On January 20 2013 08:09 EatThePath wrote:
Agreed; advancement. I feel I have let myself down slightly in articulating my arguments but that is no prob. In the interest of progress I think it has produced adequate reflection. I confidently disagree with you about the nature of PvZ -- in my opinion it can only be unfair one way or another depending on the map -- but we can talk about this in greater depth amongst ourselves, and I cannot claim to be an authority. But, our disagreements hinge on nuance in any case.
If you are unshaken then I am satisfied and it needs games. I hope there will be some I can watch.
My aversion to BW style mapping is due to my perception that SC2 gives you very little room for winning value with micromanagement beyond fundamentals (like reaction time and not-horrible positioning) and stock skills (not wiffing on forcefields). Moreover, it's really hard to get anything out of a forced fight that's already against you. So, while I'd be perfectly happy with a relatively fast tussle that doesn't make the late stages, most games of SC2 that might be described this way are really just a banana peel broken hip affair. (Most but not all... maybe there's something there we can promote.)
Is there something you'd like me to address particularly that I haven't? We are down to nitty gritty I think so I hesitate to start unpacking a manifesto when a targeted paragraph would do better.
I don't think there's anything specific left to address that hasn't been already. Anything left comes down to play data; I'm working to get some high master/grandmaster level games to study on this map. Keep an eye out for announcements in the future if I'm successful.
I will say, though, that I think level of execution and micro is undervalued in SC2. As an example, despite PartinG's incredible success with his immortal/sentry timing, there are very few who have replicated that success with the same build. If it were simply a matter of constantly winning with a strong timing, almost every Protoss would be doing the build. Instead, it remains a niche option amongst other top-level Protoss players. It was recently noted in Proleague where, despite Protoss' results on Ohana, most of the games did not actually feature the immortal/sentry all-in. We've seen how powerful the build can be on Ohana in the right hands (and how easily it can be crushed in the wrong hands), which leaves us only with the assumption that unit micro and decision making result in the difference between success and defeat.
We've also seen the difference between a successful and failed bunker rush, for example. There's really no comparison when it comes to micro and decision making -- and that applies to both players. There's often a very clear blunder or very clear success.
On January 20 2013 09:58 Fatam wrote:
This conversation has gotten a bit muddied, but I think the main point about PvZ + that third that needs to stick is that it simply will take roach aggression less time to get there compared to Abyssal City, Belshir Vestige, and Planet S.
Of course, that doesn't mean the map is bad necessarily, and it might balance out a bit because immortal sentry will also hit sooner, but just saying.
Like noted by both EatThePath and myself, though, the distance works both ways. In the same line of thinking that roach aggression will benefit from the map size, so will a strategy like the sentry/immortal timing. If a Zerg wants to survive against sentry/immortal, they need to invest more in army and/or tech on 2 bases, which rules out the Stephano roach-max style. That's the general thought process going into the map design, anyway.
EPT
