|
On May 20 2010 13:04 DarkwindHK wrote:
My point is...out of may be 10 maps, why we cannot have 1 that is tech favored and 1 that is rush favored? That means you will need to adapt to the map, and not stick to the same strategy every game.
having ramps/chokes doesn't make teching the dominant strategy, it makes it an option.
On the contrary, if we had a map that was rush favored, you would have to stick to the same strategy every game on that map (rushing), which is extremely boring and...exactly what you don't want.
|
yeah. IMO there should be ramps, but you shouldnt be able to wall off. there should always be room for small units.
|
you just have to sim city differently and make some units
|
On May 20 2010 13:06 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2010 13:04 Luddite wrote:On May 20 2010 12:31 DarkwindHK wrote:
While I understand it is harder to tech without a ramp, but how does that "imbalance" the map? Everyone has the same problem, it just mean you need to stay tier 1 longer. maybe the races would still be equal, but it would be "imbalanced" because teching or fast expanding would no longer be viable. the only good strat would be mass tier 1, kind of like a 3v3 game. That's not being imbalanced. That's just being a shitty map.
how is it balanced if one strategy beats all others?
|
True, if there was no ramps or chokes at all, then T1 units would be much more important.
But then again, nowdays, it isnt really possible to attack with a few units. You kind of need to tech, or build up a mass of T1 units, because of forcefields, and terran completely walling in.
Seriously, so far, I cant say Ive seen players try and put pressure with a few early units, unless:
-Its against zerg (who cant wall in)
-or its reapers (who can bypass the choke)
is that really good too? Id be for slightly larger ramps, to make pressure with T1 units be an actual option.
Moving out with 2 zealots against zerg, is somehow perfectly fine, and there is no wall at the ramp. But moving out with 2 zealots against terran, is useless, because the choke is blocked.
|
On May 20 2010 13:27 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2010 13:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On May 20 2010 13:04 Luddite wrote:On May 20 2010 12:31 DarkwindHK wrote:
While I understand it is harder to tech without a ramp, but how does that "imbalance" the map? Everyone has the same problem, it just mean you need to stay tier 1 longer. maybe the races would still be equal, but it would be "imbalanced" because teching or fast expanding would no longer be viable. the only good strat would be mass tier 1, kind of like a 3v3 game. That's not being imbalanced. That's just being a shitty map. how is it balanced if one strategy beats all others?
... the term balanced has nothing to do with which strategies are viable. It has to do whether one race is dominant over the other.
Your logic is the equivalent of saying ZvZ was an imbalanced MU in SC1 because there weren't multiple strategies to use (aka little to no econ play).
|
On May 20 2010 13:04 DarkwindHK wrote:
My point is...out of may be 10 maps, why we cannot have 1 that is tech favored and 1 that is rush favored? That means you will need to adapt to the map, and not stick to the same strategy every game.
This already exists to some extent, with maps being favored slightly for (or against) a macro style play.
Good maps avoid bottle-necking players into certain strategies, and if a map heavily favors rushes (for example) games will be less interesting/dynamic because you'll always see that strategy.
|
Map design is about general play style not race vs race balance, the 'balance' in map design comes in allowing players to CHOOSE what they want to do. No one is forcing anyone to wall-in as Protoss or Terran, and if you think you are good enough one could probably fore-go a ramp for early pressure. Why do people not choose to do this? Well its not related to map design thats for sure, people don't do it because its a good way to get rocked, walling only makes sense for both Protoss and Terran and if people say 'well Zerg can't' well Zerg never could even in SC1, and they've always fared well.
|
On May 20 2010 14:07 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2010 13:27 Luddite wrote:On May 20 2010 13:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On May 20 2010 13:04 Luddite wrote:On May 20 2010 12:31 DarkwindHK wrote:
While I understand it is harder to tech without a ramp, but how does that "imbalance" the map? Everyone has the same problem, it just mean you need to stay tier 1 longer. maybe the races would still be equal, but it would be "imbalanced" because teching or fast expanding would no longer be viable. the only good strat would be mass tier 1, kind of like a 3v3 game. That's not being imbalanced. That's just being a shitty map. how is it balanced if one strategy beats all others? ... the term balanced has nothing to do with which strategies are viable. It has to do whether one race is dominant over the other. Your logic is the equivalent of saying ZvZ was an imbalanced MU in SC1 because there weren't multiple strategies to use (aka little to no econ play).
ok well... your definition is wrong lol. And ZvZ had more than one strategy you could use, but I think it's safe to say that ultralisks for example were not balanced properly in that matchup.
|
On May 20 2010 14:17 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2010 14:07 FabledIntegral wrote:On May 20 2010 13:27 Luddite wrote:On May 20 2010 13:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On May 20 2010 13:04 Luddite wrote:On May 20 2010 12:31 DarkwindHK wrote:
While I understand it is harder to tech without a ramp, but how does that "imbalance" the map? Everyone has the same problem, it just mean you need to stay tier 1 longer. maybe the races would still be equal, but it would be "imbalanced" because teching or fast expanding would no longer be viable. the only good strat would be mass tier 1, kind of like a 3v3 game. That's not being imbalanced. That's just being a shitty map. how is it balanced if one strategy beats all others? ... the term balanced has nothing to do with which strategies are viable. It has to do whether one race is dominant over the other. Your logic is the equivalent of saying ZvZ was an imbalanced MU in SC1 because there weren't multiple strategies to use (aka little to no econ play). ok well... your definition is wrong lol. And ZvZ had more than one strategy you could use, but I think it's safe to say that ultralisks for example were not balanced properly in that matchup.
agree with luddite...
"one strategy beats all others" means (in sc1 ZvZ for example) 9-pool beats everything else... not that ling -> muta beats all others... because 9-pool is much more of a rush than 12-pool or 12-hatch
|
Yes the maps all have chokes but they also are all pretty small. A map without chokes would have to be pretty darn big to compensate for all in rushes.
|
On May 20 2010 13:13 Sky.Technique wrote:
yes u need a ramp. it was pvp and i had like 4 zeals to his 7 cuz he went 2gate. i retreat to my ramp and that ramp saved my ass. it bought time for me to get stalkers out and i eventually staved off his attack and won the game cuz he 2gated me
ramps are necessary, for balance, and just not having a build order loss (onegate tech vs 2gate example, in pvp)
it seems like you had a build order win though, so I don't see the point you're trying to make
|
I think some maps without ramps would be awesome. The more variety of maps the better. How can you call yourself a SC player, if you can't adapt to win on different terrain? And you rely on the expected and very standardized map design?... We need maps like ride of valkyries , ragnarok, and hall of vallhalla. Map variety will greatly force new strategies to be evolved. Right now you got all these cookie- cutter wall-in builds. Sure theres choices... but it feels a little too freebie. How bout maps with no starting gas? How bout maps with only 5 starting patches? Maps where you start with 500 minerals and no Nexus. sickkkk.
To be honest what I always wanted to see was the Pros duking it out on completely random maps theyve never played before. Then we would truly see who was the best and most adaptive player. Not who practiced theyre little set builds the most. Tho that is interesting too. Put new meaning to the word "scouting".
Really if the game were more realistic thats how it should be.. 2 races dumped on some random terrain/planet.. to learn it control it and eliminate the other. Really i wouldnt even care if maps were imba IE one person spawns on island and the other doesnt. Starcraft is full of gambles anyways. You win some you lose some.
|
I think that if ramps weren't necessary, we would have a pretty stupid game. That would prove that position does absolutely nothing. There's no "zerg lings can get a surround, so I use the choke, stay near walls. Ok, psi storm, push out!". If it was balanced without chokes, it's just "ok, I have big army. I got out into the open. He does to." The fact that some strategies are better in the open field and some in constricted areas is part of what strategy is, and if there is no variation in the early game (which, if there was variation in the early game, as in zerg is better in the open field, then chokeless maps would be imbalanced) then it's pretty bland.
|
How will terran fend off gate proxy zealot rush on a non-wallable map (ie rampless or chokeless)? It is difficult to kill off zealots from marines, and toss can inflict terrible terrible economy damage with minimal micro. This is partly due to scvs being weaker in sc2 than sc1 and auto target/no bugged drilling. I will be hard pressued to fend off zealots even with a bunker as their number keep accumulating and my scv mining constantly get interrupted, whilst it's difficult to build up the marine count when they must have the shelter of bunker to grow in numbers. All the while toss is powering ahead economy wise.
|
On May 20 2010 15:12 sacrificetheory wrote:
I think some maps without ramps would be awesome. The more variety of maps the better. How can you call yourself a SC player, if you can't adapt to win on different terrain? And you rely on the expected and very standardized map design?... We need maps like ride of valkyries , ragnarok, and hall of vallhalla. Map variety will greatly force new strategies to be evolved. Right now you got all these cookie- cutter wall-in builds. Sure theres choices... but it feels a little too freebie. How bout maps with no starting gas? How bout maps with only 5 starting patches? Maps where you start with 500 minerals and no Nexus. sickkkk.
To be honest what I always wanted to see was the Pros duking it out on completely random maps theyve never played before. Then we would truly see who was the best and most adaptive player. Not who practiced theyre little set builds the most. Tho that is interesting too. Put new meaning to the word "scouting".
Really if the game were more realistic thats how it should be.. 2 races dumped on some random terrain/planet.. to learn it control it and eliminate the other. Really i wouldnt even care if maps were imba IE one person spawns on island and the other doesnt. Starcraft is full of gambles anyways. You win some you lose some.
I'd be down for non-standardized maps. Ride of Valkyries yes. 5 mineral patches, sure. Maybe make it 6. Try stuff. But no ramps... it's just not balanced and if it was then that would mean there wasn't variety which isn't what we want either.
|
On May 20 2010 13:13 Sky.Technique wrote:
yes u need a ramp. it was pvp and i had like 4 zeals to his 7 cuz he went 2gate. i retreat to my ramp and that ramp saved my ass. it bought time for me to get stalkers out and i eventually staved off his attack and won the game cuz he 2gated me
ramps are necessary, for balance, and just not having a build order loss (onegate tech vs 2gate example, in pvp)
Because you used a ramp to your advantage and it helped you win does not prove in any way that ramps are necessary. Be open minded. Having to make cannons instead of just a sentry would be unfair? Im not saying that maps that favor a wallin are unfair. But drastically different maps would create maybe different dominant strategies. Which would be more interesting for the game.
|
open maps favor mobile armies. I guess you would need to get cannons to deal with ling runbys since it'd be so easy. protoss has an awful time without a ramp block vs speedlings.
|
On May 20 2010 15:05 Kwidowmaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2010 13:13 Sky.Technique wrote:
yes u need a ramp. it was pvp and i had like 4 zeals to his 7 cuz he went 2gate. i retreat to my ramp and that ramp saved my ass. it bought time for me to get stalkers out and i eventually staved off his attack and won the game cuz he 2gated me
ramps are necessary, for balance, and just not having a build order loss (onegate tech vs 2gate example, in pvp) it seems like you had a build order win though, so I don't see the point you're trying to make
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The build order only won out because of the choke. Without it, he'd have been overrun and probeless by the time the stalker came out. If it won, there would be 4 more zealots before he was done making probes and back to army units...
|
There are already maps with open space at the natural and if there was no ramp to the main, then it would ruin so much in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
