time getting them up, much tougher than certain mineral line spots. 6-pool is easily stoppable with a simple wall Tell that to the many Protoss players who stopped 6pools without losing a single probe only to get a 'normal macro game' out of it almost. The risk/reward ratio of 7pools in ZvP is really skewed in my opinion. It is not nearly all in enough for something that can kill a protoss player easily who doesn't scout as early as 9 (the only matchup where scouting that early is still common, just because of the thread of this tactic). and an engineering bay is only a minor delay for a 16 hatch (which means you went pool first and thus have access to lings to take down the ebay fairly quickly) Nope, I go 16 hatch first, if you constantly make drones and don't save larvae at any point you will only get enough minerals for a hatch at 16. My preferred opener in ZvT is 16 hatch 18 pool, 18 gas. Which is actually completely safe against gasless expand or reactored hellions, but if they 2rax you you're pretty dead so you have to drone scout in order to verify their opening or gamble on the fact that 2rax has fallen out of fashion. Again, definitely a different scale of damage. Also, how do you "find" a half-complete ebay? There should be an overlord spotting the area, or else you're doing something wrong. No there shouldn't, overlord simply isn't there yet when you are about to start your hatch, and when you're about to start it the ebay is already half way done if they send a 9/10 scv on a lot of maps (I know this, because I am that jerk that sends a 10 scv just to block hatch firsts). The only way to know that is going on is to just send a drone early to check for ebay blocks or to have that early scv pass an ovie and be like 'that's a really early scv'. And even then, even if you have 1 drone waiting there, he can probablty get it up to 25% construction before he can halt construction. I find that stuff to be far more annoying myself than 2rax with bunker block, which is pretty all innish and can be dealt with, I'm not sure how to deal with this tactic myself. You just save up 300 minerals for your 16 hatch, rally your 15th drone to your natural to make it, and bam, an engie bay there when it arrives there at 280 mins and you're like 'Well, 16 pool it is then' Standard ZvT hatch-first is the 14 hatch (ZvT). 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. Show nested quote +If you want to argue what is more potentially damaging, don't do it based on your personal, non-standard opening. Ok, cool, ebay block sucks big time for you, but in the average ZvT it's not nearly as big a deal as you claim it to be. 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. Show nested quote +As for bunker ramp block vs. bunkers behind the mineral lines, there's a reason why we don't see TvZ bunker rushes all the time in competitive play 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. Show nested quote +while mapmakers and tournaments have gone out of their way to remove the ability to ramp block 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. Show nested quote +You can try to downplay it as much as you want, but it doesn't help me take you seriously. 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_FirstAs 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.
|
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 States25546 Posts
On August 09 2012 15:09 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +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)
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.
|
On August 09 2012 15:25 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 15:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: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) 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.
|
I've always thought that a better solution to supply depots was to change the ramps so that the terrain where pylons/bunkers are placed is simply made so that you cannot build on those tiles and if the areas near the ramps needed to be designed slightly differently in order to allow proper (defensive) walling (for all races), so be it.
|
On August 09 2012 15:21 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 14:43 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 09 2012 14:25 iamcaustic wrote:On August 09 2012 13:24 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 09 2012 09:52 iamcaustic wrote:On August 09 2012 09:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 09 2012 06:47 iamcaustic wrote:
Edit: I do get what you're saying, how Zergs can implement certain tactics to avoid the issue from occurring in most cases, but I do feel like this is one of those things that simply shouldn't be viable to begin with. Should 6pools or early bunkers in general be? A bunker at a ramp attempt really is not that much more scary than just two early bunkers behind minerals in hard to reach places honestly. I also feel more 'Oh great, now I'm behind' when a Terran decides to send a 10 scv and I find a half completed engineering bay at the place my 16 hatch was supposed to go. I absolutely don't feel confident in taking my third versus Terran and I'm not sure what to do after that. What about the tactic where they make a hatch and a queen and try to get a creep tumour ZvP? I feel this is about as hard to stop from going up as a pylon block, it's a similar investment, and it puts the P about as much behind if it gets up as Z is put behind if the 3 pylon wall with a cannon behind it gets up. Bunker ramp block is actually a lot more damaging than bunkers behind minerals. Sure, both will put a Zerg behind, but the ramp block is of a greater scale. At least with bunkers behind minerals, Zergs have opportunities to set up spine crawlers at the natural, make a bunch of lings, and basically overpower the bunkers before they're able to kill the hatchery. With a proper ramp block, that hatchery is going down no matter what the Zerg does. I can say this with confidence as a Terran player who does this tactic on the ladder. If the bunkers get up yeah, but it's so much easier to stop them from going up if they do a ramp block than if they use certain mineral spots on certrain maps where you can't use drone drilling. Ramp bunkers are amongst the easiest bunkers to stop if you know they are making them because they're the closet to your main so the least travel distance. Surface area used to be a problem but just isn't any more with the drone drill, if you just bring 8 drones down in time before they even start they have a really tough time getting them up, much tougher than certain mineral line spots. 6-pool is easily stoppable with a simple wall Tell that to the many Protoss players who stopped 6pools without losing a single probe only to get a 'normal macro game' out of it almost. The risk/reward ratio of 7pools in ZvP is really skewed in my opinion. It is not nearly all in enough for something that can kill a protoss player easily who doesn't scout as early as 9 (the only matchup where scouting that early is still common, just because of the thread of this tactic). and an engineering bay is only a minor delay for a 16 hatch (which means you went pool first and thus have access to lings to take down the ebay fairly quickly) Nope, I go 16 hatch first, if you constantly make drones and don't save larvae at any point you will only get enough minerals for a hatch at 16. My preferred opener in ZvT is 16 hatch 18 pool, 18 gas. Which is actually completely safe against gasless expand or reactored hellions, but if they 2rax you you're pretty dead so you have to drone scout in order to verify their opening or gamble on the fact that 2rax has fallen out of fashion. Again, definitely a different scale of damage. Also, how do you "find" a half-complete ebay? There should be an overlord spotting the area, or else you're doing something wrong. No there shouldn't, overlord simply isn't there yet when you are about to start your hatch, and when you're about to start it the ebay is already half way done if they send a 9/10 scv on a lot of maps (I know this, because I am that jerk that sends a 10 scv just to block hatch firsts). The only way to know that is going on is to just send a drone early to check for ebay blocks or to have that early scv pass an ovie and be like 'that's a really early scv'. And even then, even if you have 1 drone waiting there, he can probablty get it up to 25% construction before he can halt construction. I find that stuff to be far more annoying myself than 2rax with bunker block, which is pretty all innish and can be dealt with, I'm not sure how to deal with this tactic myself. You just save up 300 minerals for your 16 hatch, rally your 15th drone to your natural to make it, and bam, an engie bay there when it arrives there at 280 mins and you're like 'Well, 16 pool it is then' Standard ZvT hatch-first is the 14 hatch (ZvT). 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. If you want to argue what is more potentially damaging, don't do it based on your personal, non-standard opening. Ok, cool, ebay block sucks big time for you, but in the average ZvT it's not nearly as big a deal as you claim it to be. 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. As for bunker ramp block vs. bunkers behind the mineral lines, there's a reason why we don't see TvZ bunker rushes all the time in competitive play 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. while mapmakers and tournaments have gone out of their way to remove the ability to ramp block 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. You can try to downplay it as much as you want, but it doesn't help me take you seriously. 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_FirstAs 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. 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?
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.
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.
|
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.
|
On August 09 2012 15:45 -NegativeZero- wrote: 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. 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.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 09 2012 15:33 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 15:25 Blazinghand wrote:On August 09 2012 15:09 -NegativeZero- wrote: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) 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.
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.
|
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%)
|
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.
|
On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 15:21 iamcaustic wrote: [snip] 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. 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:Show nested quote +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. 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:Show nested quote +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. 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:Show nested quote +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. Ok, though I naturally disagree with your believe that ramp blocks aren't imbalanced.
On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
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
|
On August 09 2012 17:03 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +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%) 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
|
On August 09 2012 17:03 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +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%) 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/
It was the last look into map stats I took.
On August 09 2012 17:22 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 15:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 09 2012 15:21 iamcaustic wrote: [snip] 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. 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. 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'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=231964So 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. Three things:
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: 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? 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.
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. Well, show it I suppose, the burden of proof is yours.
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. They don't go against 'collective stats' as I addressed in my post towards IronManSC, the stats just seem to differ wherever you get them from.
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. Okikido.
|
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.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 10 2012 00:11 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 17:03 IronManSC wrote: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%) 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.
|
I've refined the concept and updated the OP accordingly. Many more pretty pictures to demonstrate the idea and its impact on current FE concepts.
|
i like the positioning of the no-pathing. it does not break any maps as mappers would just need to reposition the nat literally a square or so in a direction. good job.
|
Still can't remove it to be able to wall ur ramp. Can't change up 2+ years of how people play for a sub par solution when a perfect solution exists. Just have to deal with the fact Blizzard is absolutely stupid about this issue. Let tourneys be smart, Blizzard dumb.
Don't try and re invent the wheel when you get a car with none, instead ask the car manufacturer why they are shipping theirs without them.
|
On August 10 2012 05:23 Diamond wrote: Still can't remove it to be able to wall ur ramp. Can't change up 2+ years of how people play for a sub par solution when a perfect solution exists. Just have to deal with the fact Blizzard is absolutely stupid about this issue. Let tourneys be smart, Blizzard dumb.
Don't try and re invent the wheel, just ask the car manufacturer why they are shipping theirs without them. The beauty of this is it doesn't need to be removed to wall off at the bottom of the ramp (e.g. Protoss FFE or Terran anti-ling). The examples I provide in the OP are pretty demonstrative of how walls are made in professional games. That was the whole basis of my refining this method: to nullify the impact on these kinds of walls.
Unless you're talking about utilizing the ramp block method in a defensive manner, later in the game? I suppose that could be an issue in that this eliminates the possibility, but I'm not sure if it's too impactful as I've almost never seen it done.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 10 2012 05:09 a176 wrote: i like the positioning of the no-pathing. it does not break any maps as mappers would just need to reposition the nat literally a square or so in a direction. good job.
The big issue with the so-called "no-pathing solution" is that it's not actually a solution. Here's what you need to be a solution:
1) stop pylon blocks and bunker blocks at the bottom of a Zerg ramp. 2) allow Terran and Protoss players to make walls at the bottom of their own ramps for defensive purposes once on 2 bases-- either to wall across a choke, wall between the CC/Nex and the ramp, or wall off the bottom of their own ramp. You might think this sounds rare, but in a small number of pro games this has made a difference.
Now, everyone seems to be focusing on #1 when really you need to solve both #1 AND #2. Just stopping rushes isn't good enough, you need to not bastardize the sim-cities of Terran and Protoss. Your goal is only to stop OFFENSIVE low-ground walls. Stopping defensive low-ground walls would be really really bad.
Any solution that uses LoS blocking grass, or unbuildable pathing, does not address part 2 of the solution. The only options I could see that really address both parts 2 needed to be a solution are:
1) burrowed neutral depot 2) (not sure if this is possible) 2x2 creep patch that waits for 3 minutes then fades away
And honestly, burrowed neutral depot is way better.
|
On August 10 2012 05:44 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:09 a176 wrote: i like the positioning of the no-pathing. it does not break any maps as mappers would just need to reposition the nat literally a square or so in a direction. good job. The big issue with the so-called "no-pathing solution" is that it's not actually a solution. Here's what you need to be a solution: 1) stop pylon blocks and bunker blocks at the bottom of a Zerg ramp. 2) allow Terran and Protoss players to make walls at the bottom of their own ramps for defensive purposes once on 2 bases-- either to wall across a choke, wall between the CC/Nex and the ramp, or wall off the bottom of their own ramp. You might think this sounds rare, but in a small number of pro games this has made a difference. Now, everyone seems to be focusing on #1 when really you need to solve both #1 AND #2. Just stopping rushes isn't good enough, you need to not bastardize the sim-cities of Terran and Protoss. Your goal is only to stop OFFENSIVE low-ground walls. Stopping defensive low-ground walls would be really really bad. Any solution that uses LoS blocking grass, or unbuildable pathing, does not address part 2 of the solution. The only options I could see that really address both parts 2 needed to be a solution are: 1) burrowed neutral depot 2) (not sure if this is possible) 2x2 creep patch that waits for 3 minutes then fades away And honestly, burrowed neutral depot is way better. I've updated the OP with a more refined pathing and demonstrations of FFE and Terran anti-ling walls on 2-bases with this new pathing. Basically, nothing is negatively impacted, which means both items #1 and #2 should be considered solved IMO.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 10 2012 05:46 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:44 Blazinghand wrote:On August 10 2012 05:09 a176 wrote: i like the positioning of the no-pathing. it does not break any maps as mappers would just need to reposition the nat literally a square or so in a direction. good job. The big issue with the so-called "no-pathing solution" is that it's not actually a solution. Here's what you need to be a solution: 1) stop pylon blocks and bunker blocks at the bottom of a Zerg ramp. 2) allow Terran and Protoss players to make walls at the bottom of their own ramps for defensive purposes once on 2 bases-- either to wall across a choke, wall between the CC/Nex and the ramp, or wall off the bottom of their own ramp. You might think this sounds rare, but in a small number of pro games this has made a difference. Now, everyone seems to be focusing on #1 when really you need to solve both #1 AND #2. Just stopping rushes isn't good enough, you need to not bastardize the sim-cities of Terran and Protoss. Your goal is only to stop OFFENSIVE low-ground walls. Stopping defensive low-ground walls would be really really bad. Any solution that uses LoS blocking grass, or unbuildable pathing, does not address part 2 of the solution. The only options I could see that really address both parts 2 needed to be a solution are: 1) burrowed neutral depot 2) (not sure if this is possible) 2x2 creep patch that waits for 3 minutes then fades away And honestly, burrowed neutral depot is way better. I've updated the OP with a more refined pathing and demonstrations of FFE and Terran anti-ling walls on 2-bases with this new pathing. Basically, nothing is negatively impacted, which means both items #1 and #2 should be considered solved IMO.
I saw your sim-city screenshots but you're missing 1) the ability to wall between your main and your nat, which is crucial for protoss in PvZ-- a quick player can stop a ling runby from getting into the main and 2) the fact that not every map has the Nat mineral line that close to the ramp.
Now, for #2 you could argue that maybe all maps SHOULD have their nat mineral lines that close to the ramp from now on. But the fact of the matter is, the pathing solution reduces the diversity of possible nat orientations, since the protoss has to start his wall further forwards, he can't extend it as far outwards, it has to come backwards.
This is not as good as neutral depot. It's an acceptable solution maybe for a map that already has a natural that's hugging the main like that, and where you're okay with removing one of Protoss' solutions to ling-runbys, but otherwise it's really still not solving #2.
|
On August 10 2012 05:23 Diamond wrote: Still can't remove it to be able to wall ur ramp. Can't change up 2+ years of how people play for a sub par solution when a perfect solution exists. Just have to deal with the fact Blizzard is absolutely stupid about this issue. Let tourneys be smart, Blizzard dumb.
Don't try and re invent the wheel when you get a car with none, instead ask the car manufacturer why they are shipping theirs without them.
He answer that he was selling you a boat.
Really, i think HOTS would be the time to disquss if the depots are needed anymore.
At this point maps are bigger, both versions of the block have got some nerfs and we have got general more experience in dealing with it.
We aren't playing steppes of war anymore, where terran can go 9 rax into douple bunker block and protoss can just use 2 pylons for a complete block. We havn't gone 2 years without changes.
The depots would never be blizzards solution, infact i would say Blizzards final solution to this would not be one that blocked the option. They would probably add some kind of nerf that make it slightly harder to execute, and easier to prevent. But straight up adding something that prevented it would not be what happened.
|
On August 10 2012 05:51 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:46 iamcaustic wrote:On August 10 2012 05:44 Blazinghand wrote:On August 10 2012 05:09 a176 wrote: i like the positioning of the no-pathing. it does not break any maps as mappers would just need to reposition the nat literally a square or so in a direction. good job. The big issue with the so-called "no-pathing solution" is that it's not actually a solution. Here's what you need to be a solution: 1) stop pylon blocks and bunker blocks at the bottom of a Zerg ramp. 2) allow Terran and Protoss players to make walls at the bottom of their own ramps for defensive purposes once on 2 bases-- either to wall across a choke, wall between the CC/Nex and the ramp, or wall off the bottom of their own ramp. You might think this sounds rare, but in a small number of pro games this has made a difference. Now, everyone seems to be focusing on #1 when really you need to solve both #1 AND #2. Just stopping rushes isn't good enough, you need to not bastardize the sim-cities of Terran and Protoss. Your goal is only to stop OFFENSIVE low-ground walls. Stopping defensive low-ground walls would be really really bad. Any solution that uses LoS blocking grass, or unbuildable pathing, does not address part 2 of the solution. The only options I could see that really address both parts 2 needed to be a solution are: 1) burrowed neutral depot 2) (not sure if this is possible) 2x2 creep patch that waits for 3 minutes then fades away And honestly, burrowed neutral depot is way better. I've updated the OP with a more refined pathing and demonstrations of FFE and Terran anti-ling walls on 2-bases with this new pathing. Basically, nothing is negatively impacted, which means both items #1 and #2 should be considered solved IMO. I saw your sim-city screenshots but you're missing 1) the ability to wall between your main and your nat, which is crucial for protoss in PvZ-- a quick player can stop a ling runby from getting into the main and 2) the fact that not every map has the Nat mineral line that close to the ramp. Now, for #2 you could argue that maybe all maps SHOULD have their nat mineral lines that close to the ramp from now on. But the fact of the matter is, the pathing solution reduces the diversity of possible nat orientations, since the protoss has to start his wall further forwards, he can't extend it as far outwards, it has to come backwards. This is not as good as neutral depot. It's an acceptable solution maybe for a map that already has a natural that's hugging the main like that, and where you're okay with removing one of Protoss' solutions to ling-runbys, but otherwise it's really still not solving #2.
im not sure what you're trying to argue against here. the only difference between his solution and the current ramp pathing is that you need to start the wall one square up. the wall always has to 'go backwards' towards the nexus for nexus walls. the change has nothing to do with terrain-based choke wall offs. lastly, even with the additional no path protruding from the ramp, defensively no one ever builds anything there as to block their own ramp.
|
The problem is, you'd be changing something that 1) players have been used to for 2 years now, and 2) has no actual problems concerning gameplay. And actually, a permanent no-build section would be more irritating, since it would always be a small infringement on build space, where a depot can be cleared up for more stuff.
The only problem with the depot is that Blizzard has refused to use them in ladder maps. If they don't want neutral depots in a map, how do you think they'll treat a totally new ramp footprint? Not to mention one that's only used on main ramps. This has been thought out, clearly, but it's not a solution, because there's not a problem.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 10 2012 07:42 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:51 Blazinghand wrote:On August 10 2012 05:46 iamcaustic wrote:On August 10 2012 05:44 Blazinghand wrote:On August 10 2012 05:09 a176 wrote: i like the positioning of the no-pathing. it does not break any maps as mappers would just need to reposition the nat literally a square or so in a direction. good job. The big issue with the so-called "no-pathing solution" is that it's not actually a solution. Here's what you need to be a solution: 1) stop pylon blocks and bunker blocks at the bottom of a Zerg ramp. 2) allow Terran and Protoss players to make walls at the bottom of their own ramps for defensive purposes once on 2 bases-- either to wall across a choke, wall between the CC/Nex and the ramp, or wall off the bottom of their own ramp. You might think this sounds rare, but in a small number of pro games this has made a difference. Now, everyone seems to be focusing on #1 when really you need to solve both #1 AND #2. Just stopping rushes isn't good enough, you need to not bastardize the sim-cities of Terran and Protoss. Your goal is only to stop OFFENSIVE low-ground walls. Stopping defensive low-ground walls would be really really bad. Any solution that uses LoS blocking grass, or unbuildable pathing, does not address part 2 of the solution. The only options I could see that really address both parts 2 needed to be a solution are: 1) burrowed neutral depot 2) (not sure if this is possible) 2x2 creep patch that waits for 3 minutes then fades away And honestly, burrowed neutral depot is way better. I've updated the OP with a more refined pathing and demonstrations of FFE and Terran anti-ling walls on 2-bases with this new pathing. Basically, nothing is negatively impacted, which means both items #1 and #2 should be considered solved IMO. I saw your sim-city screenshots but you're missing 1) the ability to wall between your main and your nat, which is crucial for protoss in PvZ-- a quick player can stop a ling runby from getting into the main and 2) the fact that not every map has the Nat mineral line that close to the ramp. Now, for #2 you could argue that maybe all maps SHOULD have their nat mineral lines that close to the ramp from now on. But the fact of the matter is, the pathing solution reduces the diversity of possible nat orientations, since the protoss has to start his wall further forwards, he can't extend it as far outwards, it has to come backwards. This is not as good as neutral depot. It's an acceptable solution maybe for a map that already has a natural that's hugging the main like that, and where you're okay with removing one of Protoss' solutions to ling-runbys, but otherwise it's really still not solving #2. im not sure what you're trying to argue against here. the only difference between his solution and the current ramp pathing is that you need to start the wall one square up. the wall always has to 'go backwards' towards the nexus for nexus walls. the change has nothing to do with terrain-based choke wall offs. lastly, even with the additional no path protruding from the ramp, defensively no one ever builds anything there as to block their own ramp.
Right, but now it has to go backwards an extra square. When you're working with 5-6 squares of wall, that's a large change. It changes where and how you can locate naturals-- they MUST be slightly more inwards now. This is clear to anyone who's ever made a map they anticipated a PvZ happening on.
The idea that no one every builds anything as to block their own ramp is incorrect. Protoss players will slap down 1-2 pylons to stop a ling runby if it happens early in a PvZ. These pylons get cancelled, of course, but they prevent early speedlings from getting into the main, which is defenseless, in an FFE. Having to slap down a 3rd pylon to do so changes this dynamic. A lot. The pylons typically get cancelled, but you still have to bank more.
Also, terrans wall the bottom of their own ramps with depots all the time.
|
On August 10 2012 07:58 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 07:42 a176 wrote:On August 10 2012 05:51 Blazinghand wrote:On August 10 2012 05:46 iamcaustic wrote:On August 10 2012 05:44 Blazinghand wrote:On August 10 2012 05:09 a176 wrote: i like the positioning of the no-pathing. it does not break any maps as mappers would just need to reposition the nat literally a square or so in a direction. good job. The big issue with the so-called "no-pathing solution" is that it's not actually a solution. Here's what you need to be a solution: 1) stop pylon blocks and bunker blocks at the bottom of a Zerg ramp. 2) allow Terran and Protoss players to make walls at the bottom of their own ramps for defensive purposes once on 2 bases-- either to wall across a choke, wall between the CC/Nex and the ramp, or wall off the bottom of their own ramp. You might think this sounds rare, but in a small number of pro games this has made a difference. Now, everyone seems to be focusing on #1 when really you need to solve both #1 AND #2. Just stopping rushes isn't good enough, you need to not bastardize the sim-cities of Terran and Protoss. Your goal is only to stop OFFENSIVE low-ground walls. Stopping defensive low-ground walls would be really really bad. Any solution that uses LoS blocking grass, or unbuildable pathing, does not address part 2 of the solution. The only options I could see that really address both parts 2 needed to be a solution are: 1) burrowed neutral depot 2) (not sure if this is possible) 2x2 creep patch that waits for 3 minutes then fades away And honestly, burrowed neutral depot is way better. I've updated the OP with a more refined pathing and demonstrations of FFE and Terran anti-ling walls on 2-bases with this new pathing. Basically, nothing is negatively impacted, which means both items #1 and #2 should be considered solved IMO. I saw your sim-city screenshots but you're missing 1) the ability to wall between your main and your nat, which is crucial for protoss in PvZ-- a quick player can stop a ling runby from getting into the main and 2) the fact that not every map has the Nat mineral line that close to the ramp. Now, for #2 you could argue that maybe all maps SHOULD have their nat mineral lines that close to the ramp from now on. But the fact of the matter is, the pathing solution reduces the diversity of possible nat orientations, since the protoss has to start his wall further forwards, he can't extend it as far outwards, it has to come backwards. This is not as good as neutral depot. It's an acceptable solution maybe for a map that already has a natural that's hugging the main like that, and where you're okay with removing one of Protoss' solutions to ling-runbys, but otherwise it's really still not solving #2. im not sure what you're trying to argue against here. the only difference between his solution and the current ramp pathing is that you need to start the wall one square up. the wall always has to 'go backwards' towards the nexus for nexus walls. the change has nothing to do with terrain-based choke wall offs. lastly, even with the additional no path protruding from the ramp, defensively no one ever builds anything there as to block their own ramp. Right, but now it has to go backwards an extra square. When you're working with 5-6 squares of wall, that's a large change. It changes where and how you can locate naturals-- they MUST be slightly more inwards now. This is clear to anyone who's ever made a map they anticipated a PvZ happening on. The idea that no one every builds anything as to block their own ramp is incorrect. Protoss players will slap down 1-2 pylons to stop a ling runby if it happens early in a PvZ. These pylons get cancelled, of course, but they prevent early speedlings from getting into the main, which is defenseless, in an FFE. Having to slap down a 3rd pylon to do so changes this dynamic. A lot. The pylons typically get cancelled, but you still have to bank more. Also, terrans wall the bottom of their own ramps with depots all the time. Regarding natural base positioning, the OP demonstrates the method on Antiga Shipyard, one of the few maps that even require a wall at the ramp (most current maps allow a wall off at the natural choke). It is certainly a change, but not one that requires shifting bases around as far as I'm aware. If you have an example showing otherwise, by all means share it.
I wonder about your argument regarding the early ling run-bys, as the neutral depot will also prevent walling off against them with an FFE opening. By the time you could destroy the neutral depot, you'll also be capable of having sentries on the field. Forcefields work wonders, and is often the solution I see used in PvZ. Perhaps the pylon block works well on the ladder (where, notably, the neutral depot is also missing), so that's something worth looking into if this method were to be considered ladder-friendly.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On August 10 2012 07:46 NewSunshine wrote: The problem is, you'd be changing something that 1) players have been used to for 2 years now, and 2) has no actual problems concerning gameplay. And actually, a permanent no-build section would be more irritating, since it would always be a small infringement on build space, where a depot can be cleared up for more stuff.
The only problem with the depot is that Blizzard has refused to use them in ladder maps. If they don't want neutral depots in a map, how do you think they'll treat a totally new ramp footprint? Not to mention one that's only used on main ramps. This has been thought out, clearly, but it's not a solution, because there's not a problem. Actually a solution like this might actually be useful for the reason you point out in your second paragraph. Blizzard are objected to using depots, and it doesn't take much to think of why. (Because having to put depots on the bottom of ramps illustrates that there is a broken strategy in a very visible way i.e. joe noob asks his friend why there are depots on his ladder maps and he replies 'becuz cannons too stronk' or equivalent). A subtle change like this means that ramp wall offs don't register as imbalanced with lower level players and hence is a solution that blizzard could (and should) look into.
|
On August 10 2012 08:56 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 07:46 NewSunshine wrote: The problem is, you'd be changing something that 1) players have been used to for 2 years now, and 2) has no actual problems concerning gameplay. And actually, a permanent no-build section would be more irritating, since it would always be a small infringement on build space, where a depot can be cleared up for more stuff.
The only problem with the depot is that Blizzard has refused to use them in ladder maps. If they don't want neutral depots in a map, how do you think they'll treat a totally new ramp footprint? Not to mention one that's only used on main ramps. This has been thought out, clearly, but it's not a solution, because there's not a problem. Actually a solution like this might actually be useful for the reason you point out in your second paragraph. Blizzard are objected to using depots, and it doesn't take much to think of why. (Because having to put depots on the bottom of ramps illustrates that there is a broken strategy in a very visible way i.e. joe noob asks his friend why there are depots on his ladder maps and he replies 'becuz cannons too stronk' or equivalent). A subtle change like this means that ramp wall offs don't register as imbalanced with lower level players and hence is a solution that blizzard could (and should) look into. However, that they don't indicates something. Blizzard has the full capacity to modify the footprint of ramps, and they in fact have done so, you used to be able to wall with only 2 pylons, they changed it to three, which shows they are willing to change this, and could change this to four if they consider it imbalanced (they considered 2 to be imbalanced), but they don't.
Now, honestly, I have more faith in Blizzard than in anyone else regarding this or any decision regarding balance, some of the things they did seemed mad at first glance and later on ended up making sense, in fact, that they seem mad exactly illustrates it, David Kim has a university degree, he's not stupid, and assuming that he's supposedly stupid and we know it better is just hubris, he has access to all the statistics regarding everything that we don't, if his decisions seem mad, I choose to believe that it means that he knows something that we don't. He could probably in five minutes change the footprints of ramp from his desk to require 4 pylons to be walled off or whatever he wanted, but he doesn't, even though he has shown in the past to be more than willing to make such changes, which indicates one thing, he doesn't consider it imbalanced. And he has access to all the stats and designed the game, so I would definitely put more faith into him than in the 'community'.
|
Mm another thing I don't quite like about this is that the unpathable terrain will be unexplainably larger below the ramp than it will be above it. I think it would be very strange to a player that the top of a ramp can make a clean 3 building tight wall-off, yet the bottom of a ramp has 5 extra squares that no building can touch. And to make matters worse this unfortunately isn't explained visually like the neutral supply depot is, since both top and bottom of the ramp naturally look the same, which would further add to the confusion of placement errors.
I did think however of perhaps one way Blizzard could fix this, and maybe map makers depending on whether this can be done with the footprint editor and if the footprint editor is working in patch 1.5 (I believe it was fixed earlier but I'm not sure).
I was thinking perhaps a small adjustment to the ramp footprint may fix this problem. Basically buildings have very rounded off corners on their footprint that, if they are placed diagonally against each other like below, allow units with less than a 0.5 unit radius to pass through; this includes zerglings, drones and marines. See spoiler for visual example.
+ Show Spoiler +
However when it comes to ramps, for some strange reason the corners of the ramp are less rounded off than those of buildings and, as we all know, don't allow these such <0.5 unit radius units to escape when diagonally adjacent buildings are placed such as the pylons below. The gaps are too small.
+ Show Spoiler +
So, my obvious suggestion would be that if one were to round/cut-off the bottom part of the ramp's footprint, then that would allow units with a <0.5 radius to pass through diagonally, the same way as if the ramp were a building. It's elegant in that it wouldn't prevent the buildings from going up, but would still eliminate their main imbalanced purpose: to stop units from exiting the ramp, and as stated would do this the same way that every other diagonally adjacent building does.
+ Show Spoiler +
And if one wanted to intentionally wall their own ramp at a later point, it would still be possible only with an extra building or two at the sides.
One potential downside to this solution is that it would also suffer from the same asymmetry problem I mentioned above in the building placement fix. However this could perhaps be fixed by mirroring the effect on both sides, as I imagine it would not affect standard in-base wall-offs too much, but this would obviously need to be tested.
The main problem with this solution however is that it may not be possible to do with the footprint editor, and so it might only be something Blizzard would have to do. But, if it is possible, apart from having the same downside as the original suggestion in this thread of not being visible, I think this would probably be the most elegant solution to the problem. Interested to hear if anyone has any thoughts on this suggestion and/or if it's possible to implement, I might do some tinkering later and see what I can come up with.
|
On August 10 2012 10:52 XenoX101 wrote:Mm another thing I don't quite like about this is that the unpathable terrain will be unexplainably larger below the ramp than it will be above it. I think it would be very strange to a player that the top of a ramp can make a clean 3 building tight wall-off, yet the bottom of a ramp has 5 extra squares that no building can touch. And to make matters worse this unfortunately isn't explained visually like the neutral supply depot is, since both top and bottom of the ramp naturally look the same, which would further add to the confusion of placement errors. I did think however of perhaps one way Blizzard could fix this, and maybe map makers depending on whether this can be done with the footprint editor and if the footprint editor is working in patch 1.5 (I believe it was fixed earlier but I'm not sure). I was thinking perhaps a small adjustment to the ramp footprint may fix this problem. Basically buildings have very rounded off corners on their footprint that, if they are placed diagonally against each other like below, allow units with less than a 0.5 unit radius to pass through; this includes zerglings, drones and marines. See spoiler for visual example. + Show Spoiler +However when it comes to ramps, for some strange reason the corners of the ramp are less rounded off than those of buildings and, as we all know, don't allow these such <0.5 unit radius units to escape when diagonally adjacent buildings are placed such as the pylons below. The gaps are too small. + Show Spoiler +So, my obvious suggestion would be that if one were to round/cut-off the bottom part of the ramp's footprint, then that would allow units with a <0.5 radius to pass through diagonally, the same way as if the ramp were a building. It's elegant in that it wouldn't prevent the buildings from going up, but would still eliminate their main imbalanced purpose: to stop units from exiting the ramp, and as stated would do this the same way that every other diagonally adjacent building does. + Show Spoiler +And if one wanted to intentionally wall their own ramp at a later point, it would still be possible only with an extra building or two at the sides. One potential downside to it is that it would also suffer from the same asymmetry problem I mentioned above in the building placement fix, however this could be fixed by mirroring the effect on both sides, as I imagine it would not affect standard in-base wall-offs too much, but this would obviously need to be tested. The main problem with this solution however is that it may not be possible to do with the footprint editor, and so it might only be something Blizzard would have to do. But, if it is possible, apart from having the same downside as the original suggestion in this thread of not being visible, I think this would probably be the most elegant solution to the problem. Interested to hear if anyone has any thoughts on this suggestion and/or if it's possible to implement, I might do some tinkering later and see what I can come up with. I don't get this fix, surely you wall off your ramp later exactly against Zerglings? Which can later pass through with this fix?
|
You can still wall off completely by building in those corners where the units can escape, it only nerfs the diagonally placed buildings by letting units pass if you don't make the complete wall-off. As mentioned regular buildings work the same way at the moment, if you try to wall off diagonally, units such as zerglings and drones can still slip through the cracks. I'm simply suggesting that this also occurs for ramps.
EDIT: Here's a picture of a complete wall-off with pylons (i.e. no gaps for small units).
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 10 2012 08:56 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 07:46 NewSunshine wrote: The problem is, you'd be changing something that 1) players have been used to for 2 years now, and 2) has no actual problems concerning gameplay. And actually, a permanent no-build section would be more irritating, since it would always be a small infringement on build space, where a depot can be cleared up for more stuff.
The only problem with the depot is that Blizzard has refused to use them in ladder maps. If they don't want neutral depots in a map, how do you think they'll treat a totally new ramp footprint? Not to mention one that's only used on main ramps. This has been thought out, clearly, but it's not a solution, because there's not a problem. Actually a solution like this might actually be useful for the reason you point out in your second paragraph. Blizzard are objected to using depots, and it doesn't take much to think of why. (Because having to put depots on the bottom of ramps illustrates that there is a broken strategy in a very visible way i.e. joe noob asks his friend why there are depots on his ladder maps and he replies 'becuz cannons too stronk' or equivalent). A subtle change like this means that ramp wall offs don't register as imbalanced with lower level players and hence is a solution that blizzard could (and should) look into. I don't think it would work. For one, as is noted above, the ramp would have an odd footprint at the bottom and not the top, and at that it's one that doesn't make intuitive sense. Two, the strategy isn't actually broken/OP yet, because it hasn't been proven to be OP, and there are maneuvers such as the worker drill which can be used. The main reason that tournaments use the supply depot is to bar that sort of strategy in a tournament setting, because nobody wants to watch games like that. To this end, a supply depot is well within the realm of plausibility and understandability. That Blizzard doesn't do this falls in line with their rationale behind enabling things such as the 6-pool - to allow all forms of strategy on the ladder, which is their right to do.
|
On August 10 2012 11:15 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 08:56 Plexa wrote:On August 10 2012 07:46 NewSunshine wrote: The problem is, you'd be changing something that 1) players have been used to for 2 years now, and 2) has no actual problems concerning gameplay. And actually, a permanent no-build section would be more irritating, since it would always be a small infringement on build space, where a depot can be cleared up for more stuff.
The only problem with the depot is that Blizzard has refused to use them in ladder maps. If they don't want neutral depots in a map, how do you think they'll treat a totally new ramp footprint? Not to mention one that's only used on main ramps. This has been thought out, clearly, but it's not a solution, because there's not a problem. Actually a solution like this might actually be useful for the reason you point out in your second paragraph. Blizzard are objected to using depots, and it doesn't take much to think of why. (Because having to put depots on the bottom of ramps illustrates that there is a broken strategy in a very visible way i.e. joe noob asks his friend why there are depots on his ladder maps and he replies 'becuz cannons too stronk' or equivalent). A subtle change like this means that ramp wall offs don't register as imbalanced with lower level players and hence is a solution that blizzard could (and should) look into. I don't think it would work. For one, as is noted above, the ramp would have an odd footprint at the bottom and not the top, and at that it's one that doesn't make intuitive sense. Two, the strategy isn't actually broken/OP yet, because it hasn't been proven to be OP, and there are maneuvers such as the worker drill which can be used. The main reason that tournaments use the supply depot is to bar that sort of strategy in a tournament setting, because nobody wants to watch games like that. To this end, a supply depot is well within the realm of plausibility and understandability. That Blizzard doesn't do this falls in line with their rationale behind enabling things such as the 6-pool - to allow all forms of strategy on the ladder, which is their right to do.
I had a bit of look and actually it does make some intuitive sense. If you look at the image below you'll note that the top of the ramp is perpendicular to the cliff, which makes the gaps on the sides half the size of a normal gap. One could argue that because the gaps are half the size at the top than it is at the bottom, <0.5 radius units are too small to squeeze through the top compared to the bottom, and visually this does look accurate. I do agree that it isn't perfect, but it at least can be justified in a visual and practical way. If this is doable it still seems, in my view, the cleanest way of solving this problem.
+ Show Spoiler +
Also I have to disagree with your point about the ramp strats not being broken, on the grounds of the recent GSL Metropolis incident, where the neutral depot was missing and Byun abused it to secure himself a win against a NesTea. Perhaps they may not be completely overpowered, in that they are stoppable with certain things such as patrolling drones on the ramp, but I think they are close enough to being imbalanced that tournaments are not willing to take the chance of players losing games in this manner and then everyone complaining.
|
On August 10 2012 10:29 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 08:56 Plexa wrote:On August 10 2012 07:46 NewSunshine wrote: The problem is, you'd be changing something that 1) players have been used to for 2 years now, and 2) has no actual problems concerning gameplay. And actually, a permanent no-build section would be more irritating, since it would always be a small infringement on build space, where a depot can be cleared up for more stuff.
The only problem with the depot is that Blizzard has refused to use them in ladder maps. If they don't want neutral depots in a map, how do you think they'll treat a totally new ramp footprint? Not to mention one that's only used on main ramps. This has been thought out, clearly, but it's not a solution, because there's not a problem. Actually a solution like this might actually be useful for the reason you point out in your second paragraph. Blizzard are objected to using depots, and it doesn't take much to think of why. (Because having to put depots on the bottom of ramps illustrates that there is a broken strategy in a very visible way i.e. joe noob asks his friend why there are depots on his ladder maps and he replies 'becuz cannons too stronk' or equivalent). A subtle change like this means that ramp wall offs don't register as imbalanced with lower level players and hence is a solution that blizzard could (and should) look into. However, that they don't indicates something. Blizzard has the full capacity to modify the footprint of ramps, and they in fact have done so, you used to be able to wall with only 2 pylons, they changed it to three, which shows they are willing to change this, and could change this to four if they consider it imbalanced (they considered 2 to be imbalanced), but they don't. Now, honestly, I have more faith in Blizzard than in anyone else regarding this or any decision regarding balance, some of the things they did seemed mad at first glance and later on ended up making sense, in fact, that they seem mad exactly illustrates it, David Kim has a university degree, he's not stupid, and assuming that he's supposedly stupid and we know it better is just hubris, he has access to all the statistics regarding everything that we don't, if his decisions seem mad, I choose to believe that it means that he knows something that we don't. He could probably in five minutes change the footprints of ramp from his desk to require 4 pylons to be walled off or whatever he wanted, but he doesn't, even though he has shown in the past to be more than willing to make such changes, which indicates one thing, he doesn't consider it imbalanced. And he has access to all the stats and designed the game, so I would definitely put more faith into him than in the 'community'. Blizzard uses neutral supply depots in its WCS maps. Why would they do that if they didn't think ramp blocks were detrimental to competition and/or imbalanced? Rather, I'm going to venture to guess that it's just not very high on the priority list for Blizzard to release a solution at this very moment, given they're doing a lot of work on stuff like patch 1.5 (just released, and lots of work in fixing bugs from that...), Heart of the Swarm, and more general balance/gameplay issues (just released a test map for balance changes to creep spread and raven). The reason for that is because the odd auto-loss for Zerg on the ladder isn't really consequential in the greater scheme of things, while it can have huge ramifications in tournament play, where people are playing for money.
I'm really only speculating, though. At the end of the day, the facts are that Blizzard won't implement the neutral depot on the ladder, while they make sure to include it in their tournament maps -- and that alone is enough discrepancy to warrant questioning.
|
On August 10 2012 11:41 iamcaustic wrote: I'm really only speculating, though. At the end of the day, the facts are that Blizzard won't implement the neutral depot on the ladder, while they make sure to include it in their tournament maps -- and that alone is enough discrepancy to warrant questioning. Perhaps, but there's a simple answer. They've acknowledged that the depot is important to tournament level play for the spectator - games that end in 4 minutes without much back-and-forth aren't fun to watch at all. Blizzard's philosophy with the ladder, however, is different. On the ladder they maintain that all strategies should be viable - if it's possible to do in a vacuum, it should be possible on the ladder.
|
A complicated solution that creates new problems to a simple issue which can be solved by placing 1 lower supply depot
|
On August 10 2012 11:41 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 10:29 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 10 2012 08:56 Plexa wrote:On August 10 2012 07:46 NewSunshine wrote: The problem is, you'd be changing something that 1) players have been used to for 2 years now, and 2) has no actual problems concerning gameplay. And actually, a permanent no-build section would be more irritating, since it would always be a small infringement on build space, where a depot can be cleared up for more stuff.
The only problem with the depot is that Blizzard has refused to use them in ladder maps. If they don't want neutral depots in a map, how do you think they'll treat a totally new ramp footprint? Not to mention one that's only used on main ramps. This has been thought out, clearly, but it's not a solution, because there's not a problem. Actually a solution like this might actually be useful for the reason you point out in your second paragraph. Blizzard are objected to using depots, and it doesn't take much to think of why. (Because having to put depots on the bottom of ramps illustrates that there is a broken strategy in a very visible way i.e. joe noob asks his friend why there are depots on his ladder maps and he replies 'becuz cannons too stronk' or equivalent). A subtle change like this means that ramp wall offs don't register as imbalanced with lower level players and hence is a solution that blizzard could (and should) look into. However, that they don't indicates something. Blizzard has the full capacity to modify the footprint of ramps, and they in fact have done so, you used to be able to wall with only 2 pylons, they changed it to three, which shows they are willing to change this, and could change this to four if they consider it imbalanced (they considered 2 to be imbalanced), but they don't. Now, honestly, I have more faith in Blizzard than in anyone else regarding this or any decision regarding balance, some of the things they did seemed mad at first glance and later on ended up making sense, in fact, that they seem mad exactly illustrates it, David Kim has a university degree, he's not stupid, and assuming that he's supposedly stupid and we know it better is just hubris, he has access to all the statistics regarding everything that we don't, if his decisions seem mad, I choose to believe that it means that he knows something that we don't. He could probably in five minutes change the footprints of ramp from his desk to require 4 pylons to be walled off or whatever he wanted, but he doesn't, even though he has shown in the past to be more than willing to make such changes, which indicates one thing, he doesn't consider it imbalanced. And he has access to all the stats and designed the game, so I would definitely put more faith into him than in the 'community'. Blizzard uses neutral supply depots in its WCS maps. Why would they do that if they didn't think ramp blocks were detrimental to competition and/or imbalanced? Rather, I'm going to venture to guess that it's just not very high on the priority list for Blizzard to release a solution at this very moment, given they're doing a lot of work on stuff like patch 1.5 (just released, and lots of work in fixing bugs from that...), Heart of the Swarm, and more general balance/gameplay issues (just released a test map for balance changes to creep spread and raven). The reason for that is because the odd auto-loss for Zerg on the ladder isn't really consequential in the greater scheme of things, while it can have huge ramifications in tournament play, where people are playing for money. I'm really only speculating, though. At the end of the day, the facts are that Blizzard won't implement the neutral depot on the ladder, while they make sure to include it in their tournament maps -- and that alone is enough discrepancy to warrant questioning. Maybe they're just giving in to mass QQ, who knows?
The point is, it's extremely easy for them to require a ramp to henceforth require 4 pylons or 3 bunkers or whatever number they want to wall off at the bottom, but they don't. They could let you build buildings on ramps or into dead space if they wanted to at the flip of a button.
If ramp blocking was really imbalanced, don't you think David Kim would've edited ramp footprints by now? He's not going to be like 'Yeh, our stats clearly indicate that this strategy is nearly unstoppable and I can fix this in 5 minutes, but nahhh, I'd rather troll people instead.'
Someone should just ask him in an interview though, yes or no, if he considers it imbalanced. A lot of things the community considers, or has considered imbalanced, like TvP lategame, he's flat out said when asked 'No, our stats indicate that this is not imbalanced at all, I disagree.
The community is prone to mass outcry and has been wrong in the past, I can still remember people complaining about marauders being too strong and how Blizzard were idiots for not nerfing them, nowadays people agree that they were fine all along.
|
On August 10 2012 12:10 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 11:41 iamcaustic wrote:On August 10 2012 10:29 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 10 2012 08:56 Plexa wrote:On August 10 2012 07:46 NewSunshine wrote: The problem is, you'd be changing something that 1) players have been used to for 2 years now, and 2) has no actual problems concerning gameplay. And actually, a permanent no-build section would be more irritating, since it would always be a small infringement on build space, where a depot can be cleared up for more stuff.
The only problem with the depot is that Blizzard has refused to use them in ladder maps. If they don't want neutral depots in a map, how do you think they'll treat a totally new ramp footprint? Not to mention one that's only used on main ramps. This has been thought out, clearly, but it's not a solution, because there's not a problem. Actually a solution like this might actually be useful for the reason you point out in your second paragraph. Blizzard are objected to using depots, and it doesn't take much to think of why. (Because having to put depots on the bottom of ramps illustrates that there is a broken strategy in a very visible way i.e. joe noob asks his friend why there are depots on his ladder maps and he replies 'becuz cannons too stronk' or equivalent). A subtle change like this means that ramp wall offs don't register as imbalanced with lower level players and hence is a solution that blizzard could (and should) look into. However, that they don't indicates something. Blizzard has the full capacity to modify the footprint of ramps, and they in fact have done so, you used to be able to wall with only 2 pylons, they changed it to three, which shows they are willing to change this, and could change this to four if they consider it imbalanced (they considered 2 to be imbalanced), but they don't. Now, honestly, I have more faith in Blizzard than in anyone else regarding this or any decision regarding balance, some of the things they did seemed mad at first glance and later on ended up making sense, in fact, that they seem mad exactly illustrates it, David Kim has a university degree, he's not stupid, and assuming that he's supposedly stupid and we know it better is just hubris, he has access to all the statistics regarding everything that we don't, if his decisions seem mad, I choose to believe that it means that he knows something that we don't. He could probably in five minutes change the footprints of ramp from his desk to require 4 pylons to be walled off or whatever he wanted, but he doesn't, even though he has shown in the past to be more than willing to make such changes, which indicates one thing, he doesn't consider it imbalanced. And he has access to all the stats and designed the game, so I would definitely put more faith into him than in the 'community'. Blizzard uses neutral supply depots in its WCS maps. Why would they do that if they didn't think ramp blocks were detrimental to competition and/or imbalanced? Rather, I'm going to venture to guess that it's just not very high on the priority list for Blizzard to release a solution at this very moment, given they're doing a lot of work on stuff like patch 1.5 (just released, and lots of work in fixing bugs from that...), Heart of the Swarm, and more general balance/gameplay issues (just released a test map for balance changes to creep spread and raven). The reason for that is because the odd auto-loss for Zerg on the ladder isn't really consequential in the greater scheme of things, while it can have huge ramifications in tournament play, where people are playing for money. I'm really only speculating, though. At the end of the day, the facts are that Blizzard won't implement the neutral depot on the ladder, while they make sure to include it in their tournament maps -- and that alone is enough discrepancy to warrant questioning. Maybe they're just giving in to mass QQ, who knows? The point is, it's extremely easy for them to require a ramp to henceforth require 4 pylons or 3 bunkers or whatever number they want to wall off at the bottom, but they don't. They could let you build buildings on ramps or into dead space if they wanted to at the flip of a button. If ramp blocking was really imbalanced, don't you think David Kim would've edited ramp footprints by now? He's not going to be like 'Yeh, our stats clearly indicate that this strategy is nearly unstoppable and I can fix this in 5 minutes, but nahhh, I'd rather troll people instead.' Someone should just ask him in an interview though, yes or no, if he considers it imbalanced. A lot of things the community considers, or has considered imbalanced, like TvP lategame, he's flat out said when asked 'No, our stats indicate that this is not imbalanced at all, I disagree. The community is prone to mass outcry and has been wrong in the past, I can still remember people complaining about marauders being too strong and how Blizzard were idiots for not nerfing them, nowadays people agree that they were fine all along. Actually, Blizzard came out and clearly noted late-game TvP favoured Protoss, but at the same time acknowledged mid-game favoured aggressive Terran play, which could be utilized to nullify the imbalanced late game (hence the final verdict: not imbalanced). Lots of people were pretty upset that his was Blizzard's official stance on it, as it nullifies anything but aggressive, drop-heavy Terran play style to have a chance to win late game TvP. Don't take my word for it, though; read the official blue post.
Of course, Heart of the Swarm looks to introduce more viable mech strategies, which will probably open things up a lot more. For now, however, we just gotta deal with it. It's certainly not something anyone considers desirable -- not even Blizzard, as seen by their efforts to give Terrans more versatile options in late-game TvP with their later tech come HotS.
Regarding the marauder: it's other units/abilities that got respectively buffed and aspects of the marauder (such as stim) that got nerfed which made the marauder all right. Even now, it's still really strong with certain rushes (like the proxy marauder rush), but not so much to be considered imbalanced.
|
On August 10 2012 11:41 iamcaustic wrote: I'm really only speculating, though. At the end of the day, the facts are that Blizzard won't implement the neutral depot on the ladder, while they make sure to include it in their tournament maps -- and that alone is enough discrepancy to warrant questioning.
They wanted to legitimate the WCS compared to other tournements. The depots are so incarnated at tournement play, and they didn't want any larger changes to balance in their own tournement. It is about image. It simply comes down to that. That doesn't mean they accept it on ladder through. Besides much larger balance disparities exist on ladder than the pylon block. They aren't really that concerned.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 11 2012 01:48 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 11:41 iamcaustic wrote: I'm really only speculating, though. At the end of the day, the facts are that Blizzard won't implement the neutral depot on the ladder, while they make sure to include it in their tournament maps -- and that alone is enough discrepancy to warrant questioning. They wanted to legitimate the WCS compared to other tournements. The depots are so incarnated at tournement play, and they didn't want any larger changes to balance in their own tournement. It is about image. It simply comes down to that. That doesn't mean they accept it on ladder through. Besides much larger balance disparities exist on ladder than the pylon block. They aren't really that concerned.
The point, though, is that if you need to add a Supply Depot to make your tournament legitimate, and even Blizzard does this, it's a tacit admission that the ladder maps, which are under Blizzard's control, are not legitimate. The very fact that they tacitly admit the problem, and even fix it for their tournament, but don't do so on the ladder, merits questioning.
|
On August 11 2012 02:01 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 01:48 Sumadin wrote:On August 10 2012 11:41 iamcaustic wrote: I'm really only speculating, though. At the end of the day, the facts are that Blizzard won't implement the neutral depot on the ladder, while they make sure to include it in their tournament maps -- and that alone is enough discrepancy to warrant questioning. They wanted to legitimate the WCS compared to other tournements. The depots are so incarnated at tournement play, and they didn't want any larger changes to balance in their own tournement. It is about image. It simply comes down to that. That doesn't mean they accept it on ladder through. Besides much larger balance disparities exist on ladder than the pylon block. They aren't really that concerned. The point, though, is that if you need to add a Supply Depot to make your tournament legitimate, and even Blizzard does this, it's a tacit admission that the ladder maps, which are under Blizzard's control, are not legitimate. The very fact that they tacitly admit the problem, and even fix it for their tournament, but don't do so on the ladder, merits questioning.
As i said on ladder balance isn't taken with that high standard. If they strifed for perfect balance they would for example have to take out Cloud kingdom, as it is extremely biassed for protoss against terran, on ladder.
What they aim for is that most game concepts are simple to understand for the lower leage players.
But you are right in WOL tournements needs the depots to be legimate, which is why i think the HOTS transition is the perfect time to shout about this and really test if tournements without the depots causes pure cheesefests. Onesided cheesfests i might add because it could turn out that Zergs have figured out how to break the block. We wouldn't know at this point.
|
Whatever the solution to an unbuildable area is in a melee map played on professionally is, it must contain visual information regarding the fact that the area is unbuildable. That's why no one has ever used the unbuildable pathing brush on pro melee maps.
|
On August 11 2012 02:01 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 01:48 Sumadin wrote:On August 10 2012 11:41 iamcaustic wrote: I'm really only speculating, though. At the end of the day, the facts are that Blizzard won't implement the neutral depot on the ladder, while they make sure to include it in their tournament maps -- and that alone is enough discrepancy to warrant questioning. They wanted to legitimate the WCS compared to other tournements. The depots are so incarnated at tournement play, and they didn't want any larger changes to balance in their own tournement. It is about image. It simply comes down to that. That doesn't mean they accept it on ladder through. Besides much larger balance disparities exist on ladder than the pylon block. They aren't really that concerned. The point, though, is that if you need to add a Supply Depot to make your tournament legitimate, and even Blizzard does this, it's a tacit admission that the ladder maps, which are under Blizzard's control, are not legitimate. The very fact that they tacitly admit the problem, and even fix it for their tournament, but don't do so on the ladder, merits questioning. There's no admission of a problem, implicit or not. The depot is used to keep the games from being boring cheese-fests, where illegitimate(for lack of a better term) plays run rampant, because of how quickly it can win or lose a game. It's obviously been assumed by many people that the depot is used because the strategy is imbalanced. That isn't the reason, and has no reflection on Blizzard's ladder maps. Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, Entombed Valley, and Ohana are used in several tournaments the world over, the tournament version has a depot, the ladder version does not. Blizzard has stated, on their forums and possibly in other media as well, that they don't want to restrict the spectrum of strategy on the ladder. I see no problem with their reasoning, but everyone seems to want to read into it, when there's nothing to read.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 11 2012 03:42 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 02:01 Blazinghand wrote:On August 11 2012 01:48 Sumadin wrote:On August 10 2012 11:41 iamcaustic wrote: I'm really only speculating, though. At the end of the day, the facts are that Blizzard won't implement the neutral depot on the ladder, while they make sure to include it in their tournament maps -- and that alone is enough discrepancy to warrant questioning. They wanted to legitimate the WCS compared to other tournements. The depots are so incarnated at tournement play, and they didn't want any larger changes to balance in their own tournement. It is about image. It simply comes down to that. That doesn't mean they accept it on ladder through. Besides much larger balance disparities exist on ladder than the pylon block. They aren't really that concerned. The point, though, is that if you need to add a Supply Depot to make your tournament legitimate, and even Blizzard does this, it's a tacit admission that the ladder maps, which are under Blizzard's control, are not legitimate. The very fact that they tacitly admit the problem, and even fix it for their tournament, but don't do so on the ladder, merits questioning. There's no admission of a problem, implicit or not. The depot is used to keep the games from being boring cheese-fests, where illegitimate plays run rampant, because of how quickly it can win or lose a game. It's obviously been assumed by many people that the depot is used because the strategy is imbalanced. That isn't the reason, and has no reflection on Blizzard's ladder maps. Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, Entombed Valley, and Ohana are used in several tournaments the world over, the tournament version has a depot, the ladder version does not. Blizzard has stated, on their forums and possibly in other media as well, that they don't want to restrict the spectrum of strategy on the ladder. I see no problem with their reasoning, but everyone seems to want to read into it, when there's nothing to read.
I didn't say it was a tacit admission the maps are imbalanced, just that they're not legit. Do you really think Blizz wants tournaments to be good but the ladder to be a cheese fest? o_O I don't really think they're that "together" on it. I think they just don't like the look of neutral depots, but they're forced to put them in on tournament maps because if they didn't they'd get crap for a crappy map. On the ladder they can get away with it, so they do, and it makes the game worse.
|
On August 11 2012 03:45 Blazinghand wrote: I didn't say it was a tacit admission the maps are imbalanced, just that they're not legit. Do you really think Blizz wants tournaments to be good but the ladder to be a cheese fest? o_O I don't really think they're that "together" on it. I think they just don't like the look of neutral depots, but they're forced to put them in on tournament maps because if they didn't they'd get crap for a crappy map. On the ladder they can get away with it, so they do, and it makes the game worse. They're not doing it because they can get away with it, I'm not sure where you're even getting this. It's simple, if there's no depot on a tournament map, the pro's will abuse it, taking every possible advantage to win. There's money in tournaments, so of course they'll resort to whatever they can. The ladder is different, because it's an entirely different set of circumstances. There's no money, the players aren't as good, and it's where players sharpen their skills. Totally different. The ladder pool is as legitimate as any other, because just as the tournament maps do, they cater to the pool of players, and the circumstances under which they play. It is that simple.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 11 2012 03:48 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 03:45 Blazinghand wrote: I didn't say it was a tacit admission the maps are imbalanced, just that they're not legit. Do you really think Blizz wants tournaments to be good but the ladder to be a cheese fest? o_O I don't really think they're that "together" on it. I think they just don't like the look of neutral depots, but they're forced to put them in on tournament maps because if they didn't they'd get crap for a crappy map. On the ladder they can get away with it, so they do, and it makes the game worse. They're not doing it because they can get away with it, I'm not sure where you're even getting this. It's simple, if there's no depot on a tournament map, the pro's will abuse it, taking every possible advantage to win. There's money in tournaments, so of course they'll resort to whatever they can. The ladder is different, because it's an entirely different set of circumstances. There's no money, the players aren't as good, and it's where players sharpen their skills. Totally different. The ladder pool is as legitimate as any other, because just as the tournament maps do, they cater to the pool of players, and the circumstances under which they play. It is that simple.
How is the ladder different? Do people on the ladder NOT take every possible advantage to win? I know I do. I bunker rush, I take advantage of close spawns on antiga, and I see tons of cannon rush and stuff. The Ladder isn't some duel between gentlemen who take turns shooting pistols at each other, the Ladder is two angry drunk Englishmen rolling in the mud, biting, and punching each other while cursing in gently-accented but harsh tones. Also... pros play on the ladder. If the ladder pool is as legitimate as any other... why not make the maps on it the same as the tournament maps? Why not cater to people who are good at the game don't like getting bunker rushed, which is like literally everyone? The fact of the matter is, blizzard does cater to top-level balance, and that's what makes their games good, and the fact of the matter ALSO IS, Blizzard changed the bottom of ramps so the 2-pylon wall stopped working, so clearly they care about the ladder experience.
I think you're attributing a lot of complex thought and stuff to Blizzard when really they're just doing they're thing. No need to go projecting onto them. Englishmen, beer and mud!
|
On August 11 2012 03:53 Blazinghand wrote: How is the ladder different? Do people on the ladder NOT take every possible advantage to win? I know I do. I bunker rush, I take advantage of close spawns on antiga, and I see tons of cannon rush and stuff. The Ladder isn't some duel between gentlemen who take turns shooting pistols at each other, the Ladder is two angry drunk Englishmen rolling in the mud, biting, and punching each other while cursing in gently-accented but harsh tones. Also... pros play on the ladder. If the ladder pool is as legitimate as any other... why not make the maps on it the same as the tournament maps? Why not cater to people who are good at the game don't like getting bunker rushed, which is like literally everyone? The fact of the matter is, blizzard does cater to top-level balance, and that's what makes their games good, and the fact of the matter ALSO IS, Blizzard changed the bottom of ramps so the 2-pylon wall stopped working, so clearly they care about the ladder experience.
I think you're attributing a lot of complex thought and stuff to Blizzard when really they're just doing they're thing. No need to go projecting onto them. Englishmen, beer and mud! OK, now you're just overgeneralizing. Are you telling me you get 3 pylon/2 bunker walled, or otherwise cheesed or all-inned, in every single game? You can't speak for the entire populace that plays on every ladder in the world, and if you honestly think that ladders and tournaments are one and the same, despite my having spelled out the entire situation for both sides of the story, I cannot help you.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 11 2012 04:08 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 03:53 Blazinghand wrote: How is the ladder different? Do people on the ladder NOT take every possible advantage to win? I know I do. I bunker rush, I take advantage of close spawns on antiga, and I see tons of cannon rush and stuff. The Ladder isn't some duel between gentlemen who take turns shooting pistols at each other, the Ladder is two angry drunk Englishmen rolling in the mud, biting, and punching each other while cursing in gently-accented but harsh tones. Also... pros play on the ladder. If the ladder pool is as legitimate as any other... why not make the maps on it the same as the tournament maps? Why not cater to people who are good at the game don't like getting bunker rushed, which is like literally everyone? The fact of the matter is, blizzard does cater to top-level balance, and that's what makes their games good, and the fact of the matter ALSO IS, Blizzard changed the bottom of ramps so the 2-pylon wall stopped working, so clearly they care about the ladder experience.
I think you're attributing a lot of complex thought and stuff to Blizzard when really they're just doing they're thing. No need to go projecting onto them. Englishmen, beer and mud! OK, now you're just overgeneralizing. Are you telling me you get 3 pylon/2 bunker walled, or otherwise cheesed or all-inned, in every single game? You can't speak for the entire populace that plays on every ladder in the world, and if you honestly think that ladders and tournaments are one and the same, despite my having spelled out the entire situation for both sides of the story, I cannot help you.
No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse.
|
On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:08 NewSunshine wrote:On August 11 2012 03:53 Blazinghand wrote: How is the ladder different? Do people on the ladder NOT take every possible advantage to win? I know I do. I bunker rush, I take advantage of close spawns on antiga, and I see tons of cannon rush and stuff. The Ladder isn't some duel between gentlemen who take turns shooting pistols at each other, the Ladder is two angry drunk Englishmen rolling in the mud, biting, and punching each other while cursing in gently-accented but harsh tones. Also... pros play on the ladder. If the ladder pool is as legitimate as any other... why not make the maps on it the same as the tournament maps? Why not cater to people who are good at the game don't like getting bunker rushed, which is like literally everyone? The fact of the matter is, blizzard does cater to top-level balance, and that's what makes their games good, and the fact of the matter ALSO IS, Blizzard changed the bottom of ramps so the 2-pylon wall stopped working, so clearly they care about the ladder experience.
I think you're attributing a lot of complex thought and stuff to Blizzard when really they're just doing they're thing. No need to go projecting onto them. Englishmen, beer and mud! OK, now you're just overgeneralizing. Are you telling me you get 3 pylon/2 bunker walled, or otherwise cheesed or all-inned, in every single game? You can't speak for the entire populace that plays on every ladder in the world, and if you honestly think that ladders and tournaments are one and the same, despite my having spelled out the entire situation for both sides of the story, I cannot help you. No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots. ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse.
I haven't put anything in your mouth.
On August 11 2012 03:53 Blazinghand wrote:Do people on the ladder NOT take every possible advantage to win?
I've seen only one tournament game, where they had accidentally used a version of the map with no depot. A 3-pylon wall happened immediately. The game ended in minutes. The atmosphere in a tournament scene is much more competitive, because there's money involved. Despite how much you think you try to win at any cost, odds are you've no idea what it's really like up there. There are plenty of people on the ladder who try to play straight up macro/timing games, it's not as cheesy as you're trying to indicate.
As for the 2-pylon wall, that was straight up imbalanced, and was nixed immediately. A 3-pylon wall requires more time and resources, and is thus much more realistic to stop. Blizzard allows all forms of strategy on the ladder, that IS their philosophy, which I doubt you can change, so don't try to argue the point like I can somehow do something about it. I've explained, quite thoroughly I might add, both the tournament scene's reasons for the depot, and Blizzard's reasons for using no depot. There it is. No alternative to the depot is necessary, no fault with either map pool has been made.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
I still don't see the part where I say that I get cheesed in every game.
Something can't be imba and bad in tourney maps and somehow also good in ladder play.
|
On August 11 2012 04:30 Blazinghand wrote: I still don't see the part where I say that I get cheesed in every game.
Something can't be imba and bad in tourney maps and somehow also good in ladder play. It's not imba and bad for the play as you say. I've explained it repeatedly, see, like, 3 of my previous posts in this thread. The spectators are important to an e-sport's success. Now go read again.
|
On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse.
There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC.
They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too.
|
On August 11 2012 02:28 urashimakt wrote: Whatever the solution to an unbuildable area is in a melee map played on professionally is, it must contain visual information regarding the fact that the area is unbuildable. That's why no one has ever used the unbuildable pathing brush on pro melee maps. In Brood War there were tournament maps with unbuildable areas (though they tried utilizing textures to indicate the difference). In StarCraft 2, tournaments introduce non-visual changes such as disabling certain spawning locations (e.g. cross-spawn only). What they do in this situation is announce the change.
Besides, there's no visual indication that ramps are unbuildable, except for the fact it's a ramp; this change makes use of the fact and says "hey, it's a ramp, the pathing is like this". I question arguments that rely on statements like "you're changing what players have been used to for so long", etc. because Blizzard's already broken that precedent by changing the bottom ramp pathing to prevent 2-pylon blocks. Like any change, people get used to it after a short time and other wonder why such a big fuss was made in the first place.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too.
But my point isn't that Blizzard considers, it okay, it's that Blizzard DOESN'T. The WCS maps have depots on it. If Blizz considered low-ground walls to be okay, yeah, it's all good-- no low ground depots. The issue is that they hold ladder maps to some different standard than tournament maps, which is disappointing and weird.
|
On August 11 2012 04:37 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. But my point isn't that Blizzard considers, it okay, it's that Blizzard DOESN'T. The WCS maps have depots on it. If Blizz considered low-ground walls to be okay, yeah, it's all good-- no low ground depots. The issue is that they hold ladder maps to some different standard than tournament maps, which is disappointing and weird. I get the sense you're dodging my response, because I'm right.
There are no spectators on the ladder, and literally every other cheese in the game involves more skill, and is more entertaining to watch for both sides. Of course there's a different standard between ladder and tournament maps. This game is an e-sport, try to consider what that means for a moment. If you can't comprehend this, I see no reason to bang my head against a wall.
|
On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. 6-pool vs. T and P is generally game ending, regardless of the outcome. Successful 6-pool is a win for the Zerg, a failed one is likewise pretty much an auto-loss. With ramp blocking, this isn't the case at all; in the event a wall is blocked from being made, the T or P can just cancel their buildings and only be minimally behind. Alternatively, if it's successful it's often a straight loss for the Zerg. Cheese like that, IMO, is excessively strong -- and I say this as a Terran that occasionally uses ramp block in my ladder games vs Zerg.
The opinion isn't just mine either, as tournaments go out of their way to also remove this kind of cheese from the game -- including tournaments run by Blizzard.
|
On August 11 2012 04:37 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. But my point isn't that Blizzard considers, it okay, it's that Blizzard DOESN'T. The WCS maps have depots on it. If Blizz considered low-ground walls to be okay, yeah, it's all good-- no low ground depots. The issue is that they hold ladder maps to some different standard than tournament maps, which is disappointing and weird.
Look they accept what others have put as the standards for a tournement map, but that doesn't mean they wanna accept that standard for ladder maps.
They wanted the balance in the WCS to mirror that of which pros were used to in other tournements. But balance on ladder is wastly different.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 11 2012 04:42 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:37 Blazinghand wrote:On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. But my point isn't that Blizzard considers, it okay, it's that Blizzard DOESN'T. The WCS maps have depots on it. If Blizz considered low-ground walls to be okay, yeah, it's all good-- no low ground depots. The issue is that they hold ladder maps to some different standard than tournament maps, which is disappointing and weird. I get the sense you're dodging my response, because I'm right. There are no spectators on the ladder, and literally every other cheese in the game involves more skill, and is more entertaining to watch for both sides. Of course there's a different standard between ladder and tournament maps. This game is an e-sport, try to consider what that means for a moment. If you can't comprehend this, I see no reason to bang my head against a wall.
Really? I think you're insulting me, mischaracterizing my statements and putting words in my mouth, and generally being intellectually dishonest. If you want to continue this part of our conversation, we can do it via PM.
There are also no spectators in tons of tournaments, especially in the preliminary rounds. That doesn't mean GOM decides to use depot-less maps for Code B all of a sudden. Depot-less maps are good. Edit: Depot-less maps are bad. lol what a typo
On August 11 2012 04:44 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:37 Blazinghand wrote:On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. But my point isn't that Blizzard considers, it okay, it's that Blizzard DOESN'T. The WCS maps have depots on it. If Blizz considered low-ground walls to be okay, yeah, it's all good-- no low ground depots. The issue is that they hold ladder maps to some different standard than tournament maps, which is disappointing and weird. Look they accept what others have put as the standards for a tournement map, but that doesn't mean they wanna accept that standard for ladder maps. They wanted the balance in the WCS to mirror that of which pros were used to in other tournements. But balance on ladder is wastly different.
But WHY? Why is the standard different for tournament maps? From what I can tell, the maps without the low-ground wall-off are just... well, they're better. Everyone likes them better. Except, I guess, mass cannon rushers and the like. I don't see why tournaments should have the awesome maps and Ladder should have the worse version of the maps. I GET that Blizz has a double standard between ladder and tournaments. I'm fully aware of this. I'm saying it's bad.
|
On August 11 2012 04:47 Blazinghand wrote: Really? I think you're insulting me, mischaracterizing my statements and putting words in my mouth, and generally being intellectually dishonest. If you want to continue this part of our conversation, we can do it via PM.
No. I've been perfectly honest and reasonable. I'd think you were the troll, but I've seen countless ad hominem trains that start with such accusations, so you get the benefit of the doubt, whether you deserve it or not. I've done nothing but explain things clearly, and you continue to put blinders on. I have no reason to carry on discussion with someone who doesn't want to talk and who won't listen to reason.
|
On August 11 2012 04:37 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. But my point isn't that Blizzard considers, it okay, it's that Blizzard DOESN'T. The WCS maps have depots on it. If Blizz considered low-ground walls to be okay, yeah, it's all good-- no low ground depots. The issue is that they hold ladder maps to some different standard than tournament maps, which is disappointing and weird.
I don't know if it could be said clearer. ^^ But it was a good discussion.
I guess the new question is, could we come up with something to replace the depot that Blizzard is okay with having on ladder? (Just for the sake of discussion, because the original topic was alternatives to depot.)
I don't think they'd accept a re-skin functional equivalent, such as the destructibles with tooltips I was proposing earlier. And I don't think they'd accept unbuildable pathing (which I would continue to argue is an inferior solution). They might eventually create their own functional equivalent, officially instituting it with the developer seal of quality™ which could then populate ladder maps and tournament maps alike. Much as they work over tournament maps for their own ladder editions.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 11 2012 04:51 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:47 Blazinghand wrote: Really? I think you're insulting me, mischaracterizing my statements and putting words in my mouth, and generally being intellectually dishonest. If you want to continue this part of our conversation, we can do it via PM.
No. I've been perfectly honest and reasonable. I'd think you were the troll, but I've seen countless ad hominem trains that start with such accusations, so you get the benefit of the doubt, whether you deserve it or not. I've done nothing but explain things clearly, and you continue to put blinders on. I have no reason to carry on discussion with someone who doesn't want to talk and who won't listen to reason.
That's understandable. I'm sorry if I was ambigous, but let me be clear: I do not get cheesed in every game on the ladder. Nor do I think cheese is an overpowered strategy. However, I find the inconsistency between Blizzard's Tournament and Ladder maps troubling. I do not believe the formats are sufficiently different to merit these changes.
|
On August 11 2012 04:42 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. 6-pool vs. T and P is generally game ending, regardless of the outcome. Successful 6-pool is a win for the Zerg, a failed one is likewise pretty much an auto-loss. With ramp blocking, this isn't the case at all; in the event a wall is blocked from being made, the T or P can just cancel their buildings and only be minimally behind. Alternatively, if it's successful it's often a straight loss for the Zerg. Cheese like that, IMO, is excessively strong -- and I say this as a Terran that occasionally uses ramp block in my ladder games vs Zerg. The opinion isn't just mine either, as tournaments go out of their way to also remove this kind of cheese from the game -- including tournaments run by Blizzard.
The block is not an autowin for T or P even if it goes up. If that is what you assumed then i see why we are in conflict. It all comes down to how you deal with it. If Zergs wanna break it down their best shot is going 2 gas into a baneling nest. Get 7 banelings ASAP and go knock it down. The macro game is dead but the protoss won't have enough stuff to defend against the following allin.
There are also other ways. If you got a scouting drone(Which you should have) then you can use it to make a hatchery outside the block somewhere on the map. Once done use it to make Zerglings and swarm his undefended mineral line.
Either tactic through the game will be short. The macro game is gone once protoss and terran does this.
|
On August 11 2012 04:47 Blazinghand wrote: But WHY? Why is the standard different for tournament maps? From what I can tell, the maps without the low-ground wall-off are just... well, they're better. Everyone likes them better. Except, I guess, mass cannon rushers and the like. I don't see why tournaments should have the awesome maps and Ladder should have the worse version of the maps. I GET that Blizz has a double standard between ladder and tournaments. I'm fully aware of this. I'm saying it's bad.
They are a legacy if you will. From the game's early days. We had maps with a much shorter walk distance. Terrans could go baracks at 9. Protoss only needed 2 pylons to complete a walloff.
Blizzard havn't just sat around for these 2 years. I dare say that without futher testing we cannot say if the terrans bunker walloff is broken anymore. It is so much delayed at this point compared to back then. And no Nesteas game alone is not proof enough that it is still broken.
As for protoss, they still risk alot doing this block, leaving their base unprotected.
But either way we don't know for sure if the ability to block would still be abused with same succes. It has been too long for us to know for sure.
|
The PvZ cannon wall is something both players can play out of, fail or success. If successful, the protoss is certainly ahead, but it's not auto-win. If fail, the protoss is behind, but not auto-lose.
Because it's really preventable, it's not the real issue with the depot. The other aggressive terran options with walling a ramp are a little more egregious.
The real reason for the depot is to prevent the rax + depot anti-scout wall.
|
On August 11 2012 05:18 EatThePath wrote: The PvZ cannon wall is something both players can play out of, fail or success. If successful, the protoss is certainly ahead, but it's not auto-win. If fail, the protoss is behind, but not auto-lose.
Because it's really preventable, it's not the real issue with the depot. The other aggressive terran options with walling a ramp are a little more egregious.
The real reason for the depot is to prevent the rax + depot anti-scout wall.
You wouldn't think that that from reading this thread. But hey. It sounds risky through, with the new queen range. I wanna see it in action before i can conclude if it is broken.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 11 2012 05:48 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 05:18 EatThePath wrote: The PvZ cannon wall is something both players can play out of, fail or success. If successful, the protoss is certainly ahead, but it's not auto-win. If fail, the protoss is behind, but not auto-lose.
Because it's really preventable, it's not the real issue with the depot. The other aggressive terran options with walling a ramp are a little more egregious.
The real reason for the depot is to prevent the rax + depot anti-scout wall. You wouldn't think that that from reading this thread. But hey. It sounds risky through, with the new queen range. I wanna see it in action before i can conclude if it is broken.
EatThePath is talking about completely different strategy, that's based on the same fundamental low-ground ramp walling mechanic. He's talking about Geiko's venerable 3 rax build: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223517
The wall isn't built at the bottom of an enemy ramp, but at the bottom of your own ramp, so the queen range upgrade has no impact on it, unless you're the ballingest zerg player ever and proxy a hatchery to make a queen to harass his low-ground wall.
This kind of all-in isn't as possible on depot maps because you can't deny the scout with just 2 buildings.
|
On August 11 2012 05:57 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 05:48 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 05:18 EatThePath wrote: The PvZ cannon wall is something both players can play out of, fail or success. If successful, the protoss is certainly ahead, but it's not auto-win. If fail, the protoss is behind, but not auto-lose.
Because it's really preventable, it's not the real issue with the depot. The other aggressive terran options with walling a ramp are a little more egregious.
The real reason for the depot is to prevent the rax + depot anti-scout wall. You wouldn't think that that from reading this thread. But hey. It sounds risky through, with the new queen range. I wanna see it in action before i can conclude if it is broken. EatThePath is talking about completely different strategy, that's based on the same fundamental low-ground ramp walling mechanic. He's talking about Geiko's venerable 3 rax build: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223517The wall isn't built at the bottom of an enemy ramp, but at the bottom of your own ramp, so the queen range upgrade has no impact on it, unless you're the ballingest zerg player ever and proxy a hatchery to make a queen to harass his low-ground wall. This kind of all-in isn't as possible on depot maps because you can't deny the scout with just 2 buildings.
Oh i see. Hmm it doesn't seem like as big a problem and if anything it is not the kind of stuff we should be fixing for Blizzard.
|
On August 11 2012 05:57 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 05:48 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 05:18 EatThePath wrote: The PvZ cannon wall is something both players can play out of, fail or success. If successful, the protoss is certainly ahead, but it's not auto-win. If fail, the protoss is behind, but not auto-lose.
Because it's really preventable, it's not the real issue with the depot. The other aggressive terran options with walling a ramp are a little more egregious.
The real reason for the depot is to prevent the rax + depot anti-scout wall. You wouldn't think that that from reading this thread. But hey. It sounds risky through, with the new queen range. I wanna see it in action before i can conclude if it is broken. EatThePath is talking about completely different strategy, that's based on the same fundamental low-ground ramp walling mechanic. He's talking about Geiko's venerable 3 rax build: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223517The wall isn't built at the bottom of an enemy ramp, but at the bottom of your own ramp, so the queen range upgrade has no impact on it, unless you're the ballingest zerg player ever and proxy a hatchery to make a queen to harass his low-ground wall. This kind of all-in isn't as possible on depot maps because you can't deny the scout with just 2 buildings.
I want to see the queen that attacks the lowground walloff XD
This makes me realize that map design could deal with this situation anyway if there were overlord spots at the ramp / in the main base. With new overlord speed, you could fly to safe spot in the base while only 1-2 marines are out.
Would overlord spot inside the main base be imba? Terran can just lift a building, it'd be much more uncomfortable for protoss.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 11 2012 06:06 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 05:57 Blazinghand wrote:On August 11 2012 05:48 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 05:18 EatThePath wrote: The PvZ cannon wall is something both players can play out of, fail or success. If successful, the protoss is certainly ahead, but it's not auto-win. If fail, the protoss is behind, but not auto-lose.
Because it's really preventable, it's not the real issue with the depot. The other aggressive terran options with walling a ramp are a little more egregious.
The real reason for the depot is to prevent the rax + depot anti-scout wall. You wouldn't think that that from reading this thread. But hey. It sounds risky through, with the new queen range. I wanna see it in action before i can conclude if it is broken. EatThePath is talking about completely different strategy, that's based on the same fundamental low-ground ramp walling mechanic. He's talking about Geiko's venerable 3 rax build: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223517The wall isn't built at the bottom of an enemy ramp, but at the bottom of your own ramp, so the queen range upgrade has no impact on it, unless you're the ballingest zerg player ever and proxy a hatchery to make a queen to harass his low-ground wall. This kind of all-in isn't as possible on depot maps because you can't deny the scout with just 2 buildings. I want to see the queen that attacks the lowground walloff XD This makes me realize that map design could deal with this situation anyway if there were overlord spots at the ramp / in the main base. With new overlord speed, you could fly to safe spot in the base while only 1-2 marines are out. Would overlord spot inside the main base be imba? Terran can just lift a building, it'd be much more uncomfortable for protoss.
An overlord spot in the main base exists already on certain maps like Shattered Temple. It made the map more interesting, but certainly not imbalanced.
All things considered, I don't think the 3 rax marine/scv allin is currently a main problem being dealt with by the low ground depot, just because in a lot of ways it's not as strong a strategy as it used to be. Players of all races have learned what the low ground wall means, and the supply calldown onto it is pretty obvious. The queen range buff helps a lot with being able to target marines in the back, and with longer rush distances protosses have more room to kite with stalkers and other races have more time to repair.
It's certainly still possible, but I don't think it's the main target of the low-ground depots. I think they're more to prevent offensive wall-offs, such as the pylon and bunker wall-offs.
|
No just no. The good thing about a supply depot is that it can be destroyed. This would permanently change the configuration of the map and prevent walling.
|
On August 11 2012 06:11 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 06:06 EatThePath wrote:On August 11 2012 05:57 Blazinghand wrote:On August 11 2012 05:48 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 05:18 EatThePath wrote: The PvZ cannon wall is something both players can play out of, fail or success. If successful, the protoss is certainly ahead, but it's not auto-win. If fail, the protoss is behind, but not auto-lose.
Because it's really preventable, it's not the real issue with the depot. The other aggressive terran options with walling a ramp are a little more egregious.
The real reason for the depot is to prevent the rax + depot anti-scout wall. You wouldn't think that that from reading this thread. But hey. It sounds risky through, with the new queen range. I wanna see it in action before i can conclude if it is broken. EatThePath is talking about completely different strategy, that's based on the same fundamental low-ground ramp walling mechanic. He's talking about Geiko's venerable 3 rax build: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223517The wall isn't built at the bottom of an enemy ramp, but at the bottom of your own ramp, so the queen range upgrade has no impact on it, unless you're the ballingest zerg player ever and proxy a hatchery to make a queen to harass his low-ground wall. This kind of all-in isn't as possible on depot maps because you can't deny the scout with just 2 buildings. I want to see the queen that attacks the lowground walloff XD This makes me realize that map design could deal with this situation anyway if there were overlord spots at the ramp / in the main base. With new overlord speed, you could fly to safe spot in the base while only 1-2 marines are out. Would overlord spot inside the main base be imba? Terran can just lift a building, it'd be much more uncomfortable for protoss. An overlord spot in the main base exists already on certain maps like Shattered Temple. It made the map more interesting, but certainly not imbalanced. All things considered, I don't think the 3 rax marine/scv allin is currently a main problem being dealt with by the low ground depot, just because in a lot of ways it's not as strong a strategy as it used to be. Players of all races have learned what the low ground wall means, and the supply calldown onto it is pretty obvious. The queen range buff helps a lot with being able to target marines in the back, and with longer rush distances protosses have more room to kite with stalkers and other races have more time to repair. It's certainly still possible, but I don't think it's the main target of the low-ground depots. I think they're more to prevent offensive wall-offs, such as the pylon and bunker wall-offs.
Yes but those too have lost power as well from various nerfs, longer rush distances and generally more awareness on how to deal with it. Which is why at this point i think it would be worth trying to have the depots removed entirely in the HOTS transition, rather than trying to find an alternative.
|
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On August 11 2012 06:16 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 06:11 Blazinghand wrote:On August 11 2012 06:06 EatThePath wrote:On August 11 2012 05:57 Blazinghand wrote:On August 11 2012 05:48 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 05:18 EatThePath wrote: The PvZ cannon wall is something both players can play out of, fail or success. If successful, the protoss is certainly ahead, but it's not auto-win. If fail, the protoss is behind, but not auto-lose.
Because it's really preventable, it's not the real issue with the depot. The other aggressive terran options with walling a ramp are a little more egregious.
The real reason for the depot is to prevent the rax + depot anti-scout wall. You wouldn't think that that from reading this thread. But hey. It sounds risky through, with the new queen range. I wanna see it in action before i can conclude if it is broken. EatThePath is talking about completely different strategy, that's based on the same fundamental low-ground ramp walling mechanic. He's talking about Geiko's venerable 3 rax build: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223517The wall isn't built at the bottom of an enemy ramp, but at the bottom of your own ramp, so the queen range upgrade has no impact on it, unless you're the ballingest zerg player ever and proxy a hatchery to make a queen to harass his low-ground wall. This kind of all-in isn't as possible on depot maps because you can't deny the scout with just 2 buildings. I want to see the queen that attacks the lowground walloff XD This makes me realize that map design could deal with this situation anyway if there were overlord spots at the ramp / in the main base. With new overlord speed, you could fly to safe spot in the base while only 1-2 marines are out. Would overlord spot inside the main base be imba? Terran can just lift a building, it'd be much more uncomfortable for protoss. An overlord spot in the main base exists already on certain maps like Shattered Temple. It made the map more interesting, but certainly not imbalanced. All things considered, I don't think the 3 rax marine/scv allin is currently a main problem being dealt with by the low ground depot, just because in a lot of ways it's not as strong a strategy as it used to be. Players of all races have learned what the low ground wall means, and the supply calldown onto it is pretty obvious. The queen range buff helps a lot with being able to target marines in the back, and with longer rush distances protosses have more room to kite with stalkers and other races have more time to repair. It's certainly still possible, but I don't think it's the main target of the low-ground depots. I think they're more to prevent offensive wall-offs, such as the pylon and bunker wall-offs. Yes but those too have lost power as well from various nerfs, longer rush distances and generally more awareness on how to deal with it. Which is why at this point i think it would be worth trying to have the depots removed entirely in the HOTS transition, rather than trying to find an alternative.
That's your opinion, and if that were Blizzard's opinion I'd be okay with it. No depots is a perfectly acceptable philosophical position. However, Blizz seems to think that one set of standards should apply on the ladder, and another set should apply on its own WCS tournament maps. I do not like this double-standard, and believe that they should do what they think is best for all their maps, as opposed to making some good and some bad. If they believe that is "no depots", so be it, but their inconsistent depot usage strikes me as bad and kinda mean to either ladderers or tournament competitors, depending on your own personal depot philosophy.
|
On August 11 2012 06:21 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 06:16 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 06:11 Blazinghand wrote:On August 11 2012 06:06 EatThePath wrote:On August 11 2012 05:57 Blazinghand wrote:On August 11 2012 05:48 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 05:18 EatThePath wrote: The PvZ cannon wall is something both players can play out of, fail or success. If successful, the protoss is certainly ahead, but it's not auto-win. If fail, the protoss is behind, but not auto-lose.
Because it's really preventable, it's not the real issue with the depot. The other aggressive terran options with walling a ramp are a little more egregious.
The real reason for the depot is to prevent the rax + depot anti-scout wall. You wouldn't think that that from reading this thread. But hey. It sounds risky through, with the new queen range. I wanna see it in action before i can conclude if it is broken. EatThePath is talking about completely different strategy, that's based on the same fundamental low-ground ramp walling mechanic. He's talking about Geiko's venerable 3 rax build: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223517The wall isn't built at the bottom of an enemy ramp, but at the bottom of your own ramp, so the queen range upgrade has no impact on it, unless you're the ballingest zerg player ever and proxy a hatchery to make a queen to harass his low-ground wall. This kind of all-in isn't as possible on depot maps because you can't deny the scout with just 2 buildings. I want to see the queen that attacks the lowground walloff XD This makes me realize that map design could deal with this situation anyway if there were overlord spots at the ramp / in the main base. With new overlord speed, you could fly to safe spot in the base while only 1-2 marines are out. Would overlord spot inside the main base be imba? Terran can just lift a building, it'd be much more uncomfortable for protoss. An overlord spot in the main base exists already on certain maps like Shattered Temple. It made the map more interesting, but certainly not imbalanced. All things considered, I don't think the 3 rax marine/scv allin is currently a main problem being dealt with by the low ground depot, just because in a lot of ways it's not as strong a strategy as it used to be. Players of all races have learned what the low ground wall means, and the supply calldown onto it is pretty obvious. The queen range buff helps a lot with being able to target marines in the back, and with longer rush distances protosses have more room to kite with stalkers and other races have more time to repair. It's certainly still possible, but I don't think it's the main target of the low-ground depots. I think they're more to prevent offensive wall-offs, such as the pylon and bunker wall-offs. Yes but those too have lost power as well from various nerfs, longer rush distances and generally more awareness on how to deal with it. Which is why at this point i think it would be worth trying to have the depots removed entirely in the HOTS transition, rather than trying to find an alternative. That's your opinion, and if that were Blizzard's opinion I'd be okay with it. No depots is a perfectly acceptable philosophical position. However, Blizz seems to think that one set of standards should apply on the ladder, and another set should apply on its own WCS tournament maps. I do not like this double-standard, and believe that they should do what they think is best for all their maps, as opposed to making some good and some bad. If they believe that is "no depots", so be it, but their inconsistent depot usage strikes me as bad and kinda mean to either ladderers or tournament competitors, depending on your own personal depot philosophy.
Listen you may be willing to say "so be it" if blizzard removed the depots but alot of other players aren't. It would cause huge debate about the legitimity of their tournement. It already caused debate that the WCS map versions on other fronts were mostly "laddered" with only full expansions and nothing but rocks to block expansions. I assume they wouldn't wanna take the battle with the community at the time, and in that case i would say they would be right in not doing so, for the sake of the tournement. It simply isn't the place to make such a move.
The HOTS transision through would exactly be the place where Blizzard could be open about their intendsions on not bringing in depots. In any case i intend to push forward that change once the time comes.
|
On August 11 2012 04:53 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:42 iamcaustic wrote:On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. 6-pool vs. T and P is generally game ending, regardless of the outcome. Successful 6-pool is a win for the Zerg, a failed one is likewise pretty much an auto-loss. With ramp blocking, this isn't the case at all; in the event a wall is blocked from being made, the T or P can just cancel their buildings and only be minimally behind. Alternatively, if it's successful it's often a straight loss for the Zerg. Cheese like that, IMO, is excessively strong -- and I say this as a Terran that occasionally uses ramp block in my ladder games vs Zerg. The opinion isn't just mine either, as tournaments go out of their way to also remove this kind of cheese from the game -- including tournaments run by Blizzard. The block is not an autowin for T or P even if it goes up. If that is what you assumed then i see why we are in conflict. It all comes down to how you deal with it. If Zergs wanna break it down their best shot is going 2 gas into a baneling nest. Get 7 banelings ASAP and go knock it down. The macro game is dead but the protoss won't have enough stuff to defend against the following allin. There are also other ways. If you got a scouting drone(Which you should have) then you can use it to make a hatchery outside the block somewhere on the map. Once done use it to make Zerglings and swarm his undefended mineral line. Either tactic through the game will be short. The macro game is gone once protoss and terran does this. You're fine to disagree with it being an auto-win; that's your prerogative. Meanwhile, I'll continue to pick up free wins on the ladder with it, and see it continue to be banned in tournaments by virtue of the lowered neutral depot. The awkward theory-crafting you make doesn't change this.
On August 11 2012 06:14 PlacidPanda wrote: No just no. The good thing about a supply depot is that it can be destroyed. This would permanently change the configuration of the map and prevent walling. Both of these points have already been brought up and addressed within this thread. I encourage you to read through the comments.
|
On August 11 2012 04:42 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. 6-pool vs. T and P is generally game ending, regardless of the outcome. Successful 6-pool is a win for the Zerg, a failed one is likewise pretty much an auto-loss. With ramp blocking, this isn't the case at all; in the event a wall is blocked from being made, the T or P can just cancel their buildings and only be minimally behind. Alternatively, if it's successful it's often a straight loss for the Zerg. Cheese like that, IMO, is excessively strong -- and I say this as a Terran that occasionally uses ramp block in my ladder games vs Zerg. The opinion isn't just mine either, as tournaments go out of their way to also remove this kind of cheese from the game -- including tournaments run by Blizzard. I don't know about you, but I've seen pretty much a thousand 7pools ZvP by now that failed to kill a single probe and ended up into a standard macro game. The risk/reward ration of 7pools in ZvP is really skewed. P has to scout at 9 and on a lot of maps scout again at 13 in the other direction just for the possibility of this tactic, in no other matchups sacrificing that much econ for scouting is common, and if it's dealt with perfectly Zerg can transition quite well.
|
On August 12 2012 02:50 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 04:53 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:42 iamcaustic wrote:On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. 6-pool vs. T and P is generally game ending, regardless of the outcome. Successful 6-pool is a win for the Zerg, a failed one is likewise pretty much an auto-loss. With ramp blocking, this isn't the case at all; in the event a wall is blocked from being made, the T or P can just cancel their buildings and only be minimally behind. Alternatively, if it's successful it's often a straight loss for the Zerg. Cheese like that, IMO, is excessively strong -- and I say this as a Terran that occasionally uses ramp block in my ladder games vs Zerg. The opinion isn't just mine either, as tournaments go out of their way to also remove this kind of cheese from the game -- including tournaments run by Blizzard. The block is not an autowin for T or P even if it goes up. If that is what you assumed then i see why we are in conflict. It all comes down to how you deal with it. If Zergs wanna break it down their best shot is going 2 gas into a baneling nest. Get 7 banelings ASAP and go knock it down. The macro game is dead but the protoss won't have enough stuff to defend against the following allin. There are also other ways. If you got a scouting drone(Which you should have) then you can use it to make a hatchery outside the block somewhere on the map. Once done use it to make Zerglings and swarm his undefended mineral line. Either tactic through the game will be short. The macro game is gone once protoss and terran does this. You're fine to disagree with it being an auto-win; that's your prerogative. Meanwhile, I'll continue to pick up free wins on the ladder with it, and see it continue to be banned in tournaments by virtue of the lowered neutral depot. The awkward theory-crafting you make doesn't change this.
We have seen people getting into even grandmaster by 6-pooling. So you wouldn't be making any feats by only using one cheese for certain matchup and winning with it.
If anything it is good that the Zergs gets more practice against it.
|
On August 12 2012 09:42 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:50 iamcaustic wrote:On August 11 2012 04:53 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:42 iamcaustic wrote:On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. 6-pool vs. T and P is generally game ending, regardless of the outcome. Successful 6-pool is a win for the Zerg, a failed one is likewise pretty much an auto-loss. With ramp blocking, this isn't the case at all; in the event a wall is blocked from being made, the T or P can just cancel their buildings and only be minimally behind. Alternatively, if it's successful it's often a straight loss for the Zerg. Cheese like that, IMO, is excessively strong -- and I say this as a Terran that occasionally uses ramp block in my ladder games vs Zerg. The opinion isn't just mine either, as tournaments go out of their way to also remove this kind of cheese from the game -- including tournaments run by Blizzard. The block is not an autowin for T or P even if it goes up. If that is what you assumed then i see why we are in conflict. It all comes down to how you deal with it. If Zergs wanna break it down their best shot is going 2 gas into a baneling nest. Get 7 banelings ASAP and go knock it down. The macro game is dead but the protoss won't have enough stuff to defend against the following allin. There are also other ways. If you got a scouting drone(Which you should have) then you can use it to make a hatchery outside the block somewhere on the map. Once done use it to make Zerglings and swarm his undefended mineral line. Either tactic through the game will be short. The macro game is gone once protoss and terran does this. You're fine to disagree with it being an auto-win; that's your prerogative. Meanwhile, I'll continue to pick up free wins on the ladder with it, and see it continue to be banned in tournaments by virtue of the lowered neutral depot. The awkward theory-crafting you make doesn't change this. We have seen people getting into even grandmaster by 6-pooling. So you wouldn't be making any feats by only using one cheese for certain matchup and winning with it. If anything it is good that the Zergs gets more practice against it. What, like back in 2010 or something?
|
I've always thought that DB would find the idea of destructible rocks at the bottom of ramps more palatable.
|
On August 12 2012 13:30 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 09:42 Sumadin wrote:On August 12 2012 02:50 iamcaustic wrote:On August 11 2012 04:53 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:42 iamcaustic wrote:On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. 6-pool vs. T and P is generally game ending, regardless of the outcome. Successful 6-pool is a win for the Zerg, a failed one is likewise pretty much an auto-loss. With ramp blocking, this isn't the case at all; in the event a wall is blocked from being made, the T or P can just cancel their buildings and only be minimally behind. Alternatively, if it's successful it's often a straight loss for the Zerg. Cheese like that, IMO, is excessively strong -- and I say this as a Terran that occasionally uses ramp block in my ladder games vs Zerg. The opinion isn't just mine either, as tournaments go out of their way to also remove this kind of cheese from the game -- including tournaments run by Blizzard. The block is not an autowin for T or P even if it goes up. If that is what you assumed then i see why we are in conflict. It all comes down to how you deal with it. If Zergs wanna break it down their best shot is going 2 gas into a baneling nest. Get 7 banelings ASAP and go knock it down. The macro game is dead but the protoss won't have enough stuff to defend against the following allin. There are also other ways. If you got a scouting drone(Which you should have) then you can use it to make a hatchery outside the block somewhere on the map. Once done use it to make Zerglings and swarm his undefended mineral line. Either tactic through the game will be short. The macro game is gone once protoss and terran does this. You're fine to disagree with it being an auto-win; that's your prerogative. Meanwhile, I'll continue to pick up free wins on the ladder with it, and see it continue to be banned in tournaments by virtue of the lowered neutral depot. The awkward theory-crafting you make doesn't change this. We have seen people getting into even grandmaster by 6-pooling. So you wouldn't be making any feats by only using one cheese for certain matchup and winning with it. If anything it is good that the Zergs gets more practice against it. What, like back in 2010 or something?
There is someone who has done it, and I think he is still in Grand Masters. He is a rather talented player, I believe, and he is the only one I know of who has done it.
Grand Master's wasn't around in 2010, I think, and he did it at the end of last year. Is what I get from the thread at least.
|
On August 12 2012 13:30 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 09:42 Sumadin wrote:On August 12 2012 02:50 iamcaustic wrote:On August 11 2012 04:53 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:42 iamcaustic wrote:On August 11 2012 04:33 Sumadin wrote:On August 11 2012 04:11 Blazinghand wrote: No, of course not. However, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. If the best play experience comes from this thing being impossible (as the pros, and blizzard seem to agree), why is Blizzard allowing it to be possible? It's not like people are gonna somehow not cheese on the ladder, but only pros are willing to cheese and abuse (as you implied) to win, and therefore only pro games need depots.
ANYONE CAN CHEESE. I did not say "everyone always cheeses". Please do not put words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is, people cheese on the ladder. It happens all the time. I see tons of cheese. It's not like, as you implied, only pros abuse. There are plenty of arguments as to why cheese is allowed in this game. And Blizzards considers this a cheese like any other. If they kill the block what is next step? Should a spawning pool require 10 supply? Should terrans be forbidden from building a barracks out of 50 yards from a CC. They allow it because cheese is what generates part of the play experience for Starcraft. It keeps you on your toe. It just seems like Zerg consider this cheese something completely over all other cheeses. But really it is as much of a cheese as a 6-pool with simmilar risks. If this Block is denied it puts the protoss back too. 6-pool vs. T and P is generally game ending, regardless of the outcome. Successful 6-pool is a win for the Zerg, a failed one is likewise pretty much an auto-loss. With ramp blocking, this isn't the case at all; in the event a wall is blocked from being made, the T or P can just cancel their buildings and only be minimally behind. Alternatively, if it's successful it's often a straight loss for the Zerg. Cheese like that, IMO, is excessively strong -- and I say this as a Terran that occasionally uses ramp block in my ladder games vs Zerg. The opinion isn't just mine either, as tournaments go out of their way to also remove this kind of cheese from the game -- including tournaments run by Blizzard. The block is not an autowin for T or P even if it goes up. If that is what you assumed then i see why we are in conflict. It all comes down to how you deal with it. If Zergs wanna break it down their best shot is going 2 gas into a baneling nest. Get 7 banelings ASAP and go knock it down. The macro game is dead but the protoss won't have enough stuff to defend against the following allin. There are also other ways. If you got a scouting drone(Which you should have) then you can use it to make a hatchery outside the block somewhere on the map. Once done use it to make Zerglings and swarm his undefended mineral line. Either tactic through the game will be short. The macro game is gone once protoss and terran does this. You're fine to disagree with it being an auto-win; that's your prerogative. Meanwhile, I'll continue to pick up free wins on the ladder with it, and see it continue to be banned in tournaments by virtue of the lowered neutral depot. The awkward theory-crafting you make doesn't change this. We have seen people getting into even grandmaster by 6-pooling. So you wouldn't be making any feats by only using one cheese for certain matchup and winning with it. If anything it is good that the Zergs gets more practice against it. What, like back in 2010 or something? I'm sorry, but this is both clearly inaccurate since GM didn't exist back then, and just simply a way to avoid the entire argument by making a pointless rhetoric.
Also, this:
Meanwhile, I'll continue to pick up free wins on the ladder with it, and see it continue to be banned in tournaments by virtue of the lowered neutral depot. The awkward theory-crafting you make doesn't change this.
Is just repeating the same thing as if it were a fact, you have yet to provide a single argument as to why you think it's a free win except that it is banned in tournaments. We have already countered that by explaining that tournaments ban things for more than balance, it's just bad spectator-ship, another thing might be that tournaments simply think it is imbalanced, I see no way how tournaments could even know if things are imbalanced or not like that because they don't get battle.net stats in from the ladder and the depots have been there for so long that analysing games where it was attempted that are public is impossible.
We have provided the in my opinion extremely strong point that if it were truly imbalanced Blizzard would've stopped it on the ladder a long time ago. They have shown they are willing to go to the length of change the footprint of ramps to stop strategies they consider imbalanced. There is no conceivable reason why they wouldn't do that again if they felt it was imbalanced. Again, do you seriously think that if David Kim's data he got from B.net indicated that it were 'free wins' as you so claim, he wouldn't just say 'Okay, let's make it require 3 bunkers and 5 pylons to block a ramp now shall we.' You don't honestly think he will just leave an unstoppable strategy there right? He nerfed 5rax reaper in like 5 days after it was discovered because guess what, that was a really unstoppable and imbalanced strategy, he went so far to actually change the Terran tech tree to disallow it.
It''s quite clear that a lot of people think this is imbalanced, and none of them have a very strong argument that it is imbalanced, except 'tournaments ban it', which borders on circular reasoning, because they ban it because they consider it imbalanced without a strong argument themselves, it's imply bandwagoning in my opinion, the community has once decided it was 'imbalanced' without a single statistic on the matter and everyone is bandwagoning it like no tomorrow, and that was a long time ago, when this strat was a lot too powerful.
Another, slightly related thing, if you look up the stats on spawn positions on maps, you will find that Zerg is in fact not at all that bad off on close positions and on a lot of maps has a better time in ZvP than cross positions. The community thinks a lot of things en masse that are often very wrong.
|
On August 12 2012 16:15 734pot wrote: I've always thought that DB would find the idea of destructible rocks at the bottom of ramps more palatable. Destructible rocks would just make it worse, lol.
|
I'm a Diamond-Master P, just for the record.
Zergs started blocking Nexus( I think thats the plural of nexus ) with hatches lately. You gotta pull 2 probes to deny that, because if he can place the hatch, its basically game over. You can try to expand with ~1 minute delay which gives the Zerg all the time he needs to outmacro you or you can 1 base all in which doesn't really should be a threat for any Zerg nowadays.
So why dont maps deny that? Or E-Bay blocks by terrans (I've had terrans who built an ebay at my natural w/out even scouting my main...)? Protoss can't build a nexus at the third or float it to the natural...
Okay, that part was ironic. But now seriously, Zergs gotta deal with it. You just let one drone patrol and thats it. No need for a neutral depot. Ramp blocks aren't OP anymore - so just get rid off these depots and everything is fine.
|
Guys, you got way too overreactive and matter-of-fact about my snarky one-liner. Let me emphasize a few words: "like back in 2010 or something". I'm deliberately making a vague over-exaggeration here; even the wording lends itself to deliberate inaccuracy.
Sometimes people use this form of sarcastic/exaggerated communication to highlight a point. In this case, it was to make the statement that this 6-pool to grandmasters attempt was likely done during a much earlier time in SC2's history, where we're likely to have had a much lower understanding of the game, as well as a lower overall skill cap as a result. I'm sure that point wasn't lost on you guys, even if you got distracted over details.
To be less snarky and more matter-of-fact for you guys, I did a quick bit of research on it and, sure enough, the guy that did it did so around a year ago, back in 2011. He wrote a guide at the beginning of November, which means his success was in Season 3 of the Blizzard ladder (July 26, 2011 to October 24, 2011). To put that in perspective, we're nearing the end of Season 8.
In other words, the underlying point I was making is still valid. Is that better for you?
On August 14 2012 04:11 SiskosGoatee wrote: It''s quite clear that a lot of people think this is imbalanced, and none of them have a very strong argument that it is imbalanced, except 'tournaments ban it', which borders on circular reasoning, because they ban it because they consider it imbalanced without a strong argument themselves, it's imply bandwagoning in my opinion, the community has once decided it was 'imbalanced' without a single statistic on the matter and everyone is bandwagoning it like no tomorrow, and that was a long time ago, when this strat was a lot too powerful. This would be a valid point if Blizzard didn't also implement the neutral supply depot in their WCS version maps. Your argument relies on observing Blizzard's actions for the ladder, yet they implement a different standard for tournaments. It's a double-standard you seem to ignore, and simply choose to side with Blizzard's ladder standard rather than its tournament standard, which doesn't make sense given that it's in tournaments where balance really matters the most.
On August 14 2012 04:11 SiskosGoatee wrote: Another, slightly related thing, if you look up the stats on spawn positions on maps, you will find that Zerg is in fact not at all that bad off on close positions and on a lot of maps has a better time in ZvP than cross positions. The community thinks a lot of things en masse that are often very wrong. Not to put him in the hot seat or anything, but most of my knowledge regarding spawning position stats comes from Orb of ESV Korean Weekly fame. Aside from that, the way Tal'Darim Altar works in terms of spawns is no secret. If you have a reliable data source for spawn position stats -- regardless of what the data shows -- I'd be appreciative if you could share.
On August 14 2012 08:04 Watercrystal wrote: I'm a Diamond-Master P, just for the record.
What does this even mean? Are you Diamond or are you Masters?
|
On August 14 2012 08:56 iamcaustic wrote:Guys, you got way too overreactive and matter-of-fact about my snarky one-liner. Let me emphasize a few words: " like back in 2010 or something". I'm deliberately making a vague over-exaggeration here; even the wording lends itself to deliberate inaccuracy. Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 04:11 SiskosGoatee wrote: It''s quite clear that a lot of people think this is imbalanced, and none of them have a very strong argument that it is imbalanced, except 'tournaments ban it', which borders on circular reasoning, because they ban it because they consider it imbalanced without a strong argument themselves, it's imply bandwagoning in my opinion, the community has once decided it was 'imbalanced' without a single statistic on the matter and everyone is bandwagoning it like no tomorrow, and that was a long time ago, when this strat was a lot too powerful. This would be a valid point if Blizzard didn't also implement the neutral supply depot in their WCS version maps. Your argument relies on observing Blizzard's actions for the ladder, yet they implement a different standard for tournaments. It's a double-standard you seem to ignore, and simply choose to side with Blizzard's ladder standard rather than its tournament standard, which doesn't make sense given that it's in tournaments where balance really matters the most. Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 04:11 SiskosGoatee wrote: Another, slightly related thing, if you look up the stats on spawn positions on maps, you will find that Zerg is in fact not at all that bad off on close positions and on a lot of maps has a better time in ZvP than cross positions. The community thinks a lot of things en masse that are often very wrong. Not to put him in the hot seat or anything, but most of my knowledge regarding spawning position stats comes from Orb of ESV Korean Weekly fame. Aside from that, the way Tal'Darim Altar works in terms of spawns is no secret. If you have a reliable data source for spawn position stats -- regardless of what the data shows -- I'd be appreciative if you could share.
Okay so let me level with you for a second. You can take what i state below as almost confirmed facts, point is i won't argue this very much.
1. The depots will never be the solution that Blizzard will do on ladder. It is not their style and really not the way they do things. Blizzard don't use terrain to fix individual balance concerns. If they decided that this strat currently was broken they would apply some tweaks to it.
Examples of possible Blizzard-solutions: A small cooldown to prope building warpin. Make constructiong buildings more fragile in general.
2. The WCS versions have depots and such because they are suposed to be tournement versions. Since all tournement maps have depots, Blizzard added it to theirs too. However this is only to legimize that status as tournement maps. Blizzard can't just throw any maps out there and expect tournements to adapt it, we know that from the past. They respect the tournement map rules, while still maintaining most of their own map rules. And before you go to this, no they have stated MANY times that they don't design the ladder map pool for tournements. I supose you could claim some douple standard but they are very open about this part.
Okay enough about semi-facts. Here is another thing.
Sometimes people use this form of sarcastic/exaggerated communication to highlight a point. In this case, it was to make the statement that this 6-pool to grandmasters attempt was likely done during a much earlier time in SC2's history, where we're likely to have had a much lower understanding of the game, as well as a lower overall skill cap as a result. I'm sure that point wasn't lost on you guys, even if you got distracted over details. To be less snarky and more matter-of-fact for you guys, I did a quick bit of research on it and, sure enough, the guy that did it did so around a year ago, back in 2011. He wrote a guide at the beginning of November, which means his success was in Season 3 of the Blizzard ladder (July 26, 2011 to October 24, 2011). To put that in perspective, we're nearing the end of Season 8. In other words, the underlying point I was making is still valid. Is that better for you?
No actually it highlights our point just as much. No tournement have really run without depots since then, or a very long time before that. At this point we got no valid data from the pro level that tells if this is still broken or not. Whatever arguments the tournement organizers have for those depots can't have anything to do with balance at this point, because there is barely any recent data from pro players about this. We have gone through alot of changes since the depots got introduced, but noone bothered to test of they are still needed.
|
On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: The depots will never be the solution that Blizzard will do on ladder.
I agree with this. It's one of the main motivators of the OP.
On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: The WCS versions have depots and such because they are suposed to be tournement versions. Since all tournement maps have depots, Blizzard added it to theirs too. However this is only to legimize that status as tournement maps. Blizzard can't just throw any maps out there and expect tournements to adapt it, we know that from the past. They respect the tournement map rules, while still maintaining most of their own map rules. And before you go to this, no they have stated MANY times that they don't design the ladder map pool for tournements. I supose you could claim some douple standard but they are very open about this part. Two things:
1. The World Championship Series (WCS) is a Blizzard-run tournament. It is not affected by other tournaments, or vice versa. You might remember that the Blizzcon 2011 (October 21-22, 2011) tournament pool did not feature neutral supply depots or forced cross spawns on Antiga Shipyard, etc. They weren't afraid to utilize their ladder maps in tournaments before, so what changed? What caused Blizzard to adopt other tournament standards instead of their own in 2012, if things like close spawns and lack of neutral depots aren't really an issue?
2. Blizzard's statements regarding the design of their ladder pool are greatly outdated. Since then they have incorporated tournament-level community maps and introduced maps of their own which they personally deemed "tournament-ready". In other words, their stance on this has shifted considerably.
Your arguments do not align with changes in Blizzard's tournament-related standards in 2012.
On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: No actually it highlights our point just as much. No tournement have really run without depots since then, or a very long time before that. At this point we got no valid data from the pro level that tells if this is still broken or not. Whatever arguments the tournement organizers have for those depots can't have anything to do with balance at this point, because there is barely any recent data from pro players about this. We have gone through alot of changes since the depots got introduced, but noone bothered to test of they are still needed.
This is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". We just recently got to see a wonderful example of what happens when these neutral supply depots are removed (even if incidentally) in Byun vs. NesTea on Metropolis. Of course, this game is continuously marginalized as "only one game" with comments directed toward NesTea's play, rather than accepting that ramp block is ridiculous.
As soon as the opportunity presents itself, a pro player exploits it and gets a free win. What do you want tournaments to do? Remove the depots and see those kinds of games on a regular basis, to the detriment of their product and perception as being a competent tournament organizer, just so fellows like yourself can get an arbitrary sample size where you can feel more comfortable saying "Oh, I guess you were right after all"?
|
This would be a valid point if Blizzard didn't also implement the neutral supply depot in their WCS version maps. Your argument relies on observing Blizzard's actions for the ladder, yet they implement a different standard for tournaments. It's a double-standard you seem to ignore, and simply choose to side with Blizzard's ladder standard rather than its tournament standard, which doesn't make sense given that it's in tournaments where balance really matters the most.
Again, this has been addressed, the issue was raised that Blizzard is simply attempting to legitimize their tournaments in the face of the demands of fans regardless of them actually considering it imbalanced or not. You honestly think that that is unlikely?
And you honestly think that it is in any shape of form even plausible that assuming that this strategy is indeed a 'free win' as you call (as in, there is absolutely nothing you can do against it when attempted) and an extremely simple solution exists of simply altering the footprint of ramps for Blizzard, that they would actually not patch out a completely broken and imbalanced strategy?
Do you honestly think that is even plausible? That if they considered it a 'free win' for Terran and their data showed that that they would just let it exist for two years?
|
On August 14 2012 10:55 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: No actually it highlights our point just as much. No tournement have really run without depots since then, or a very long time before that. At this point we got no valid data from the pro level that tells if this is still broken or not. Whatever arguments the tournement organizers have for those depots can't have anything to do with balance at this point, because there is barely any recent data from pro players about this. We have gone through alot of changes since the depots got introduced, but noone bothered to test of they are still needed.
This is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". We just recently got to see a wonderful example of what happens when these neutral supply depots are removed (even if incidentally) in Byun vs. NesTea on Metropolis. Of course, this game is continuously marginalized as "only one game" with comments directed toward NesTea's play, rather than accepting that ramp block is ridiculous.
Oh so you think by knowing my answer that you can devalue my point?
Yes it is only one game. Elementary math tells you that in a grand scheme of statestics one game NEVER matters, NEVER!. One game means nothing, thousand games is a statestic.
There is one other major reasson for not counting that game:
Nestea wasn't previosly aware of the missing depots
There really is no more need for more points against this. Byun had all the advantages, the block got up, he already had plenty marines coming, Nestea didn't have sufficiant force to break it.
That is all the advantages you can have with that cheese. If it didn't win there wouldn't be a point of using it. Byun should win in that situration and he did. The fact that he won just shows there still is some kick to the block, what it DOESN'T show is if this would work regually. Would it be succesful against a zerg mindful of the missing depots? We would't know because nestea was not such a zerg.
The fact that you resent that game just show that you just really don't wanna see this kind of victory. And on that point i disagree. I don't mind terrans or protoss taking advantages of this strat. I would mind if it happened with succes as often as you suggest it would. But we got NO evidence suggesting that would happen.
|
About the Nestea/Byun game, Byun had his scv down to 5 hp and Nestea pulled his drones back just a second too early for some reason. This was without Nestea expecting the block and clearly not anticipating it because he didn't have his drones anywhere in the vicinity to stop a wall from getting up at the ramp, his drones were down below, but not near the ramp, if Nestea knew there was no depot, he would have most likely held seeing that even with his improper response due to being taken by surprise, he still almost held.
I personally don't like seeing strats like this, I don't like doing them, I don't like losing to them. But you gotta cut the bread fair I feel, if you remove these strats, then edit maps to make pools require two overlords and just all around disable proxies by stopping people from building too far from their main for the first five minutes of the game or something. And that would just completely change the metagame and balance of the game too much.
|
On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: Okay so let me level with you for a second. You can take what i state below as almost confirmed facts, point is i won't argue this very much.
I talk to Blizzard about maps quite often and I can assure you almost all your "confirmed facts" are not in fact true or have any basis to them. Sorry
|
On August 14 2012 11:50 Sumadin wrote: Yes it is only one game. Elementary math tells you that in a grand scheme of statestics one game NEVER matters, NEVER!. One game means nothing, thousand games is a statestic.
Actually one game does mean something. And you'd only need a handful of data to have a worthwhile stat.
|
On August 14 2012 13:45 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 11:50 Sumadin wrote: Yes it is only one game. Elementary math tells you that in a grand scheme of statestics one game NEVER matters, NEVER!. One game means nothing, thousand games is a statestic. Actually one game does mean something. And you'd only need a handful of data to have a worthwhile stat. True, this game told us that the 2rax bunker block stat isn't absolutely terrible when an opponent doesn't know you can do it because it barely succeeded.
|
On August 14 2012 11:14 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + This would be a valid point if Blizzard didn't also implement the neutral supply depot in their WCS version maps. Your argument relies on observing Blizzard's actions for the ladder, yet they implement a different standard for tournaments. It's a double-standard you seem to ignore, and simply choose to side with Blizzard's ladder standard rather than its tournament standard, which doesn't make sense given that it's in tournaments where balance really matters the most.
Again, this has been addressed, the issue was raised that Blizzard is simply attempting to legitimize their tournaments in the face of the demands of fans regardless of them actually considering it imbalanced or not. You honestly think that that is unlikely? And you honestly think that it is in any shape of form even plausible that assuming that this strategy is indeed a 'free win' as you call (as in, there is absolutely nothing you can do against it when attempted) and an extremely simple solution exists of simply altering the footprint of ramps for Blizzard, that they would actually not patch out a completely broken and imbalanced strategy? Do you honestly think that is even plausible? That if they considered it a 'free win' for Terran and their data showed that that they would just let it exist for two years? When the bunkers complete, it's pretty well a free win. I'm not sure what race you play or at what level, but this isn't exactly revolutionary information. Blizzard has had multiple precedents where they've accepted something as being imbalanced if it reaches that stage (e.g. late game TvP if the Terran does no mid-game damage and the Protoss played passive macro to get their death ball), but have seen potential actions that can be taken to prevent the game from reaching that stage in the first place. In TvP, it's the mid-game aggression of the Terran that can cripple a Protoss before their death ball takes off, nullifying the Protoss advantage. With ramp block, it's patrolling a drone or two down at the base of the ramp; something which isn't all that big a deal when there's nothing but ladder points on the line, but even Blizzard doesn't seem to find that reasonable anymore for tournament-level play where there are much higher stakes.
Assuming the position that one should balance an e-sports focused game for its highest level of play, the ramp block issue should be addressed in some way. Blizzard's been historically slow at catching up to the community on these things (see: Blizzard ladder map pool, implementation of neutral depots on tournament maps, chat rooms, still waiting on clan support but it's coming soon™, etc.), but they do get around to it eventually.
On August 14 2012 12:38 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: Okay so let me level with you for a second. You can take what i state below as almost confirmed facts, point is i won't argue this very much. I talk to Blizzard about maps quite often and I can assure you almost all your "confirmed facts" are not in fact true or have any basis to them. Sorry Welp, I suppose that closes that chapter. Sir Diamond knows his stuff.
|
On August 14 2012 12:38 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: Okay so let me level with you for a second. You can take what i state below as almost confirmed facts, point is i won't argue this very much. I talk to Blizzard about maps quite often and I can assure you almost all your "confirmed facts" are not in fact true or have any basis to them. Sorry Could you go into more details with what you know then? I didn't see depots in the battle reports. It was hard to judge if there was any changes to how propes makes pylons. And from the looks of the map, none of the stuff you should have been talking about seems to have made an impact.
|
On August 15 2012 05:23 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 12:38 Diamond wrote:On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: Okay so let me level with you for a second. You can take what i state below as almost confirmed facts, point is i won't argue this very much. I talk to Blizzard about maps quite often and I can assure you almost all your "confirmed facts" are not in fact true or have any basis to them. Sorry Could you go into more details with what you know then? I didn't see depots in the battle reports. It was hard to judge if there was any changes to how propes makes pylons. And from the looks of the map, none of the stuff you should have been talking about seems to have made an impact.
Obviously not or I would have. Battle reports are to show stuff off, not quality play.
|
On August 15 2012 05:23 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 12:38 Diamond wrote:On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: Okay so let me level with you for a second. You can take what i state below as almost confirmed facts, point is i won't argue this very much. I talk to Blizzard about maps quite often and I can assure you almost all your "confirmed facts" are not in fact true or have any basis to them. Sorry Could you go into more details with what you know then? I didn't see depots in the battle reports. It was hard to judge if there was any changes to how propes makes pylons. And from the looks of the map, none of the stuff you should have been talking about seems to have made an impact. You seem to have a heavy misconception of what a battle report is supposed to be. Like Diamond said, it's to show off new units and abilities, not be a display of professional skill. It'd be silly to release a battle report that ends in the first few minutes because of something like a ramp block (even though the strategy is only really effective vs. Zerg, but the point stands even in the vs. Zerg battle reports).
Rather, it's more of a Day[9] Funday Monday setting, where the restrictions are "you must showcase these units/abilities before killing your opponent".
|
On August 15 2012 05:57 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 05:23 Sumadin wrote:On August 14 2012 12:38 Diamond wrote:On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: Okay so let me level with you for a second. You can take what i state below as almost confirmed facts, point is i won't argue this very much. I talk to Blizzard about maps quite often and I can assure you almost all your "confirmed facts" are not in fact true or have any basis to them. Sorry Could you go into more details with what you know then? I didn't see depots in the battle reports. It was hard to judge if there was any changes to how propes makes pylons. And from the looks of the map, none of the stuff you should have been talking about seems to have made an impact. You seem to have a heavy misconception of what a battle report is supposed to be. Like Diamond said, it's to show off new units and abilities, not be a display of professional skill. It'd be silly to release a battle report that ends in the first few minutes because of something like a ramp block (even though the strategy is only really effective vs. Zerg, but the point stands even in the vs. Zerg battle reports). Rather, it's more of a Day[9] Funday Monday setting, where the restrictions are "you must showcase these units/abilities before killing your opponent".
That i know. But i just wanted to get more details. It is just really easy for diamond to come and say "You're wrong, Blizzard told me so". Now i do know that he is in contact with Blizard, but apparantly he is embargoed to go in detail with what Blizzard told him. Is depots coming, does probe warpin get a cooldown? Or do they just acknowledge that tournements thinks it is imbalanced to have the block?
If he is going to bring on that argument he should go in more details, or just be quiet about it. I can't use "You're wrong" to anything.
|
On August 15 2012 06:55 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 05:57 iamcaustic wrote:On August 15 2012 05:23 Sumadin wrote:On August 14 2012 12:38 Diamond wrote:On August 14 2012 10:01 Sumadin wrote: Okay so let me level with you for a second. You can take what i state below as almost confirmed facts, point is i won't argue this very much. I talk to Blizzard about maps quite often and I can assure you almost all your "confirmed facts" are not in fact true or have any basis to them. Sorry Could you go into more details with what you know then? I didn't see depots in the battle reports. It was hard to judge if there was any changes to how propes makes pylons. And from the looks of the map, none of the stuff you should have been talking about seems to have made an impact. You seem to have a heavy misconception of what a battle report is supposed to be. Like Diamond said, it's to show off new units and abilities, not be a display of professional skill. It'd be silly to release a battle report that ends in the first few minutes because of something like a ramp block (even though the strategy is only really effective vs. Zerg, but the point stands even in the vs. Zerg battle reports). Rather, it's more of a Day[9] Funday Monday setting, where the restrictions are "you must showcase these units/abilities before killing your opponent". That i know. But i just wanted to get more details. It is just really easy for diamond to come and say "You're wrong, Blizzard told me so". Now i do know that he is in contact with Blizard, but apparantly he is embargoed to go in detail with what Blizzard told him. Is depots coming, does probe warpin get a cooldown? Or do they just acknowledge that tournements thinks it is imbalanced to have the block? If he is going to bring on that argument he should go in more details, or just be quiet about it. I can't use "You're wrong" to anything. I actually thought it was rather nice of Diamond to let you know you're mistaken, despite having to be tight-lipped about details. I don't see it as being much different than when Blizzard employees do some sort of interview or something and answer questions about topics such as HotS campaign, but give very shallow answers with a "I can't go into much more detail at this time" disclaimer.
As for making use of "you're wrong", while you can't use it to reach a conclusion regarding Blizzard's actual opinion/stance, you can make use of it to scratch your assumptions out of the list of possibilities (which, frankly, would put you on track better than where you were, stating those misconceptions as "basically facts", to paraphrase you).
|
On August 15 2012 03:03 iamcaustic wrote: When the bunkers complete, it's pretty well a free win. I'm not sure what race you play or at what level, but this isn't exactly revolutionary information. It puts you in a very, very good spot yes, just as dts getting into your base when you have no detection, or cloaked banshees, or tunneling roaches hitting before detection, or a forcefield on your ramp with a warp prism in your main, or a creep tumour being planted in your natural from a queen+hatch strat.
However, that doesn't mean there is no way to stop it from getting to that point.
Blizzard has had multiple precedents where they've accepted something as being imbalanced if it reaches that stage (e.g. late game TvP if the Terran does no mid-game damage and the Protoss played passive macro to get their death ball), but have seen potential actions that can be taken to prevent the game from reaching that stage in the first place. In TvP, it's the mid-game aggression of the Terran that can cripple a Protoss before their death ball takes off, nullifying the Protoss advantage. With ramp block, it's patrolling a drone or two down at the base of the ramp; something which isn't all that big a deal when there's nothing but ladder points on the line, but even Blizzard doesn't seem to find that reasonable anymore for tournament-level play where there are much higher stakes. Great, so we agree that it can be stopped from getting to this point.
And what you are effectively saying is 'There shouldn't be situations in this game where a player can have achieved a winning advantage.'
If a ramp block gets up, you're in deep shit, so stop it from getting that far, just as when a creep tumour gets down in your natural you're in deep shit, or when you leave your wall open and lings run into your main, you're in deep shit, so stop it from getting that far, it's quite easy.
Assuming the position that one should balance an e-sports focused game for its highest level of play, the ramp block issue should be addressed in some way. Blizzard's been historically slow at catching up to the community on these things (see: Blizzard ladder map pool, implementation of neutral depots on tournament maps, chat rooms, still waiting on clan support but it's coming soon™, etc.), but they do get around to it eventually. Because the community are frankly a group of drooling bandwagoning mongoloids and Blizzard actually has a plethora on statistics on the matter and the community just parrots each other without ever having seen a single statistic on the matter.
|
Well the facts part wasn't the smartest choice of words i will give you that but i will stand by most of the statements. It is highly unlikely that Blizzard will implement the depots on ladder. They have shown to be extremely resistant about breaking the "ladder rules" for their maps and even in the WCS they uphold most of them except for the depots.
To go into details what i mean by the "ladder rules". It's their traditional stance on how maps on ladder should be. No altered expansions, No alternative blocking(metropolis island creep tumors) and such.
They faced a shitstorm through when Blizzcon didn't have depots which is probably why they let loose for the WCS versions only. In the past noone considered their ladder pool good(Today i would say it is too good), so i really don't think they wanted to take the battle about there. Even if their stats would have shown that the block had a winrate well within what is acceptable for other cheeses, I don't think they wanted to go through that again and potentially causing futher harm to the legitimity to their maps. They still maintained all of the other ladder map rules.
|
On August 15 2012 09:10 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 03:03 iamcaustic wrote: When the bunkers complete, it's pretty well a free win. I'm not sure what race you play or at what level, but this isn't exactly revolutionary information. It puts you in a very, very good spot yes, just as dts getting into your base when you have no detection, or cloaked banshees, or tunneling roaches hitting before detection, or a forcefield on your ramp with a warp prism in your main, or a creep tumour being planted in your natural from a queen+hatch strat. However, that doesn't mean there is no way to stop it from getting to that point. Show nested quote +Blizzard has had multiple precedents where they've accepted something as being imbalanced if it reaches that stage (e.g. late game TvP if the Terran does no mid-game damage and the Protoss played passive macro to get their death ball), but have seen potential actions that can be taken to prevent the game from reaching that stage in the first place. In TvP, it's the mid-game aggression of the Terran that can cripple a Protoss before their death ball takes off, nullifying the Protoss advantage. With ramp block, it's patrolling a drone or two down at the base of the ramp; something which isn't all that big a deal when there's nothing but ladder points on the line, but even Blizzard doesn't seem to find that reasonable anymore for tournament-level play where there are much higher stakes. Great, so we agree that it can be stopped from getting to this point. And what you are effectively saying is 'There shouldn't be situations in this game where a player can have achieved a winning advantage.' If a ramp block gets up, you're in deep shit, so stop it from getting that far, just as when a creep tumour gets down in your natural you're in deep shit, or when you leave your wall open and lings run into your main, you're in deep shit, so stop it from getting that far, it's quite easy. From a balance standpoint, if you don't understand the difference between:
a. decent scouting and/or establishing detection in a timely manner; and b. consistently having to deal with an early-game income disadvantage just to avoid auto-loss
Then there's really nothing left for us to discuss. I'm very curious as to your actual skill level and race in SC2 for you to really not understand how even the "solution" is detrimental, even if it is better than auto-loss.
+ Show Spoiler +
On August 15 2012 09:10 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +Assuming the position that one should balance an e-sports focused game for its highest level of play, the ramp block issue should be addressed in some way. Blizzard's been historically slow at catching up to the community on these things (see: Blizzard ladder map pool, implementation of neutral depots on tournament maps, chat rooms, still waiting on clan support but it's coming soon™, etc.), but they do get around to it eventually. Because the community are frankly a group of drooling bandwagoning mongoloids and Blizzard actually has a plethora on statistics on the matter and the community just parrots each other without ever having seen a single statistic on the matter. Your general disdain for the community and everything it has accomplished isn't scoring you any points on the credibility board. Diamond has already come out in this thread stating he's been in contact with Blizzard on the map-making front (you know, because he's actually a relevant community member who's done a lot of good work, and who's map-making team has 2 maps featured on Blizzard's ladder), and that the general opinions you guys have been stating as Blizzard's official position are inaccurate.
Yes, Blizzard has lots of data. No, that does not mean ramp block is perfectly fine. Even with Blizzard having all this data, neutral depots are on their WCS maps. Your opinionated rationalization for why Blizzard has done this has already been debunked as being wrong by a credible source with insider information.
On August 15 2012 09:26 Sumadin wrote: Well the facts part wasn't the smartest choice of words i will give you that but i will stand by most of the statements. It is highly unlikely that Blizzard will implement the depots on ladder. They have shown to be extremely resistant about breaking the "ladder rules" for their maps and even in the WCS they uphold most of them except for the depots.
To go into details what i mean by the "ladder rules". It's their traditional stance on how maps on ladder should be. No altered expansions, No alternative blocking(metropolis island creep tumors) and such.
They faced a shitstorm through when Blizzcon didn't have depots which is probably why they let loose for the WCS versions only. In the past noone considered their ladder pool good(Today i would say it is too good), so i really don't think they wanted to take the battle about there. Even if their stats would have shown that the block had a winrate well within what is acceptable for other cheeses, I don't think they wanted to go through that again and potentially causing futher harm to the legitimity to their maps. They still maintained all of the other ladder map rules. As I've already said, I also agree that it is very unlikely that Blizzard would implement neutral depots on the ladder, for the reasons expressed in the OP.
Regarding "ladder map rules" being maintained in WCS maps, I'd like to note that WCS maps also do not:
1. have rich mineral fields 2. have all spawns enabled on all maps (e.g. WCS Antiga Shipyard is cross-position only, despite being all 4 spawns on ladder)
It's more than just the ramp block. It's about having a balanced map pool for tournaments, where balance really matters.
|
On August 15 2012 10:13 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 09:10 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 15 2012 03:03 iamcaustic wrote: When the bunkers complete, it's pretty well a free win. I'm not sure what race you play or at what level, but this isn't exactly revolutionary information. It puts you in a very, very good spot yes, just as dts getting into your base when you have no detection, or cloaked banshees, or tunneling roaches hitting before detection, or a forcefield on your ramp with a warp prism in your main, or a creep tumour being planted in your natural from a queen+hatch strat. However, that doesn't mean there is no way to stop it from getting to that point. Blizzard has had multiple precedents where they've accepted something as being imbalanced if it reaches that stage (e.g. late game TvP if the Terran does no mid-game damage and the Protoss played passive macro to get their death ball), but have seen potential actions that can be taken to prevent the game from reaching that stage in the first place. In TvP, it's the mid-game aggression of the Terran that can cripple a Protoss before their death ball takes off, nullifying the Protoss advantage. With ramp block, it's patrolling a drone or two down at the base of the ramp; something which isn't all that big a deal when there's nothing but ladder points on the line, but even Blizzard doesn't seem to find that reasonable anymore for tournament-level play where there are much higher stakes. Great, so we agree that it can be stopped from getting to this point. And what you are effectively saying is 'There shouldn't be situations in this game where a player can have achieved a winning advantage.' If a ramp block gets up, you're in deep shit, so stop it from getting that far, just as when a creep tumour gets down in your natural you're in deep shit, or when you leave your wall open and lings run into your main, you're in deep shit, so stop it from getting that far, it's quite easy. From a balance standpoint, if you don't understand the difference between: a. decent scouting and/or establishing detection in a timely manner; and b. consistently having to deal with an early-game income disadvantage just to avoid auto-loss I don't, scouting represents a form of economy loss, in PvZ you have to scout at 9, the only matchup where this is mandatory, and again on some maps at 13, you have to send two scouts on a lot of 4 player maps just to be safe against a possible 7pool in PvZ, it's only fair that Z has to patrol a drone in return honestly.
Then there's really nothing left for us to discuss. I'm very curious as to your actual skill level and race in SC2 for you to really not understand how even the "solution" is detrimental, even if it is better than auto-loss. As I said, I'm master league with all three races. David Kim is high master / GM with all three races and he agrees with me here, not with you, so please.
It isn't.
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/960418/1/Runkk/, character code 195, you're free to add me to confirm.
Also, you know that for instance IronManSC is gold league right? It doesn't mean as much as you may think.
Your general disdain for the community and everything it has accomplished isn't scoring you any points on the credibility board. What is this even supposed to say?
Diamond has already come out in this thread stating he's been in contact with Blizzard on the map-making front (you know, because he's actually a relevant community member who's done a lot of good work, and who's map-making team has 2 maps featured on Blizzard's ladder), and that the general opinions you guys have been stating as Blizzard's official position are inaccurate. Diamond has said no such things, he's made extremely cryptic statements and said himself he cannot go into detail. I have also at no point said anything was a fact, you're confusing me with someone else.
Your opinionated rationalization for why Blizzard has done this has already been debunked as being wrong by a credible source with insider information. He debunked nothing, he made an extremely cryptic and vague statement which can mean anything.
So again, I will ask you this one question you endlessly seem to avoid. You claimed this strategy was a "free win", I can trust we agree that free win means there is nothing that can be done about it?
Do you or do you not hold it plausible that Blizzard would continue to let strategies exist which are impossible to stop and do so for 2 years when a completely simple solution of altering the footprints of ramps exist?
|
On August 15 2012 10:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 10:13 iamcaustic wrote:On August 15 2012 09:10 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 15 2012 03:03 iamcaustic wrote: When the bunkers complete, it's pretty well a free win. I'm not sure what race you play or at what level, but this isn't exactly revolutionary information. It puts you in a very, very good spot yes, just as dts getting into your base when you have no detection, or cloaked banshees, or tunneling roaches hitting before detection, or a forcefield on your ramp with a warp prism in your main, or a creep tumour being planted in your natural from a queen+hatch strat. However, that doesn't mean there is no way to stop it from getting to that point. Blizzard has had multiple precedents where they've accepted something as being imbalanced if it reaches that stage (e.g. late game TvP if the Terran does no mid-game damage and the Protoss played passive macro to get their death ball), but have seen potential actions that can be taken to prevent the game from reaching that stage in the first place. In TvP, it's the mid-game aggression of the Terran that can cripple a Protoss before their death ball takes off, nullifying the Protoss advantage. With ramp block, it's patrolling a drone or two down at the base of the ramp; something which isn't all that big a deal when there's nothing but ladder points on the line, but even Blizzard doesn't seem to find that reasonable anymore for tournament-level play where there are much higher stakes. Great, so we agree that it can be stopped from getting to this point. And what you are effectively saying is 'There shouldn't be situations in this game where a player can have achieved a winning advantage.' If a ramp block gets up, you're in deep shit, so stop it from getting that far, just as when a creep tumour gets down in your natural you're in deep shit, or when you leave your wall open and lings run into your main, you're in deep shit, so stop it from getting that far, it's quite easy. From a balance standpoint, if you don't understand the difference between: a. decent scouting and/or establishing detection in a timely manner; and b. consistently having to deal with an early-game income disadvantage just to avoid auto-loss I don't, scouting represents a form of economy loss, in PvZ you have to scout at 9, the only matchup where this is mandatory, and again on some maps at 13, you have to send two scouts on a lot of 4 player maps just to be safe against a possible 7pool in PvZ, it's only fair that Z has to patrol a drone in return honestly. Every race needs to scout. That's equivalent economic loss. Sending more than one worker scout is a personal choice, not a necessity. You're trading economy for potentially better/faster scouting intel than your opponent. The day I see Protoss players send 2 probes every time on maps like Whirlwind in PvZ is the day I might consider otherwise.
Zerg incurs an extra penalty by being forced to use an additional worker to patrol the ramp. That's if a Terran decides to play nice and not bring 3 workers to quick snipe the drone and throw down those bunkers before additional drones from the mineral line can have a chance to prevent it. Let's try to keep it simple though and just focus on the economic disadvantage.
On August 15 2012 10:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +Then there's really nothing left for us to discuss. I'm very curious as to your actual skill level and race in SC2 for you to really not understand how even the "solution" is detrimental, even if it is better than auto-loss. As I said, I'm master league with all three races. David Kim is high master / GM with all three races and he agrees with me here, not with you, so please. It isn't. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/960418/1/Runkk/, character code 195, you're free to add me to confirm. Also, you know that for instance IronManSC is gold league right? It doesn't mean as much as you may think. Thank goodness. Regarding IronMan, though, I feel fairly confident that it is not his opinion alone that has convinced everyone (i.e. tournament organizers, the professional mapmaking teams, and Blizzard) that neutral depots -- or rather, the concept of preventing ramp block -- are a must in tournament-quality maps. Can you even say he was involved in raising the issue in the first place?
IronMan being gold league doesn't mean much here because he is irrelevant in this argument.
On August 15 2012 10:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + Your general disdain for the community and everything it has accomplished isn't scoring you any points on the credibility board.
What is this even supposed to say? Exactly what is written. How do you expect myself or anyone to take you seriously when all you do is trash talk the community? As far as you're concerned, we all may as well be a bunch of brainless chimpanzees, and you know better than all the professionals in the industry.
On August 15 2012 10:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +Diamond has already come out in this thread stating he's been in contact with Blizzard on the map-making front (you know, because he's actually a relevant community member who's done a lot of good work, and who's map-making team has 2 maps featured on Blizzard's ladder), and that the general opinions you guys have been stating as Blizzard's official position are inaccurate. Diamond has said no such things, he's made extremely cryptic statements and said himself he cannot go into detail. I have also at no point said anything was a fact, you're confusing me with someone else. What's cryptic about "you're wrong"? He just can't go into detail to explain what's correct regarding Blizzard's stances and actions toward these issues.
On August 15 2012 10:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +Your opinionated rationalization for why Blizzard has done this has already been debunked as being wrong by a credible source with insider information. He debunked nothing, he made an extremely cryptic and vague statement which can mean anything. Read the above.
On August 15 2012 10:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: So again, I will ask you this one question you endlessly seem to avoid. You claimed this strategy was a "free win", I can trust we agree that free win means there is nothing that can be done about it?
Do you or do you not hold it plausible that Blizzard would continue to let strategies exist which are impossible to stop and do so for 2 years when a completely simple solution of altering the footprints of ramps exist? I avoid this because it's nothing more than a deliberate and gross misrepresentation of my statements and claims. I've already made my statements and gone into detail explaining them in this thread. Since you want an answer so badly, I'm going to have to explain why this question is flawed.
Regarding free win: I've already said that it's a free win (nothing can be done about it) if the block gets placed down. In other words, the strategy can be stopped before it begins, but once it starts it's game over for the Zerg (and as a disclaimer: unless the opponent makes a colossal blunder, in which case anything can happen).
Regarding Blizzard not addressing the issue on ladder maps: We just went over discussing the whole drone patrol thing. I've also already discussed how Blizzard has allowed imbalanced concepts to remain in the game, because there are potentially ways to prevent them before they start, even if they're too strong once begun. In particular, I referenced Blizzard's stance on TvP, with Terran's mid-game aggression (prevention) vs. Protoss late game composition (too strong if unhindered]). The strategy of ramp blocking itself is still excessively strong, and is removed from tournaments because it's far too easy to execute for the time it hits and the damage it does. At least in things like TvP, the Protoss still has to perform very well and prevent being dealt significant damage during the mid-game. There is effort and skill required from both sides, and thus it's deemed acceptable, even if not ideal (we see Blizzard addressing this design in HotS by making mech vs. Protoss viable).
At its very core, this question of yours is flawed because it misrepresents the issue as being equivalent to something like 5-rax reaper.
EDIT: I'd also like to note that Blizzard already nerfed ramp block once before by altering the ramp pathing. This was done in patch 1.2.0, released January 10th, 2011 (i.e. less than 2 years ago). The change prevented ramp blocking by two 2x2 structures (such as pylons). Now, it requires three. The general consensus on the professional level is that this wasn't enough of a nerf. However, it seems like the folks at ESV prefer a solution along the lines of neutral lowered depot (either it, or a solution which mimics the same kind of functionality), as opposed to a change to the ramp pathing, as I'm proposing and as Blizzard has done in the past.
|
Every race needs to scout. That's equivalent economic loss. Find me a single Zerg that scouts at 9 in ZvP, it's just not done, while scouting at 9 in PvZ is a lot more common, also, observe how many probes MC actually has to send out in an average PvZ to check for a lot of things. Scouting earlier and more is more economy loss. That Z has to patrol a drone in return is only fair.
Sending more than one worker scout is a personal choice, not a necessity. No, it's a necessity to not die to a 7pool on say Tal'Darim Altar or basically every 4 player map, if you scout him last and he scouts you first with an overlord, you will find out he's 7pooling, by lings in your base. If you don't scout again at 13 if you didn't find him at the first try, you just accept that you will die to a 7pool if you find him last.
You're trading economy for potentially better/faster scouting intel than your opponent. The day I see Protoss players send 2 probes every time on maps like Whirlwind in PvZ is the day I might consider otherwise. A lot do, if you don't find him at your first try you have to send a probe again at 13 to be absolutely safe. There's simply no way to hold a 7pool if you scouted him last and he knows where you are, which he will, because he will send his overlord at one close location, and then of course check the other close location first with his lings.
Zerg incurs an extra penalty by being forced to use an additional worker to patrol the ramp. That's if a Terran decides to play nice and not bring 3 workers to quick snipe the drone and throw down those bunkers before additional drones from the mineral line can have a chance to prevent it. Let's try to keep it simple though and just focus on the economic disadvantage. You have admitted in the past that you do not play Zerg, and it shows, the worker you use to block the ramp is the same worker you use to scout when it gets back in a lot of cases, as soon as you are in his base and you know he's 2raxing you can send that worker back immediately and have it check around your natural for bunkers and then patrol the ramp. Apart from that this worker isn't sent at 10.
On August 15 2012 10:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: Thank goodness. Thank godness what? I play all three races at master league level, if we're going to do this by authority as you were instilling on just yet I win, simple as that. I am higher ranked, and certainly higher ranked with all three races, than the majority of mapmakers here.
But this isn't a contest of authority, I'm sure you can find someone ranked higher than I who disgrees with me, and someone even higher ranked who does agree with me.
Regarding IronMan, though, I feel fairly confident that it is not his opinion alone that has convinced everyone (i.e. tournament organizers, the professional mapmaking teams, and Blizzard) that neutral depots -- or rather, the concept of preventing ramp block -- are a must in tournament-quality maps. Can you even say he was involved in raising the issue in the first place? I never said so, you however seem to think that high ladder rankings are a necessity for quality map design. (though to be frank, I've yet to see a truly memorable game on Ohana).
On August 15 2012 10:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: Exactly what is written. How do you expect myself or anyone to take you seriously when all you do is trash talk the community? As far as you're concerned, we all may as well be a bunch of brainless chimpanzees, and you know better than all the professionals in the industry. You seriously take 'the community' serious?
This 'entity' flip flops every week, has a different opinion on stuff every week, first they idolize IdrA, then they thrash him after being BM, same with iNcontrol, then they say forcefields are completely overpowered, then they suddenly drop the issue and go focus on fungal while neither spell was changed in the meanwhile, then they say that infestor/broodlord is too strong and that snipe should be buffed because it's not strong enough, then they all cry about snipe being too strong while it wasn't buffed in that timeframe.
The community says a lot of things and often changes its opinion. What you're doing has a name. I'm sorry, but I can'tt ake you seriously if you believe something is true just because the majority of people believe it. (see crossfire)
On August 15 2012 10:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +Diamond has already come out in this thread stating he's been in contact with Blizzard on the map-making front (you know, because he's actually a relevant community member who's done a lot of good work, and who's map-making team has 2 maps featured on Blizzard's ladder), and that the general opinions you guys have been stating as Blizzard's official position are inaccurate. Diamond has said no such things, he's made extremely cryptic statements and said himself he cannot go into detail. I have also at no point said anything was a fact, you're confusing me with someone else. What's cryptic about "you're wrong"? He just can't go into detail to explain what's correct regarding Blizzard's stances and actions toward these issues.[/quote]He said that to another person, about some things which I have never argued, never to me. I'm not talking about that, again, you may be confusing me with someone else, I never argued those 'facts', my statements are simple:
- There is no statistic proof whatsoever cited ever that ramp blocks are an imbalanced strategy.
- Playing all three races at a master league level myself, my personal experience is not that it is imbalanced, I can deal with it, and I've been defeated many times attempting it.
- The fact that Blizzard has not patched this strategy out of the ladder or nerfed it is a very strong indication of that it does not constitute an imbalance.
That's all I have claimed, I never claimed any of such other facts.
I avoid this because it's nothing more than a deliberate and gross misrepresentation of my statements and claims. I've already made my statements and gone into detail explaining them in this thread. Since you want an answer so badly, I'm going to have to explain why this question is flawed.
Regarding free win: I've already said that it's a free win (nothing can be done about it) if the block gets placed down. In other words, the strategy can be stopped before it begins, but once it starts it's game over for the Zerg (and as a disclaimer: unless the opponent makes a colossal blunder, in which case anything can happen).
Regarding Blizzard not addressing the issue on ladder maps: We just went over discussing the whole drone patrol thing. I've also already discussed how Blizzard has allowed imbalanced concepts to remain in the game, because there are potentially ways to prevent them before they start, even if they're too strong once begun. In particular, I referenced Blizzard's stance on TvP, with Terran's mid-game aggression (prevention) vs. Protoss late game composition (too strong if unhindered]). The strategy of ramp blocking itself is still excessively strong, and is removed from tournaments because it's far too easy to execute for the time it hits and the damage it does. At least in things like TvP, the Protoss still has to perform very well and prevent being dealt significant damage during the mid-game. There is effort and skill required from both sides, and thus it's deemed acceptable, even if not ideal (we see Blizzard addressing this design in HotS by making mech vs. Protoss viable).
At its very core, this question of yours is flawed because it misrepresents the issue as being equivalent to something like 5-rax reaper. Okay, then you simply think something is a problem that I don't think is a problem. You think that if a strategy gets beyond a certain point if you had ample means to stop it from getting to that point then that is bad. I don't see what is so bad about that. But whatever. If I go nexus first and let a bunker get up in range of my nexus with a reaper into it, then I'm in deep shit, I could've stopped that. If I go 1 rax FE but he manages to plant a pylon behind my CC outside of my vision and I failed to notice then I basically die to any pressure he might throw at me, once the pressure starts and he starts to warp in the game is pretty much over for me, but I could've stopped that by following the scouting probe around or checking later. Same situation in my opinion.
Apart from that, Zerg is in an awful position if two bunkers get up in range of his hatch, ramp block or no ramp block
EDIT: I'd also like to note that Blizzard already nerfed ramp block once before by altering the ramp pathing. This was done in patch 1.2.0, released January 10th, 2011 (i.e. less than 2 years ago). The change prevented ramp blocking by two 2x2 structures (such as pylons). Now, it requires three. The general consensus on the professional level is that this wasn't enough of a nerf. However, it seems like the folks at ESV prefer a solution along the lines of neutral lowered depot (either it, or a solution which mimics the same kind of functionality), as opposed to a change to the ramp pathing, as I'm proposing and as Blizzard has done in the past. I said that a thousand times already and I cited that asn argument that they are willing to change the footprint of ramps if they consider them imbalanced. They apparently consider 2 pylons needed imbalanced, but three balanced, pretty simple.
|
EDIT: I guess I should let you know before you start reading this behemoth, I have a p.s. at the bottom of this post. Might be worth reading first to possibly save you some time, unless you really want to respond anyway. In that case, feel free.
On August 15 2012 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: Find me a single Zerg that scouts at 9 in ZvP, it's just not done, while scouting at 9 in PvZ is a lot more common, also, observe how many probes MC actually has to send out in an average PvZ to check for a lot of things. Scouting earlier and more is more economy loss. That Z has to patrol a drone in return is only fair. I just went and checked MC's most recent matches vs. DRG and Leenock. In all six professional level PvZs, MC did not send out more than the 9 probe to scout in the early game. So, my observations would be 1 probe, and all of his openings followed a similar trend (standard FFE), leading me to believe this is his standard opening. In that regard, a patrolling drone would be, in fact, an additional economic hit for the Zerg.
You're gonna have to put in some effort with some VOD examples to convince me otherwise on that one.
On August 15 2012 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: No, it's a necessity to not die to a 7pool on say Tal'Darim Altar or basically every 4 player map, if you scout him last and he scouts you first with an overlord, you will find out he's 7pooling, by lings in your base. If you don't scout again at 13 if you didn't find him at the first try, you just accept that you will die to a 7pool if you find him last. Tal'Darim Altar is no longer considered a tournament-quality map, as many flaws have been revealed in its design, and consequently has been phased out of most professional tournaments. That said, this fact doesn't affect 7-pool necessarily, so let's address that too.
Odds of Zerg scouting you first, while you scout Zerg last, is relatively low. Somewhere around 10% chance (i.e. 1 in 10 games), assuming both an overlord and drone are sent out to scout. That drops to ~7% (1 in 15 games) chance if only one Zerg scouting unit is sent. Then we have to consider the odds of a Zerg going 7 pool when they scout you first and you scout them last. Needless to say, that number is even lower.
Next to consider is that Zerg scouting you first (and you don't scout Zerg at the first scouted spawn) is a trigger. That's a warning which says "Oh shit, Zerg has the potential to 7 pool me". Even if the Zerg isn't 7 pooling, you have an early warning sign that the possibility exists and can take additional measures, such as sending a second probe, without having to expend that effort every game.
For ramp block, the warning trigger is "Oh shit my ramp is getting blocked". There's nothing beforehand which can warn a Zerg to be more cautious, requiring caution in every single game regardless whether the Zerg scouted or not until they feel confident they can deny a potential ramp block without taking game-ending damage.
On August 15 2012 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: A lot do, if you don't find him at your first try you have to send a probe again at 13 to be absolutely safe. There's simply no way to hold a 7pool if you scouted him last and he knows where you are, which he will, because he will send his overlord at one close location, and then of course check the other close location first with his lings. Judging from your wording here, it seems like you do make use of that trigger. Also want to note that 2-player maps negate this requirement of the Protoss, yet Zerg still would be required to drone patrol regardless of map. In conclusion, this isn't an equivalent scenario.
On August 15 2012 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: You have admitted in the past that you do not play Zerg, and it shows, the worker you use to block the ramp is the same worker you use to scout when it gets back in a lot of cases, as soon as you are in his base and you know he's 2raxing you can send that worker back immediately and have it check around your natural for bunkers and then patrol the ramp. Apart from that this worker isn't sent at 10. No, I don't play Zerg outside of customs, but I do play against them. You're basically trying to tell me that I don't understand a TvZ strategy.
When I bunker ramp block, I do it hard. Proxy double-11 rax, double bunker at the ramp before natural hatchery completes. Generally only do it on 2-player maps, where blind proxy is strongest. Unless as a Zerg you run straight back home after poking up my ramp and seeing no barracks as part of a wall (why would you do this?), that scouting drone isn't getting back in time. By the time you skirt the edges of my base and check for a Maka rax to ensure there aren't any metagame shenanigans going on and get back, there are bunkers on your ramp. You have to pull additional drone(s) from your main before then. A player that only overlord scouts on 2-player maps (fairly common on ladder) is especially screwed.
On August 15 2012 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: Thank godness what? I play all three races at master league level, if we're going to do this by authority as you were instilling on just yet I win, simple as that. I am higher ranked, and certainly higher ranked with all three races, than the majority of mapmakers here.
But this isn't a contest of authority, I'm sure you can find someone ranked higher than I who disgrees with me, and someone even higher ranked who does agree with me. Thank goodness that wasn't your account. It's not an appeal to authority more than a desire to at least maintain a minimum threshold of competency. I tend to aim for a threshold of ~top 20%, since that lines up well with Blizzard's leagues (easy verification) and retains a large enough range of skill so as to not lose smart players that may not be mechanically up to par. Anything other than that, and I'm more likely to just drop the argument and move on (though I have listened to some Platinums from time to time if they say smart things). Just a personal policy to keep my sanity.
In this case, I can disagree with you but at least have peace of mind knowing you have a solid understanding of general concepts.
On August 15 2012 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: I never said so, you however seem to think that high ladder rankings are a necessity for quality map design. (though to be frank, I've yet to see a truly memorable game on Ohana). This assumption of my belief is blatantly incorrect, but having good ladder ranking can definitely help.
On August 15 2012 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: You seriously take 'the community' serious?
This 'entity' flip flops every week, has a different opinion on stuff every week, first they idolize IdrA, then they thrash him after being BM, same with iNcontrol, then they say forcefields are completely overpowered, then they suddenly drop the issue and go focus on fungal while neither spell was changed in the meanwhile, then they say that infestor/broodlord is too strong and that snipe should be buffed because it's not strong enough, then they all cry about snipe being too strong while it wasn't buffed in that timeframe.
The community says a lot of things and often changes its opinion. What you're doing has a name. I'm sorry, but I can'tt ake you seriously if you believe something is true just because the majority of people believe it. (see crossfire) Reading this, what you label "the community" and what I label "the community" are clearly very different things, so allow me to clarify what I'm talking about.
When I say "the community", I am talking about the people that actually, you know, do stuff. They're map-makers, journalists, tournament organizers both large and small, barcraft organizers, pro and semi-pro players, etc. I am not talking about r/starcraft or even the TL forums -- though I do include everyone who helps run them. People who only play the game casually and/or watch pro games I call amateurs and spectators, respectively. Out of those, the ones that post the garbage you speak of are called the hivemind (as seems to be the popular term on r/starcraft). I watch hockey, being a Canadian. That doesn't make me a part of any hockey community.
To sum that up, my use of "the community" means people that are actually relevant to the StarCraft scene, even if only in small ways. Perhaps that's more technical and unorthodox than common, so I'll drop my earlier comments on the matter.
I do, however, still take issues with your coupling my concept of the community with the hivemind, assuming they think and act the same way and therefore consider ramp block to be nothing more than another freak out.
On August 15 2012 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: He said that to another person, about some things which I have never argued, never to me. I'm not talking about that, again, you may be confusing me with someone else, I never argued those 'facts', my statements are simple:
- There is no statistic proof whatsoever cited ever that ramp blocks are an imbalanced strategy.
- Playing all three races at a master league level myself, my personal experience is not that it is imbalanced, I can deal with it, and I've been defeated many times attempting it.
- The fact that Blizzard has not patched this strategy out of the ladder or nerfed it is a very strong indication of that it does not constitute an imbalance.
That's all I have claimed, I never claimed any of such other facts. He didn't say it to you directly, but he said it in response to similar statements, namely Blizzard's stance on neutral supply depots and why they use it on WCS maps. You and I have since moved on to other arguments. Addressing your three points:
- No, but Blizzard has nerfed ramp blocks once before and even implement the community's solution of neutral lowered depots in their own WCS maps. In other words, it was imbalanced, it's believed to still be imbalanced, and Blizzard's recent actions lend credence to that. There are reasons stated as early as the OP itself as to why Blizzard likely won't add neutral depots on ladder maps, which is why they are currently lacking, much to the ire of some professional mapmakers and professional players.
- One man's experience isn't empirical proof either. Look at any balance whine thread and you'll find people giving examples on how they overcome the issue, yet we've still seen some of these issues addressed in balance patches anyway. A famous one back in the day was khaydarin amulet, with many people saying it was fine and that it could be overcome with ghosts and EMP. As I'm sure you realize, that upgrade can no longer be researched due to its removal from the game.
- Blizzard's been historically (and prudently) slow to address perceived balance issues, even when those issues are actually patched. Blizzard's eventual move to add neutral depots in their tournament maps seems like a strong indication that there are legs to this particular problem -- but we've already had this debate.
On August 15 2012 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: Okay, then you simply think something is a problem that I don't think is a problem. Yes, that is why we are arguing in the first place.
On August 15 2012 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: I said that a thousand times already and I cited that asn argument that they are willing to change the footprint of ramps if they consider them imbalanced. They apparently consider 2 pylons needed imbalanced, but three balanced, pretty simple. You do realize that it took Blizzard around a year to implement that nerf, right? Between beta (where the ramp block was possible) and the rest of 2010 with SC2's release, there was plenty of time. Blizzard always waits a while on these sorts of things, and for good reason. Modifying ramps is a big deal.
Regarding the ramp block's current state, it's been a year and a half since that nerf, one year of which has featured the neutral depots on tournament maps (first featured in GSL August, I believe, which started August 8th 2011). So, Blizzard basically has a half-year worth of GSL games, however long other tournaments took to implement the same thing, and Blizzcon 2011 for quality data on new ramp block. In this regard, it's understandable that they wouldn't have implemented neutral depots at Blizzcon given their prudent nature, yet now make use of it after acquiring their own tournament data, on top of what was seen before from other professional tournaments.
That's rationalization that actually makes sense, even if it is admittedly still rationalization. Not this "they had to do it to make the spectators happy" nonsense; if Blizzard ran their business like that, marauders and colossi wouldn't be in the game, we'd have clan support already, etc. etc.
-----
p.s. Oh god, previewing this post and it is looonnnggg. I think I'm gonna tap out of this discussion regardless, because this is sucking up too much of my personal time and I believe I've already made all the relevant points I'd want to make. Anything else will probably be debating ramp block theorycraft (we've already reached this point) and getting into what constitutes "the community" (already started down this path too, out of necessity for clarification but I don't wanna go further).
|
|
|
|