|
So far, in all the ladder maps in SC2, the main base is built on a location with a ramp or choke as entrance.
It has become an essential part of the strategy, especially for Terran and Protoss (since they can block the ramp).
Does all the races still has a fair chance to win if the map is designed like War3? (without a narrow choke or ramp to the main base)
I do think there should be some ladder maps with a more open space approach in the location of the main. This will open up a lot of new strategies and I do feel even Terran can play well, without using a choke. (they can make it themselves, just slower)
|
On May 20 2010 12:20 DarkwindHK wrote: So far, in all the ladder maps in SC2, the main base is built on a location with a ramp or choke as entrance.
It has become an essential part of the strategy, especially for Terran and Protoss (since they can block the ramp).
Does all the races still has a fair chance to win if the map is designed like War3? (without a narrow choke or ramp to the main base)
I do think there should be some ladder maps with a more open space approach in the location of the main. This will open up a lot of new strategies and I do feel even Terran can play well, without using a choke. (they can make it themselves, just slower) i think teching would be hard because ramp can protect you with less units..but if its open you cant tech at all.
so no i dont think they all do, zerg couldnt protect expos either
|
United States24690 Posts
Although sc1 and sc2 are different... in many respects they are the same and it is pretty clear that ramps are almost a necessity for balanced maps in sc1.
|
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.
|
Hmm, I disagree with the idea that ramps are a necessity in SCII due to the fact that there is no high ground advantage except the sight thing. Really, I feel that having a small choke is basically equivalent because it allows for a defender's advantage (the bigger arc) that a ramp gives. As far as blocking it off, most people use walls and buildings to help make it easier anyway. Also, Kulas Ravine has no ramps, and I'd say that it's a pretty damn awesome map.
|
I forsee every single zerg just massing speedlings if ramps/chokes do not exist. terrans and protoss are going to have to build a wall with the buildings one way or the other.
|
United States24690 Posts
I think we should be clear about what 'ramp' means in this conversation. Does a narrow choke without an elevation change a la kulas ravine counts as a 'ramp'? SC1 had many maps with chokes that weren't ramps I suppose.
|
ah starcraft 2 plays. 'we don't understand new map, it not like old map, it either needs to be like old map or needs to be removed we not korea here'
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Heavy zerg imba... Nuff said
|
On May 20 2010 12:42 micronesia wrote: I think we should be clear about what 'ramp' means in this conversation. Does a narrow choke without an elevation change a la kulas ravine counts as a 'ramp'? SC1 had many maps with chokes that weren't ramps I suppose.
Any ramp, it can be no elevation, it can be water, it can be lava.... just chokes points.
|
On May 20 2010 12:42 micronesia wrote: I think we should be clear about what 'ramp' means in this conversation. Does a narrow choke without an elevation change a la kulas ravine counts as a 'ramp'? SC1 had many maps with chokes that weren't ramps I suppose.
For the intent the OP seems to have in this discussion I'd say that a small choke of any point counts as a 'ramp' he is suggesting WC3 style maps where there was no real chokes or ramps to wall off on most maps. The problem with this style in SC2 is that in WC3 the trees provide some kind of cover on the back-side of your base at least to T1 ground armies. In SC2 there is no trees to do this with so it really becomes a necessity to have a raised base or at the very least a medium to narrow choke point.
|
i think teching would be hard because ramp can protect you with less units..but if its open you cant tech at all. Question is, is it really balanced to be able to tech that fast? I mean stuff like early banshees, with just 4-5 marines at the blocked ramp keeping you perfectly safe from anything until your T3units arrive? Or zealot -sentry-sentry at a ramp being able to hold off pretty much anything unitl you finished teching to for example immortals, or void rays? Make the ramps a little thinner and longer, and we can see the mothership rush become viable again
|
On May 20 2010 12:56 morimacil wrote:Show nested quote +i think teching would be hard because ramp can protect you with less units..but if its open you cant tech at all. Question is, is it really balanced to be able to tech that fast? I mean stuff like early banshees, with just 4-5 marines at the blocked ramp keeping you perfectly safe from anything until your T3units arrive? Or zealot -sentry-sentry at a ramp being able to hold off pretty much anything unitl you finished teching to for example immortals, or void rays? Make the ramps a little thinner and longer, and we can see the mothership rush become viable again 
Good maps have a balance of rush and tech viability as well as economy build viability. Bad maps focus too heavily on one or the other. No chokes at all and the map becomes a rush-fest, too tight of chokes/bases and the map becomes a tech-fest. Too big and too spread out the map becomes and drawn out eco-game. A really strong map will balance all three of these together. So are 'ramps' essential for SC2, not necessarily, but will a wide-open map with no choke or ramp of any kind work?Absolutely not.
|
On May 20 2010 12:56 morimacil wrote:Show nested quote +i think teching would be hard because ramp can protect you with less units..but if its open you cant tech at all. Question is, is it really balanced to be able to tech that fast? I mean stuff like early banshees, with just 4-5 marines at the blocked ramp keeping you perfectly safe from anything until your T3units arrive? Or zealot -sentry-sentry at a ramp being able to hold off pretty much anything unitl you finished teching to for example immortals, or void rays? Make the ramps a little thinner and longer, and we can see the mothership rush become viable again  being able to tech adds more variation to the game. Would you really prefer every game just being mass tier 1 units for the first 10 minutes?
|
Russian Federation145 Posts
With things as they are now, there is NO WAY for a terran to stop 2gate agression without a zealot-tight wall. There is just no way.
Rampless maps will happen when scvs put their hard hats back on.
|
You can only have a non choke entrance if you have an extra long travel time for ground units.
|
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.
I do not think Zerg will win unopposed even in maps without a choke to defend.
|
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.
|
On May 20 2010 13:04 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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)
|
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.
|
It's obviously not needed to create a balanced game, people would just wall off their mineral lines and develop different strategies (building placement would be a Lot more important)...
However would it make a game that's more fun, or more interesting? most definitely not in my opinion, so there's no real reason for it.
|
Op next topic. Should I really be posting this?
|
This thread is pretty fail =/
Don't really see how maps could be made without chokes without completely redesigning the entire game.
Can you imagine something like banelings or speedlings without being able to block a choke? It would be pretty impossible to stop a whole load of banelings just bombing your mineral line.
|
Any maps without a choke zerg would dominate because the timing of their units will always beat the other races fist over fist. I think different types of chokes (like Scrapstation versus incineration zone) are what gives a good variety. I feel that choking is actually a great part of gameplay (just like IRL foreplay.... OH SHI...).
I remember recently in my 2v2s where I'm a T and my partner's a T, he improperly walled off while I did it right, so when 8 zerglings showed up from 8 pool I was fine but he failed, till I came and microed him to safety. That makes it a good deal exciting.
Side note, that kinda reminds of the story of the three little pigs. But i digress.
|
wc3 had other defensive options (militia, burrows, undead nexus, moonwells). Without defensive options the game loses strategy and becomes a rushing game too much, chokes are great as they help to defend.
|
can't we have other kind of "anti rush" set up, like bigger map size, multiple ramps (we do have destructible rocks, which is good), new neutral building....etc
|
On May 20 2010 13:02 TheDrill wrote: With things as they are now, there is NO WAY for a terran to stop 2gate agression without a zealot-tight wall. There is just no way.
Rampless maps will happen when scvs put their hard hats back on. What about ghosts? See http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=123413
|
I much prefer ramps like the one on scrap station t be honest. Its a pretty wide ramp. You can wall it off if you want to, but you need to at least put in a little effort in order to be safe. Unlike most other maps, where you can wall in, at no cost whatsoever, and be safe for the first few minutes, or get 6 sentries, and be safe until the end of time.
Teching is all fine and dandy, and should be an option, but imo, defense should be a little more important. For example, a terran teching to banshees or thors behind his ramp is all good, but imo, he should have to invest in a little more than just barracks and 2 depots, along with 4 marines to consider himself safe. Maybe making a bunker or 2, or something.
|
wider ramps need bigger maps, seriously when you spawn close on half these maps you can get rushed sooo fast
|
a starcraft without ramps the way are right now on maps like lost temple and metalopis or w/e wouldnt be a starcraft at all Highground is and stays a part of the game just asmuch as the minerals we use. they are there for a balanced game and a variation of builds
|
I actually think it would have been a good idea to try this and see how it works out. You can put your buildings in a tight formation that creates small chokes around your mineral line for the early game. But some balance tweaks would undoubtedly be necessary, and it's probably too late to deal with that. I had originally hoped they'd balance this game for a wider variety of maps styles.
|
P's first zealot comes at around 2 marine, and you think you can get ghost at around that time?
|
Its stupid to say that it'd be just rush vs rush without chokes... Yes you'd have to make many units early but that's just the opening, nothing says you can't transition out of it eventually. More constant battles, but still you'd have to get something else than just the simplest units or you'd lose those battles eventually.
But probably zerg would win with open bases, SC2 is just not designed for that
|
On May 20 2010 15:31 machiavelli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2010 15:05 Kwidowmaker wrote: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.
at least someone understands what i was saying
i dont think that guy knows the definition of a build order win. like 9pool vs 12 hatch is a build order win. 2gate vs one gate tech is not a build order win. if u react fast enough u can save urself a loss
|
im with sacrifice theory on this one. you dont need chokes and ramps like many have been saying. for instance you could have an area where there would be tons of non destructible rocks and trees that would funnel in units that could give the edge back to toss and terran. you could have cool UMS where there would be a ramp yes - but - the ramp would be huge and if an opponent was to send his units up they would have to slow down a bit, kinda like in real life where if you go up a hill - you dont go as fast. or at least i dont.
|
On May 20 2010 12:35 ghrur wrote:Hmm, I disagree with the idea that ramps are a necessity in SCII due to the fact that there is no high ground advantage except the sight thing. Really, I feel that having a small choke is basically equivalent because it allows for a defender's advantage (the bigger arc) that a ramp gives. As far as blocking it off, most people use walls and buildings to help make it easier anyway. Also, Kulas Ravine has no ramps, and I'd say that it's a pretty damn awesome map. 
in early game, the height mechanic, without much to spot for you that can make a huge difference.
|
|
Chokes are necessary. Ramps are not. Ramps are a superior type of choke.
Wide open bases would create a much heavier emphasis on tier one and 1.5 units that you may never get away from.
There were a few maps from the old, oooold, ooooooooooooooold BW days that were much more wide open that turned into these back and forth spamfests that you could never seem to gain any foothold on. While entertaining, Zerg was the king of these types of maps and Protoss was next and Terran was waay behind.
The game was balanced with an eye towards this mechanic, which means removing the mechanic could unblance the game.
|
On May 20 2010 13:02 yomi wrote: You can only have a non choke entrance if you have an extra long travel time for ground units.
I don't think that really helps. It only buys you like 15 seconds extra time before my 7 zealots arrive, and that's 15 seconds where you don't know about them. It may take me the same amount of time to bust through a supply depot or pylon on a choke, but you can spend those 15 seconds chrono-boosting or repairing or building a bunker or whatever.
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?...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.
While I think that having maps that favor one strategy over the other is OK in situations where you get your map randomly, maps that require map-specific build orders seem a bridge too far.
Also, remember that the more variety in maps that Blizzard has to balance the races around, the harder it is to balance them. If Blizzard has to balance all 9 match-ups for choked, chokeless, gasless, etc., they're going to fail.
On May 20 2010 15:12 sacrificetheory wrote: 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.
No disrespect, but you're talking about realism in a game with psychic aliens and overgrown bugs. Realism isn't important, Fun is.
On May 20 2010 15:12 sacrificetheory wrote: 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.
Insofar as "Starcraft as an E-Sport" goes, viewers don't want to watch a match that's 90% determined by who got lucky with their spawn location and who didn't. Especially since most Tourneys are Bo3 or Bo5 - one near automatic loss is a huge hit for a player.
And as a player, I'd be pretty ticked if I sat down for the night and auto-lost a game because I got unlucky on map selection. I'm fine with getting creamed because I screwed up or the other guy played better, but a few "I lost because I got unlucky with map placement" games will drive anyone away.
|
I don't see an issue as to when the game is released, why one can't make the type of maps you're looking for (gasless, 5 patches, islands etc...) and play to screw around, but for e-sports and for competitive play, balance would become an issue.
And starcraft, unlike warcraft is all about macro and having HUGE armies clash and collide. Yes micro battles are cute and awesome, but I think people prefer seeing 200 vs 200 armies rather than heroes vs heroes. This is probably the same reason why you see so many starcraft videos/viewership/fanbase over warcraft.
|
no choke would give zerg an actual viable opening  All kidding aside, zerg would be able to go speedlings and rape pretty much any build terran had to offer and toss would be forced to open 2+gate before core.
|
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 have a feeling you don't understand much about the balance of the game and play more for the fun of it.
Lets play on a map with no gas. You be terran and I'll 1gate/forge and canon right in front of your natural. Have fun getting your gas with just marines while I expand where ever I want.
Starcraft is balanced because of the maps. No starting gas is never going to happen. Fewer mineral patches will greatly favor zerg, who play with a low drone count anyway. This low drone count means they will be getting similar income on a 5 mineral patch that they do on an 8 mineral patch, but toss/terran will feel a HUGE decrease in minerals.
Low ground and High ground starting spots can definitely and should be messed around with.
No chokes will favor zerg so badly. Speedling/Baneling will force terran/toss to canon/bunker very quickly while zerg can simply expand freely.
Sorry, but choke points will definitely be staying in SC2. There size may vary, and high ground/low ground may vary, but there is simply no way they can remove choke points and have that map keep a ~50% win rate for all races.
|
I can not believe someone compared SC to WC3, that game is like watching paint dry.
Anyways, if the ramps are removed, then zerg/toss will have to be rebalanced, mainly zerg.
|
On May 21 2010 04:29 ZachPruckowski wrote:While I think that having maps that favor one strategy over the other is OK in situations where you get your map randomly, maps that require map-specific build orders seem a bridge too far.
Also, remember that the more variety in maps that Blizzard has to balance the races around, the harder it is to balance them. If Blizzard has to balance all 9 match-ups for choked, chokeless, gasless, etc., they're going to fail. Map-specific builds are a good thing imo, not bad... It awards players who can adapt to different things.
Sure it's hard to balance a game with 3 factions to suit many styles of maps, but if mappers can come up with some balanced chokeless or island maps or whatever, that'd be great. Probably won't happen too much though... Thats why I often prefer RTS's with more mirrored factions, as counterintuitive it might sound, they often have more diverse games - cause you can make any map, not worry about balance, just worry about how fun it will be.
|
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.
I do not think Zerg will win unopposed even in maps without a choke to defend.
Tech favored - desert oasis Rush- Steppes of war
|
Calgary25980 Posts
I don't know because we've never tried it. I'd like to see an open-entrance map just to test.
|
On May 21 2010 10:21 iCCup.Nove wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Tech favored - desert oasis Rush- Steppes of war
/thread
|
On May 20 2010 12:20 DarkwindHK wrote: So far, in all the ladder maps in SC2, the main base is built on a location with a ramp or choke as entrance.
It has become an essential part of the strategy, especially for Terran and Protoss (since they can block the ramp).
Does all the races still has a fair chance to win if the map is designed like War3? (without a narrow choke or ramp to the main base)
I do think there should be some ladder maps with a more open space approach in the location of the main. This will open up a lot of new strategies and I do feel even Terran can play well, without using a choke. (they can make it themselves, just slower)
6 pool > terran without ramp/choke
|
On May 20 2010 12:20 DarkwindHK wrote: So far, in all the ladder maps in SC2, the main base is built on a location with a ramp or choke as entrance.
It has become an essential part of the strategy, especially for Terran and Protoss (since they can block the ramp).
Does all the races still has a fair chance to win if the map is designed like War3? (without a narrow choke or ramp to the main base)
I do think there should be some ladder maps with a more open space approach in the location of the main. This will open up a lot of new strategies and I do feel even Terran can play well, without using a choke. (they can make it themselves, just slower)
Terran would be absolutely and utterly demolished on any map without a ramp.
|
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.
Doesnt neccesarily imbalance the map, it just makes it a bad game, everyone has to rush or lose =/
|
lore: if you're going to inhabit an inhospitable planet, where would you want your home base to be? a) an open field b) a cul de sac c) moutainous region with cliffs on 2 sides, water on the 3rd, and a choke at the 4th
lorewise it makes perfect sense for maps to have choke points/defensive positions however the defender's advantage is pretty weak in sc2..it has devolved to the point where- whoever attacks first (gets off the first volley) has an advantage- given the new high ground mechanic.
|
Without a ramp it would be near impossible to block a double 6 pool rush agenst you (or a quad one now that there is 4v4). The ramp is about your only rush agenst these because you can wall off if you are terran and block the ramp with zealots if you are protoss
|
Perhaps a larger choke would require better building placement. I do think that a small choke would have to be 'built' since speed lings could virtually end a game if an entrance isn't sealed.
|
On May 21 2010 06:30 XCLuSive wrote: I don't see an issue as to when the game is released, why one can't make the type of maps you're looking for (gasless, 5 patches, islands etc...) and play to screw around, but for e-sports and for competitive play, balance would become an issue.
And starcraft, unlike warcraft is all about macro and having HUGE armies clash and collide. Yes micro battles are cute and awesome, but I think people prefer seeing 200 vs 200 armies rather than heroes vs heroes. This is probably the same reason why you see so many starcraft videos/viewership/fanbase over warcraft.
i have to disagree with you on that one.
wc3 popularity isn't up there because there is no e-sport hotspot for wc3. the game is played by europeans/chinese/koreans the most, and the problem is that sc is so established that wc3 never really stood a chance in korea. people just aren't as hardcore about it because they were used to starcraft. they dont practice 14 hours a day either, some of the progamers are in university.
wc3 isn't boring to watch, but it isn't starcraft. there just aren't any crazy korean commentators to make it look fun . i find micro battles extremely fun to watch. nothing like watching a blademaster crit for 200, invul pot at 5 hp then port right before he dies.
on topic: you can't exclude a choke from a map. i play zerg, and marines get destroyed by speedlings. just go 14 pool 13 gas -> speedling every single game and win vs terran. if they bunker go bust it down with banelings
|
Wouldn't a perfectly open map basically allow zerg to baneling bust...only they wouldn't even need the banelings?
I think the game is balanced around there always being a choke point. Scrap station's ramp is bad enough.
|
hey, im still a noob, but heres my opinion:
Lack of ramps - more tier 1 units (example Zealots), my zealots vs your zealots is the deciding factor in the first couple of minutes... not exactly skillful, just kind of click attack and afk and see if you win. you can successfully rush on every map, it just depends on how all in you go, so no reason to make a map dedicated to a rush because its not nearly as fun or skillful, more luck based.
also, not 100% sure this is accurate but. ZvP = 1 zealot beats Alot of lings = advantage in rushing TvP = marines can kite zealots = advantage in rushing ZvT = marines get killed by lings = advantage in rushing Rock Paper Scissors
|
|
|
|