EPT[M] (4) Galaxy - Sol Crossing - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 04 2014 09:13 SatedSC2 wrote: They didn't supply where their data came from so how could I possibly analyse it? I did miss the statement "highest levels of play" so I was wrong about that, but I think that since TLPD doesn't show that same bias that they're quoting - especially in the Korean data - it's safe to assume that Blizzard have pulled that number out from somewhere else. But like I've said a few times now, my argument has fuck all to do with win-rates. Or you're forgetting the fact that those Korean tournament games involved days/weeks of practice to play against a particular opponent, while high-level ladder data more closely reflects general state of balance and is one of the key components Blizzard uses to track said balance. And yes, you've mentioned a couple of times that your argument has nothing to do with win-rates, but only after you tried to use maps and your mistaken remembrance of their ZvX win rates to demonstrate your point and were promptly corrected. Oh, and then continue to frivolously try discrediting the data even while trying to distance yourself from that string of conversation. "They didn't supply where their data came from"? Really? You don't know where Blizzard could have possibly gotten ladder win rate data from? I don't suppose they own the servers and store the data themselves, now would they? I was appreciating the critical feedback until you decided to go off the deep end with this kind of nonsense. Justifying your theorycraft with a terrible mis-remembering of historical SC2 isn't helpful to anyone, particularly mapmakers. I simply ask that you keep statements -- especially predictions -- grounded in reality. All that said, I completely understand your observation that vertical spawns will revolve around more 2-base play. I also expect as such, as you might have observed in the release notes: On November 03 2014 07:03 iamcaustic wrote: Vertical Spawns More inclined for an extended 2-base mid game, focusing more on tempo-based play instead of passive macro and forcing players to expand somewhere other than the "expected" third base. The only real question is how many games will end on 2 base vs. those that see players taking a third. It's something I'm very interested in seeing, and you've made it quite clear you expect most games to remain on 2 base. I appreciate that feedback. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 04 2014 06:26 iamcaustic wrote: Tal'Darim was notoriously Zerg-favoured, though. This was even admitted by Blizzard via their insane amount of game data when they removed the map from the pool (same goes with Metalopolis). Granted, this map is no Tal'Darim either (that map was huge), so it's hard to say. Bold emphasis in the nested quote is mine, naturally. I include myself in the quote because my response is pretty much how you'd expect someone to respond to phrases like "stay competitive" and inferences to Zerg pros hating the map due to their inability to be competitive. I suppose it comes down to this: what does "competitive" mean to you? To any normal person, that means having at least an equal chance to win, which directly correlates to win rates. Your semantic dodging by saying "but I didn't explicitly use the phrase 'win rate'!" is meaningless and non-constructive to a quality discussion. The rest of your post is, quite literally, circular discussion. You've already made those points two or three times in this thread already. I'd appreciate it if you stopped posting your continued derailing of the thread, with some regurgitation of things you already said just to keep the appearance of staying on topic. That said, if you have something else to contribute other than your weird denial for generating an off-topic discussion of TDA win rates, or your dislike for vertical spawn's tempo-oriented design, you're more than welcome to share. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1299 Posts
 don't even bother. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 05 2014 07:25 EatThePath wrote: It's definitely reaching to call vertical spawns "tempo-oriented design" and deny it'll be hard for zerg. I'd like to believe it'll play okay, aka after 3 months of meta settling the winrates would be near 50/50, and I can envision how that might look, but based on everything that's come before it doesn't seem perfectly likely. But it seems possible, so I'll say what I usually do in these situations and hope for games on it! It's a cool map for sure. I don't think there's been any denial about difficulties for Zerg when comparing to the current meta. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread: On November 04 2014 04:15 iamcaustic wrote: I agree, assuming players continue to do their current ZvP builds. Referencing my first paragraph though, my curiosity revolves around circumstance; there used to be a lot of maps with more difficult thirds and Zergs took plenty of wins against Protoss anyway, but that's because they knew fast 3 base saturation wasn't viable and did something different. The original design of the map was too much for Zergs to reasonably take a third at any point in the game, but I'm still trying to see what the limit is on this. I think it's pretty unanimous that vertical spawns do not accommodate the current ZvX meta. The discussion is whether that's ultimately imbalanced or not, which is hard to say since there aren't really any maps that prevent fast 3 hatch styles. I think it's better to test that on a map that still allows relatively normal games 2/3 of the time. v1 of the map showed (at least from my data) that BW-style "expand on the opposite side of the map" isn't practical for HotS Zerg. v2 might very well show that Zergs need 3 base economic saturation to compete against 2 base saturation of T/P, but historically that hasn't always been the case (though they certainly need 3 hatch production). We also haven't really seen the scenario at all in HotS. Worst-case scenario, I'll make a v3 or simply disable vertical spawns. Best-case scenario, we get to see a different style of game while opening map making possibilities. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1299 Posts
On November 05 2014 19:32 SatedSC2 wrote: Are you like my biggest fan or something? Don't worry. Senpai will notice you one day :3 It's hard to take you seriously when you make silly statements like this though: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/255254-designated-balance-discussion-thread?page=1192#23837 I could've called you out right there but decided not to as it would go off-topic to much knowing you would write 3pages worth of trash, but since you're calling me out on it I will take the bait in this thread On November 05 2014 19:32 SatedSC2 wrote: Get over me kiddo. It's not healthy to be so obsessive. It's hardly obsessive, you are just making a scene out of yourself. On November 05 2014 19:32 SatedSC2 wrote: just because you bring something up indirectly, does not mean you didn't bring it up anyway.Erm... You said that I brought up win-rates when I did not. The quotes prove that I did not. Am I supposed to just let you make baseless assertions without responding to them? On November 05 2014 19:32 SatedSC2 wrote: Putting words in my mouth isn't constructive either. You made a terrible assumption when you decided I was talking about win-rates and you were wrong about that assumption. I was talking about attitudes towards the sort of thing that vertical spawns on this map promote. If you're not willing to admit that vertical spawns on this map are only forcing Zerg to do something different - whilst Terran and Protoss do what they normally do versus Zerg - then you're being blind. That Zerg would have a bad attitude towards this is self-evident and that's what I was pointing towards with my TDA example. Not balance. of all people you should not be the one to call someone out on strawmanning On November 05 2014 19:32 SatedSC2 wrote: I wouldn't need to repeat myself if you didn't constantly try to de-rail the thread to shield your map from criticism. It's funny that you're accusing me of de-railing the thread when it's actually you doing it, by the way. you're delusional, you're consistently assaulting any balance claims on this map in a trollish manner.  | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 05 2014 21:11 SatedSC2 wrote: Are you going to address this or not? It's really all I care about. The other spawns - and this is something I already said - are very good. I very well may. I want to get some play testing on the current version of the map to determine whether your concerns are substantiated or not, and act from there. I do think it's a bit early to conclude it doesn't change P or T meta at all, however, especially T considering the prevalence of triple CC builds in TvZ, not to mention there's little data for how Zerg would adapt beyond what I gathered through v1. I don't know if that data is as relevant though, since v1 basically just had Zerg 1 and 2 base all-ins all the time, while I'm hoping the (comparatively) more viable thirds here might diversify things a bit. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 05 2014 21:11 SatedSC2 wrote: Are you going to address this or not? It's really all I care about. The other spawns - and this is something I already said - are very good. Putting Z at a disadvantage = winrate < 50% for Z. I have no desire to get caught in your circular arguments, or to perpetuate derailment of the thread, but I seriously don't know how you extricate competition and advantage vs. disadvantage from the concept of winrates. You can't separate them, and no amount of semantics will change that. Even accounting for what appears to be an extremely conservative view of competitive SC2, you could've simply expressed a dislike of that particular spawn from a Z point of view, with which the mapmaker completely agrees, that's pretty much the point of the map. Instead you basically come in and tell the mapmaker how he should and should not make maps, by virtue of incessantly arguing how bad it is for Zerg. Also being a dick to Meavis is totally uncalled for. You should try making a map right now, seriously, do it. That way, when it looks like shit - because it's your first map - I can come in and shit on you for it. You wouldn't want me to do that. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 06 2014 18:43 SatedSC2 wrote: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetsSeeYouDoBetter Too cute. Feel better now? Anyway, now that your lack of respect for mapmaking is quite apparent, I see no good reason for any of us to listen to what you have to say, especially not caustic. Feel free to brighten the days of others. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 07 2014 04:44 iamcaustic wrote: To be fair, when you ignore the derailment the original critique was useful. It's one thing for a mapmaker to say "hm, this spawn might still be hard for Zerg" and another for there to be additional validation for that concern. It gives me reason to put a particular focus on testing it rather than letting it sit on the back burner. Well, I think it's pretty clear that those spawns don't accommodate standard zerg play, so any testing the map gets would naturally focus on seeing what happens with zerg. For him to start arguing like that is wholly unnecessary. If you know the map is likely to be imbalanced, but still want to push it for a good reason, I don't see anything to argue about. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 07 2014 04:52 NewSunshine wrote: Well, I think it's pretty clear that those spawns don't accommodate standard zerg play, so any testing the map gets would naturally focus on seeing what happens with zerg. For him to start arguing like that is wholly unnecessary. If you know the map is likely to be imbalanced, but still want to push it for a good reason, I don't see anything to argue about. Fair enough! Thanks for your support on the matter.  I'm gonna see if I can't also get some play testing during lunch here at work.  The number of people playing SC2 in the immediate vicinity of my workstation has grown considerably. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
I personally think there are few interesting things about the map. It's also on my blacklist because all of the attack paths are really straight without much variety. I think a lot of that is due to the base setup, which is a result of it being a 4player reflectional map. I feel that it would be an interesting 2-player map, though. | ||
| ||
