|
On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player.
Surely that is a considerable positional imbalance then?
But anyway, take TvZ cross map for instance, T can easily get 3 bases up behind a very small choke, any harass Z attempts at the backyard before infestors is easily shut down by a single tank, in reverse the bac base from Z if they take them an easily be harassed by T and Z has to walk a loooong way around to deal with it. Coupled with the easy 3 base for T. Seems like it will lead to a rather awkward situation for said Z.
|
On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player.
Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross.
|
posted in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=402434#15
On March 12 2013 11:15 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 10:48 Unsane wrote:
I do not see mention in the OP that this map is not forced cross spawn. Do i have to be the one to start the damn movement to force cross spawns on all 4p maps? Im lost how this just isn't standard yet. They are all pretty much instantly better and more balanced once this change is applied to them (take antiga for instance, still terrible but much better).
Although nothing terribly new, this still appears to be a map where good games undoubtedly will take place on terrain well 'groomed'. Do you think balance is the only thing that a map needs? Why not just put two starting points back to back then? Balance is just the foundation to a good map. Any map can be balanced through a series of adjustments, Blizzard just sucks at it. The community doesn't. A good map also includes a concept, innovation, uniqueness in my opinion. Forcing cross spawns makes a 4p map play like a badly designed 2 player map. If anything, 4p maps should be forced close and designed to play that way.
For starters, any predictability means less enjoyment. Sure i love watching IMMvP smash someone with mech (predictable) but predictability subtracts from any degree of suspense which is a large contributor to the enjoyment of watching pro sports. The number of times i had a player ask me why i did not drop him due to favourable antiga positions was annoying. I want to beat him ONLY because i am a better player, and honestly that phrase does the idea no justice. I want the better player to almost always win.*** I do not want one side handicapped cause of a coinflip. In a lot of matches you can note that a player can make maybe 2 mistakes before he is 'out' (the 3rd being the final 'strike'), so lets have maps where that first 'mistake' is actually a coin flip he cannot control? That is a terrible idea. Particularly considering that most average player's experience with this game is an endless stream of best-of-one's, starting off a best-of-one series with a handicap is also a terrible idea.
Secondly, yes maps can be balanced with a series of adjustments. The first adjustment every 4p map needs to be more balanced is forced cross spawns.
And you're right. They are badly designed 2 player maps, considering 2 players are playing on them and they have 4 spawn locations that all look the same.
Lastly, though. Your reply essentially admits that 4p non-force-cross maps are unbalanced. I could further extrapolate what you could mean but i'll refrain and remain with the tangible. This is an E-sport. An E-sport. As bad as blizzard is at balancing their sport, you are hindering their progress. Any inbalance is bad for any sport and you are not helping. What you're saying is you want players coinflipped into Code S, coinflipped into huge cash prizes because of the silliest of standards put in place by blizzard who you yourself bashed.
I dare say you are either not aiding the map making community or posting in the wrong place. I would like to see this E-sport prosper...
|
On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross.
No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.).
Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps.
|
On March 12 2013 11:56 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross. No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.). Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps.
Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared...
But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here...
this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch...
|
On March 12 2013 12:03 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:56 iamcaustic wrote:On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross. No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.). Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps. Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared... But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here... this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch...
I have no idea what you were trying to say. You ok?
EDIT: Happy Birthday yo
|
On March 12 2013 12:25 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 12:03 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:56 iamcaustic wrote:On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross. No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.). Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps. Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared... But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here... this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch... I have no idea what you were trying to say. You ok? EDIT: Happy Birthday yo
What i was trying to say is the positional imbalance imposed by 4p maps is not something that aids E-sports and could only be a hold over from a time when blizzard's RTSs weren't E-sports minded. (what i meant by RPing was 'role-playing', if anyone missed that)
PS thanks yo, i get HOTS for my b-day :D
|
I think what they're trying to say in response to that is that every 4p map doesn't have to be cross spawn, only the ones that weren't designed well enough in the first place.
|
On March 12 2013 12:31 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 12:25 iamcaustic wrote:On March 12 2013 12:03 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:56 iamcaustic wrote:On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross. No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.). Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps. Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared... But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here... this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch... I have no idea what you were trying to say. You ok? EDIT: Happy Birthday yo What i was trying to say is the positional imbalance imposed by 4p maps is not something that aids E-sports and could only be a hold over from a time when blizzard's RTSs weren't E-sports minded. (what i meant by RPing was 'role-playing', if anyone missed that) PS thanks yo, i get HOTS for my b-day :D
4p maps don't impose positional imbalance. Poorly designed maps do. Fatam hit the nail on the head:
On March 12 2013 12:33 Fatam wrote:
I think what they're trying to say in response to that is that every 4p map doesn't have to be cross spawn, only the ones that weren't designed well enough in the first place.
Also, StarCraft II was always eSports-minded. The competitive portion was designed for it (hence all the observer features that came with launch).
|
On March 12 2013 11:55 Unsane wrote:posted in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=402434#15Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:15 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 10:48 Unsane wrote:
I do not see mention in the OP that this map is not forced cross spawn. Do i have to be the one to start the damn movement to force cross spawns on all 4p maps? Im lost how this just isn't standard yet. They are all pretty much instantly better and more balanced once this change is applied to them (take antiga for instance, still terrible but much better).
Although nothing terribly new, this still appears to be a map where good games undoubtedly will take place on terrain well 'groomed'. Do you think balance is the only thing that a map needs? Why not just put two starting points back to back then? Balance is just the foundation to a good map. Any map can be balanced through a series of adjustments, Blizzard just sucks at it. The community doesn't. A good map also includes a concept, innovation, uniqueness in my opinion. Forcing cross spawns makes a 4p map play like a badly designed 2 player map. If anything, 4p maps should be forced close and designed to play that way. For starters, any predictability means less enjoyment. Sure i love watching IMMvP smash someone with mech (predictable) but predictability subtracts from any degree of suspense which is a large contributor to the enjoyment of watching pro sports. The number of times i had a player ask me why i did not drop him due to favourable antiga positions was annoying. I want to beat him ONLY because i am a better player, and honestly that phrase does the idea no justice. I want the better player to almost always win.*** I do not want one side handicapped cause of a coinflip. In a lot of matches you can note that a player can make maybe 2 mistakes before he is 'out' (the 3rd being the final 'strike'), so lets have maps where that first 'mistake' is actually a coin flip he cannot control? That is a terrible idea. Particularly considering that most average player's experience with this game is an endless stream of best-of-one's, starting off a best-of-one series with a handicap is also a terrible idea. Secondly, yes maps can be balanced with a series of adjustments. The first adjustment every 4p map needs to be more balanced is forced cross spawns. And you're right. They are badly designed 2 player maps, considering 2 players are playing on them and they have 4 spawn locations that all look the same. Lastly, though. Your reply essentially admits that 4p non-force-cross maps are unbalanced. I could further extrapolate what you could mean but i'll refrain and remain with the tangible. This is an E-sport. An E- sport. As bad as blizzard is at balancing their sport, you are hindering their progress. Any inbalance is bad for any sport and you are not helping. What you're saying is you want players coinflipped into Code S, coinflipped into huge cash prizes because of the silliest of standards put in place by blizzard who you yourself bashed. I dare say you are either not aiding the map making community or posting in the wrong place. I would like to see this E- sport prosper...
I understand your reasoning (and I agree with it) but you couldn't be more wrong about cross spawns. Close spawns can work in 4p maps, it's just that Blizzard hasn't shown us any good examples. The logic you're using eventually leads to "sc2 should only have 2p maps" (or reflection symmetry 4p). But that isn't the case. Rotational symmetry can be perfectly balanced like Fighting Spirit. Or it can be like my map Koprulu, where spawns have advantages and disadvantages that balance out.
If you don't understand, take a look at Brood war. You may not know, but it was infact an E-sport too. I'm sure you don't know this, but Brood War also used many four player rotational maps. There were a grand total of ZERO maps with forced cross spawns. Take a look through bw liquidpedia maps, SCBW international database, and bwmaps.net if you want to educate yourself. Otherwise, you're the one posting in the wrong place.
[edit] Grammar is hard!
|
Unsane, I think you need to do some critical reflecting on what is meant by balance.
|
On March 12 2013 11:56 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross. No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design No it wasn't, unless you can prove it.
|
On March 12 2013 14:35 EatThePath wrote:
Unsane, I think you need to do some critical reflecting on what is meant by balance.
Regardless of how little I have to go off, I'll do some 'critical reflecting' of what I think balance means. Perfect balance would allow every build and strat to always work to equal potential, in every match up on every map. However without any variation in the quality of each strat you would simply have the highest APM player winning every match, regardless of what map. In that case you might as well only use one map which might as well be a featureless map. However, I'm pretty sure here in this forum we are trying to better the game through creative use of terrain and other features modifiable through the map editor to create an interesting palette for the players to create masterpieces on. I'm always happy to see a new strat used, whether its because of a new map or not. A good build and good play is better with better mechanics, a less educated opponent, poor scouting and a poor ability to think under pressure. That is good balance. As a build becomes well known it should become less effective but shouldn't phase out. That is also good balance. Even as drastically as a map can change, a good build should still work well enough on each map to be potentially used, although unlikely. As your opponent becomes more gosu, perhaps through great scouting and great prediction, the build should get worse. That's also good balance.
Perhaps someone else could chip in and also critically reflect on what is meant by balance?
On a 4p map, with regards to the balance, the angle of attack favours one player with close spawns, there are less counterattack paths (usually less than about half) and drops become easier which favours one race quite a bit more than the two others. 4p maps also effect scouting in the early game and some timings are crucial to scout for, sometimes you lose cause the 6pool was in the other clock-direction that you scouted.
Whether it is a professional filled tournament or myself sitting in my home queuing the ol' best of one ladder i do not look forward to realizing i am either in unfavourable or EVEN favourable positions on a 4p map, however these imbalances wind up effecting the game. A fairly simple way i like to consider things as is each player has 3 strikes per match, a major blunder can be worth 2 and sometimes even all 3 strikes, costing you the match. The game is not balanced enough if a dice roll in the load screen removes perhaps 1 strike from myself or my opponent.
I also think 4p maps simply recreates the same sort of play in twice the areas that is has to and there are additional limitations on the layout. For example, even though you only have 2 players on a the map it still has to be designed to accept the flow of a large army leading from 4 naturals to the middle of the map. A 4th or 5th is also just as defensable as a main because in some cases it is a main. While a map could be balanced to play without forced cross
If you were to try and make either CK or daybreak a 4p map it'd kill how great the center layouts are, which are very interesting, yet extremely different. Koprulu's center is very interesting and i love it but it could be twice as interesting if the restrictions of being a 4p map weren't there.
Slight imbalances in play is ok, it leads to more unpredictability than it does predictability. Also it is the right kind of predictability, though. The kind that leads you to not know how games will play out until you play them, not the kind that leads to world class players losing to randoms. I think everyone is much happier to lose to a person, not a die.
I'll admit very little knowledge to much of BW's pro scene, particularly in the early days so you'll have to specify which 4p maps were considered good regardless of known rotational imbalances and how they wouldn't be better (more balanced without creating stale play) if they were forced cross. You are again, though, using an old standard while im am trying to get you to think critically about that standard. I don't care how good BW was (i do, actually) because it could have been better, it was not perfect. I do not care to go look up the exact logical fallacy i am trying to get you over, but this is a hindrance we don't need. "Cause that's how we've always done it..." is a terrible excuse for anything.
PS: EatThePath
On March 12 2013 12:03 Unsane wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 12 2013 11:56 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross. No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.). Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps. Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared... But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here... this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch... ^ This, btw, is the definition of critical thinking. I could write the fucking definition on it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 12 2013 17:02 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 14:35 EatThePath wrote:
Unsane, I think you need to do some critical reflecting on what is meant by balance. Regardless of how little I have to go off, I'll do some 'critical reflecting' of what I think balance means. Perfect balance would allow every build and strat to always work to equal potential, in every match up on every map. However without any variation in the quality of each strat you would simply have the highest APM player winning every match, regardless of what map. In that case you might as well only use one map which might as well be a featureless map. However, I'm pretty sure here in this forum we are trying to better the game through creative use of terrain and other features modifiable through the map editor to create an interesting palette for the players to create masterpieces on. I'm always happy to see a new strat used, whether its because of a new map or not. A good build and good play is better with better mechanics, a less educated opponent, poor scouting and a poor ability to think under pressure. That is good balance. As a build becomes well known it should become less effective but shouldn't phase out. That is also good balance. Even as drastically as a map can change, a good build should still work well enough on each map to be potentially used, although unlikely. As your opponent becomes more gosu, perhaps through great scouting and great prediction, the build should get worse. That's also good balance. Perhaps someone else could chip in and also critically reflect on what is meant by balance? On a 4p map, with regards to the balance, the angle of attack favours one player with close spawns, there are less counterattack paths (usually less than about half) and drops become easier which favours one race quite a bit more than the two others. 4p maps also effect scouting in the early game and some timings are crucial to scout for, sometimes you lose cause the 6pool was in the other clock-direction that you scouted. Whether it is a professional filled tournament or myself sitting in my home queuing the ol' best of one ladder i do not look forward to realizing i am either in unfavourable or EVEN favourable positions on a 4p map, however these imbalances wind up effecting the game. A fairly simple way i like to consider things as is each player has 3 strikes per match, a major blunder can be worth 2 and sometimes even all 3 strikes, costing you the match. The game is not balanced enough if a dice roll in the load screen removes perhaps 1 strike from myself or my opponent. I also think 4p maps simply recreates the same sort of play in twice the areas that is has to and there are additional limitations on the layout. For example, even though you only have 2 players on a the map it still has to be designed to accept the flow of a large army leading from 4 naturals to the middle of the map. A 4th or 5th is also just as defensable as a main because in some cases it is a main. While a map could be balanced to play without forced cross If you were to try and make either CK or daybreak a 4p map it'd kill how great the center layouts are, which are very interesting, yet extremely different. Koprulu's center is very interesting and i love it but it could be twice as interesting if the restrictions of being a 4p map weren't there. Slight imbalances in play is ok, it leads to more unpredictability than it does predictability. Also it is the right kind of predictability, though. The kind that leads you to not know how games will play out until you play them, not the kind that leads to world class players losing to randoms. I think everyone is much happier to lose to a person, not a die. I'll admit very little knowledge to much of BW's pro scene, particularly in the early days so you'll have to specify which 4p maps were considered good regardless of known rotational imbalances and how they wouldn't be better (more balanced without creating stale play) if they were forced cross. You are again, though, using an old standard while im am trying to get you to think critically about that standard. I don't care how good BW was (i do, actually) because it could have been better, it was not perfect. I do not care to go look up the exact logical fallacy i am trying to get you over, but this is a hindrance we don't need. "Cause that's how we've always done it..." is a terrible excuse for anything. PS: EatThePath Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 12:03 Unsane wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 12 2013 11:56 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross. No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design. The general rule of thumb is: if it's a Blizzard 4p map, chances are there's at least one completely imbalanced spawn and removing it makes the map better (e.g. Entombed horizontal spawns, Antiga adjacent spawns, Metalopolis close spawns, Shattered Temple close spawns, etc.). Whether Monitor's map would be better cross-only, I don't really care to debate. Just wanted to say that "all 4p maps become better when cross-only" isn't true. They just become bad 2p maps. Yes they are just bad 2 player maps, there was supposed to be this essence of RPing going into these matches. Blizzard probably intends for someone out there to turn off all the lights in the room while they play and pretend they're actually landing a small team of resource gatherers on a potentially uninhabited world ripe for pillaging. Little do they know that another race (could be rebels of the same race or ANOTHER RACE (OMG THEY EXIST?!)ssshhh government secret) is setting up to do the same thing. Small resource gathering parties only need small assault teams to take them on, lets hope they didnt see us and wont be prepared... But this is an E-sport, remember? no RPing here... this is just some silly standard that blizzard accidentally set and for some reason the community is scared to touch... ^ This, btw, is the definition of critical thinking. I could write the fucking definition on it.
Ave Caesar Morituri te Salutant
|
That was good start, actually.  Unfortunately I don't understand that last part, the P.S.
I guess I'll just point out that Starcraft is a captivating game because of asymmetry and partial information. I'd even go so far as to say these are pillars of good games. Or at least, themes that show up over and over and over.
To address, as an example, your contentions about scouting on 4 spawn maps: the ramifications of this at the pro level are far deeper than you might first imagine. It can affect the very beginning actions as well as build choices that lead down long paths to misinformation trickery or option denial. The path of a scouting worker can reveal everything, just based on position and timing. It's not a bad thing that you can 6pool unscouted. That's part of the map, and players should play accordingly.
At almost every point in a game of starcraft, the players are in different situations. Rarely are they really mirrored. If a map puts players in different situations by default, this doesn't really change the nature of the game.
|
Haha, I see a bit of blue storm in blunderbuss 
|
On March 12 2013 17:02 Unsane wrote:
I'll admit very little knowledge to much of BW's pro scene, particularly in the early days so you'll have to specify which 4p maps were considered good regardless of known rotational imbalances and how they wouldn't be better (more balanced without creating stale play) if they were forced cross. You are again, though, using an old standard while im am trying to get you to think critically about that standard. I don't care how good BW was (i do, actually) because it could have been better, it was not perfect. I do not care to go look up the exact logical fallacy i am trying to get you over, but this is a hindrance we don't need. "Cause that's how we've always done it..." is a terrible excuse for anything.
I appreciate the well-detailed response! This is the part that I think I can respond to-
I agree that the logic of doing what has worked in the past is not a good one. BW is just an example of 4p rotational maps working. SC2 and BW share all of the gameplay mechanics that you argue are what make the rotational designs not work, so I think it works in this scenario. Blizzard's SC2 maps are terrible though, so I can understand why you have no faith in 4p maps!
Once there are many good 4p maps in SC2, I think you'll believe me. Here are some of my personal favorite BW rotational 4p maps that were considering balanced, innovative, and fun to play/observe:
Classics
Othello: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/178_Othello
Adrenaline Rush: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Adrenaline_Rush
Colosseum: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Colosseum
God's Garden: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/God's_Garden
Harmony: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Harmony
Katrina: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Katrina
Newer
Electric Circuit: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/536_Neo Electric Circuit.jpg
Sniper Ridge: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/508_Sniper_Ridge
|
On March 12 2013 16:03 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:56 iamcaustic wrote:On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross. No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design No it wasn't, unless you can prove it.
What am I supposed to be proving, here? You're quite ambiguous. If talking about Unsane's claim that all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross spawns, that's actually on him to prove if we want to play the logic game (burden of proof is on the one making the claim). If talking about how Antiga Shipyard was absolutely broken in adjacent spawns, you're basically disagreeing with Blizzard's decision to force it cross-spawn after countless games played on it and tournaments having already forced cross due to adjacent-spawn balance issues. Either way, your post is a waste of space.
|
United Kingdom12024 Posts
I'm unsure why you bring up Antiga Shipyard being forced cross, that isn't rotationally symmetrical (or have I got the terms mixed up?)
Rotational symmetry works in this instance and even on close as every distance is the same. The entire map is symmetrical so it's impossible for one position to be a better spawn than another. Antiga was only broken in some instances where you could siege/blink from the mains into the other guys third.
If you spawn in close (horizontally) for instance, neither of you are going to have an easy time to take that in base third, however if you spawn vertically or even cross then you both can take it with the threat of an attack from behind the minerals (which is great btw, I love this design <3)
There's little to no point having 4 player maps if you force them all cross, it removes what makes 4 player maps good, the fact it's not cut and dry where they start and differing positions change how the game plays out (expansion layouts etc)
|
On March 14 2013 04:13 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:03 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 12 2013 11:56 iamcaustic wrote:On March 12 2013 11:16 Unsane wrote:On March 12 2013 11:10 monitor wrote:On March 12 2013 08:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But you already have a back base? Surely supporting 3 bases behind a single FFE is overkill? The back base is only an option for the counterclockwise player. Suggestion: Consider making your 4p map cross spawn only. I feel all 4p maps become more balanced (and better) with forced cross. No, not really. Antiga Shipyard was the only real case for this simply because adjacent positions were outright imbalanced thanks to the map design No it wasn't, unless you can prove it. What am I supposed to be proving, That Antiga is broken in non cross spawns, give me some numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
