|
On February 17 2014 23:27 chris2423 wrote:
honestly this just kinda proves what most everyone who does sit crying about balance already knows...the races are so closely balanced that map balance is much more important than race balance. also the real reason broodwar was so "perfectly balanced" is that blizzard didnt try to regulate map pools...korean map makers really balanced the game. i honestly don't know why blizzard wants so desperately to control maps in sc2.
nearly every map blizzard makes it just seems like they are trying to force changes in the meta or something. blizzard posts are always talking about map diversity and new and different strategies and such, but what really happens...casual players veto the map, and pros cheese when it comes up in a tournament.
amen
User was warned for this post
|
On February 18 2014 00:14 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 23:27 chris2423 wrote:
honestly this just kinda proves what most everyone who does sit crying about balance already knows...the races are so closely balanced that map balance is much more important than race balance. also the real reason broodwar was so "perfectly balanced" is that blizzard didnt try to regulate map pools...korean map makers really balanced the game. i honestly don't know why blizzard wants so desperately to control maps in sc2.
nearly every map blizzard makes it just seems like they are trying to force changes in the meta or something. blizzard posts are always talking about map diversity and new and different strategies and such, but what really happens...casual players veto the map, and pros cheese when it comes up in a tournament. amen
Anyone who knows anything about this game knows that the current map pool is the reason for strong Protoss results. Unfortunately, this site has been so full of whiners lately that it's hardly even worth visiting outside of the (like this one) outstanding articles.
I remember when an LR thread on Championship Sunday used to be a fun place, for discussing the excellence of the players and the silly nuances of the casters. Now, it's just non-stop Protoss whine to an almost Twitch chat level. If I had admin, I would have banned probably 30 people during the IEM Cologne LR thread.
Great article, Nony always adds great depth in SC analysis.
|
I posted this idea in General Discussion a while back, but got no good feedback (except a lot of what I can only assume was knee-jerk rejection).
Why not introduce maps that can only be played for specific MUs? Just as a random example, a map that can only be played in TvT would have plenty of island expansions, because Terrans can float their CCs like that. Right now we can't have a map like that because it would be broken in TvZ and TvP, thus TvT isn't really allowed to grow. Daedalus would have been either a ZvZ or a PvP map, and that would be that. No skewed PvZ, TvZ, or TvP games.
The biggest criticism I see is that it would force pros to learn lots of maps... but, taking into account that the most maps any two players ever have to play consecutively is 7 in a BO7, a split like 4 "standard" maps that are averagely good for all MUs, and 3 maps per MU would leave every pro with having to know no more than 13 maps at a time. That's one less than the number of maps that were played in WCS over 2013. With a slightly slower rotation, there would be little to no added workload for pros, but we'd have a lot more variability in MUs and many maps where balance is a lot easier to achieve because it's tailor made for those two races duking it out.
I was really annoyed that I didn't get a single serious criticism when I first brought this up, people either said they thought it was interesting, or voted "no" without explaining themselves. What do you guys think?
|
I really liked this article! Great idea to thoroughly analyze the strategy around such a controversial map, even after the fact that it was addressed by Blizzard.
Thank you to the writers, and of course to NonY for giving this conversation a chance to happen.
Bravo!
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 18 2014 13:49 pure.Wasted wrote:
I posted this idea in General Discussion a while back, but got no good feedback (except a lot of what I can only assume was knee-jerk rejection).
Why not introduce maps that can only be played for specific MUs? Just as a random example, a map that can only be played in TvT would have plenty of island expansions, because Terrans can float their CCs like that. Right now we can't have a map like that because it would be broken in TvZ and TvP, thus TvT isn't really allowed to grow. Daedalus would have been either a ZvZ or a PvP map, and that would be that. No skewed PvZ, TvZ, or TvP games.
The biggest criticism I see is that it would force pros to learn lots of maps... but, taking into account that the most maps any two players ever have to play consecutively is 7 in a BO7, a split like 4 "standard" maps that are averagely good for all MUs, and 3 maps per MU would leave every pro with having to know no more than 13 maps at a time. That's one less than the number of maps that were played in WCS over 2013. With a slightly slower rotation, there would be little to no added workload for pros, but we'd have a lot more variability in MUs and many maps where balance is a lot easier to achieve because it's tailor made for those two races duking it out.
I was really annoyed that I didn't get a single serious criticism when I first brought this up, people either said they thought it was interesting, or voted "no" without explaining themselves. What do you guys think?
Wayyyyyyyyyyy too many maps for the pros to practice.
|
I also don't think the gains from having match-up specific maps are that much better than recent/current maps, anyway.
|
still blows my mind this map made it into ladder
what I wouldn't give to be on the development team of sc2, to get paid like they do to put out utter garbarge horse sh*t like this every 5 months
what glory
|
On February 18 2014 13:49 pure.Wasted wrote:
I posted this idea in General Discussion a while back, but got no good feedback (except a lot of what I can only assume was knee-jerk rejection).
Why not introduce maps that can only be played for specific MUs? Just as a random example, a map that can only be played in TvT would have plenty of island expansions, because Terrans can float their CCs like that. Right now we can't have a map like that because it would be broken in TvZ and TvP, thus TvT isn't really allowed to grow. Daedalus would have been either a ZvZ or a PvP map, and that would be that. No skewed PvZ, TvZ, or TvP games.
The biggest criticism I see is that it would force pros to learn lots of maps... but, taking into account that the most maps any two players ever have to play consecutively is 7 in a BO7, a split like 4 "standard" maps that are averagely good for all MUs, and 3 maps per MU would leave every pro with having to know no more than 13 maps at a time. That's one less than the number of maps that were played in WCS over 2013. With a slightly slower rotation, there would be little to no added workload for pros, but we'd have a lot more variability in MUs and many maps where balance is a lot easier to achieve because it's tailor made for those two races duking it out.
I was really annoyed that I didn't get a single serious criticism when I first brought this up, people either said they thought it was interesting, or voted "no" without explaining themselves. What do you guys think?
That would set the game in a very boring MU depending Map Pool. Maps should never decide the result of a game, or the outcomes in win rates of a race.
|
maps have been progressing further and further from a viewers perspective but for where we are currently at with sc2 this map belongs in the bag with likes of scrap station, lost temple and steppes of war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
