|
Osaka27158 Posts
On August 18 2010 12:21 Qzy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 11:59 Qzy wrote:
I can't bring any other news to the thread, other than i really think you are very wrong.
Yes map balance is an important thing, but ... No.. Just no!
User was warned for this post
And why was i warned for that post? He comes with his opinion, and i come with mine? How can that offend anyone? There was no name calling? I was saying he was wrong... So if i make a thread about something 90% disagrees, every nay-sayers in my thread will be warned? wtf?
Because you came in and said YOURE WRONG but didn't say why.
If you have nothing to add, don't post.
|
the OP has a good point... but it makes me wonder what map the devs play on to determine balance...
they can't possibly use the ladder maps for internal balance testing because they would have realized a long time ago how weak Zerg was... so this leads me to believe that they have some other (more BW tournament-ish) map that they do their internal testing with... so why don't they release that map?
blizzard MUST design their game around the maps they give the players... they can't balance the races for use with a BW style map and then give us completely different maps.
i think maps are an issue... but i think the bigger issue is that blizzard isn't balancing for the maps they gave us... either that or they are just plain bad at balancing... which honestly wouldn't suprise me one bit...
TL;DR - you can complain about maps all you want, but the fact of the matter is that blizzard should be balancing for the maps they give us!!... if the only way to make the game balanced is to use non-blizzard maps then blizzard has failed completely and utterly.
|
On August 18 2010 12:19 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 12:13 Ballistixz wrote:On August 18 2010 12:05 Redmark wrote:On August 18 2010 11:59 Qzy wrote:
I can't bring any other news to the thread, other than i really think you are very wrong.
Yes map balance is an important thing, but ... No.. Just no! SC2 forum at its best. Honestly any pretty much any imbalance can be fixed by different maps, and it's the one that the community has any control over. I mean, think about BW. Let's say that you have a 'balanced' and a 'Terran-favored' map. But that's assuming that the core game is 'balanced'. It could be that the game is inherently skewed towards Terran. The 'Terran-favored' map is in fact a balanced map, and the 'balanced' map is in fact a Zerg-favored map. No one would be able to tell the difference. And, to be honest, it does not matter. Any core imbalance (if such a thing exists) can be hidden by maps; that's what happened in Brood War. Read the Brood War forums, and you'll see that no one really blames the game for any perceived imbalances any more. It's all about the maps. We don't know that that's the truth. Maybe it's actually the game that's imbalanced. But no one cares because it doesn't matter, since any problems can be fixed by a new map pool. Sure maps are a big part of ZvT balance issues ... Did you really have to make a new thread for stating the obvious? I mean there are already dozens of threads talking about balance. I would assume that the point is that changes to the game (as so many are clamoring for) are not necessarily needed, as long as suitable maps are made. TLDR: All the races are fine, I'm going to dismiss all evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to the contrary. The top players are wrong, the random diamonds are wrong, most people on this forum are wrong, the races are FINE. TLDR: I didn't read the post but I think that I should type some stuff anyway seriously? so ur going to make a bunch of zerg favored maps just to help TvZ and thus screw up the ZvP match up? no, ur doing it wrong. like i said the issues go much deeper then just the maps themselves. its not about making maps that give Z an advantage but about making maps that give no one a disadvantage. and at the same time promote more bw-esque gameplay. changed "all" to "most" so the balance crusaders dont feel offended.
ive been watching the iccup streams that had some pretty good maps. the maps are HUGE compared to the blizzes standard maps. there arnt any terrain or nothing u can abuse on these maps or no BS line of sight blockers either. yet what do u see happening on these maps? terrans still pretty much kicking toss and zergs ass. infact i havent see a single zerg win on one of these maps against terran yet except for that one game where the terran forgot to wall off and got owned by lings. but that game hardly counted because what good terran forget to wall off?
so ya, even tho those maps helped Z a ton it still wasnt enought because terrans just turtle up and on those maps and push. they are the kind of race that can adapt to any kind of map because of how versatile they are. another issue in balance. and in TvP the terran still comes out on top because storms are now insanely easy to dodge on those wide open maps. but when it comes to emp ithardly matters since that skill is intant in its effect and its cast time...
|
On August 18 2010 12:25 happyness wrote:
OK, I'm not really a good player, so I really don't know what makes a "good map" a good map and the same with a bad map.
I hear talk of this all the time of how horrible the maps are but without any specific examples. Take steppes of war, for example. There really isn't that much abusable terrain. The distance is short, but that shouldn't make much of a difference if the game is balanced, right?
And I would also like to see some freelance maps that would be considered "balanced". Because I really don't see how a map could be perfectly balanced without being boring.
promaps are pretty damn balanced and far from boring. might edit in examples tomorrow.
about your "if the game is balanced distances dont matter" look at the first map example blood bath. its tiny. broodwar is the best balanced rts in history but on bloodbath balance didnt exist at all.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 18 2010 12:26 Ballistixz wrote:
ive been watching the iccup streams that had some pretty good maps. the maps are HUGE compared to the blizzes standard maps. there arnt any terrain or nothing u can abuse on these maps or no BS line of sight blockers either. yet what do u see happening on these maps? terrans still pretty much kicking toss and zergs ass. infact i havent see a single zerg win on one of these maps against terran yet except for that one game where the terran forgot to wall off and got owned by lings. but that game hardly counted because what good terran forget to wall off?
so ya, even tho those maps helped Z a ton it still wasnt enought because terrans just turtle up and on those maps and push. they are the kind of race that can adapt to any kind of map because of how versatile they are. another issue in balance. and in TvP the terran still comes out on top because storms are now insanely easy to dodge on those wide open maps. but when it comes to emp ithardly matters since that skill is intant in its effect and its cast time...
A map needs to be more than just big and open to be not Terran favored.
I don't think anyone even has an idea of what a "zerg-favored" or "protoss-favored" map looks like. In SC1, we have everything down to the specifics--exact main/nat/3rd distances, mineral counts at each base, shapes of naturals/3rd for wall-offs for all 3 races.
None of that is fine-tuned for SC2 yet. And I don't think enough effort has been spent on it (Raelcun made another thread about this before), both by map-makers and by players. Smart map design can virtually halve the early- and mid-game aggression options Terran players have, but I see most of the maps sticking to BW or SC2 map conventions, and not trying to deliberately break those options.
|
On August 18 2010 12:25 happyness wrote:
And I would also like to see some freelance maps that would be considered "balanced". Because I really don't see how a map could be perfectly balanced without being boring.
Look at the quoted example BW maps. They're boring as hell!
The games played on them are awesome as hell!
So:
Boring maps produce exciting games.
Exciting (many abusable cliffs, choke points, ect) maps produce boring games.
Unfortunately I think Blizzard's thoughts are the exact opposite.
Seriously I don't want to see another Lost Temple ZvT where Zerg is forced to 1-base muta before they can even expo lest they get cliff dropped, it's not dynamic and it's not exciting and unpredictable.
|
I don't really know if they are the root cause or not, but the maps are all pretty horrible for zergs right now.
Small maps, a lot of chokes, very open and vulnerable expansions.
Like one of the new maps that came with release, "Delta Quadrant", the natural is very open and away from your ramp so the area to defend becomes huge, tanks etc on the cliff behind the 3rd (the one in your base with the rocks) can hit both your natural and your 3rd from the same cliff, that's just retarded.
And the map has a lot of chokes.
It goes without saying that a map like that isn't what you want to be playing on as zerg, it would be different if you had a way to somehow also exploit cliffs and chokes, like being able to put a lurker on the cliff behind mineral patches or put them in chokes but there really are no such options.
Maps are one of the factors making the imbalance seem worse than it really is though no matter how much we agree/disagree on the balance issue of the game itself, if you only played ZvT on Scrap Station you wouldn't feel like the matchup was that bad.
|
On August 18 2010 12:31 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 12:26 Ballistixz wrote:
ive been watching the iccup streams that had some pretty good maps. the maps are HUGE compared to the blizzes standard maps. there arnt any terrain or nothing u can abuse on these maps or no BS line of sight blockers either. yet what do u see happening on these maps? terrans still pretty much kicking toss and zergs ass. infact i havent see a single zerg win on one of these maps against terran yet except for that one game where the terran forgot to wall off and got owned by lings. but that game hardly counted because what good terran forget to wall off?
so ya, even tho those maps helped Z a ton it still wasnt enought because terrans just turtle up and on those maps and push. they are the kind of race that can adapt to any kind of map because of how versatile they are. another issue in balance. and in TvP the terran still comes out on top because storms are now insanely easy to dodge on those wide open maps. but when it comes to emp ithardly matters since that skill is intant in its effect and its cast time...
A map needs to be more than just big and open to be not Terran favored. I don't think anyone even has an idea of what a "zerg-favored" or "protoss-favored" map looks like. In SC1, we have everything down to the specifics--exact main/nat/3rd distances, mineral counts at each base, shapes of naturals/3rd for wall-offs for all 3 races. None of that is fine-tuned for SC2 yet. And I don't think enough effort has been spent on it (Raelcun made another thread about this before), both by map-makers and by players. Smart map design can virtually halve the early- and mid-game aggression options Terran players have, but I see most of the maps sticking to BW or SC2 map conventions, and not trying to deliberately break those options.
this isnt broodwar. the type of protoss, terran, and zerg favored maps that were in broodwar doesnt always hold ground in SC2.
the way it seems to work in SC2 is that it doesnt matter what map terran is on, they still will be good at it because of how versatile and mobile there units are if its not mech. hellions and reapers have speed upgrades making them almost as fast as speed lings so they can easily get across long distance maps fairly quickly to harass. they also have drops ships that DOUBLE as healers so they can take there bio army anywhere on the map and have effective medics right there as they unload. or if they need to retreat then they can just load up and get out.
it doesnt matter what kind of map u make, the terrans will always adapt to it and make it there own. thats just how versatile the race is right now.
|
ive been watching the iccup streams that had some pretty good maps. the maps are HUGE compared to the blizzes standard maps. there arnt any terrain or nothing u can abuse on these maps or no BS line of sight blockers either. yet what do u see happening on these maps? terrans still pretty much kicking toss and zergs ass.
Yea, because the zerg players put there so far have failed to adapt the maps, with zerg being as fragile as they are, new maps can be an overwhelming thing that force you out of your comfort zone from the getgo and also while exploring a new maps there is a tendency to apply old logic with new as well as to opt for the safest builds possible.
In addition to that you have the other crowd that shouts "too big" the moment the map grows beyond 144/144 and considering you can make 250/250 maps thats kinda mindblowing. =/
long story short: map in favour of zerg can be a nice bandaid while we wait for balance and lets be honest, we dont really want it to be completely balanced yet, we want idra to be the last bastion of top tier zerg so he can be the only one to say. "remember kids i played zerg when it was hard."
|
Has anybody besides me played Melee on Jungle Basin? IMO it's absolutely brilliant, natural expansion is absurdly well defended in the early game and not difficult to attack later on. My only complaint with it is that it isn't in the ladder and that it's name doesn't start with an A, so, because you have to click the 'show more' button a dozen times to get to it, it generally averages about 3 games per hour >.<
...I'm actually quite tempted to copy paste it, rename it "Aardvark," and upload it.
|
yep this is 114% true sc2 in ladder right now is like just as bad as playing maps like challenger. the maps are terrible
|
I'd like to see people who think maps are the problem to make maps or promote maps they think are examples of good mapping, so that those maps can then be tested.
I like that Morrow has been making maps and would like to see top people like Tester, Idra, and Cool be consulted by map makers to see if there is something that can be done.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 18 2010 12:36 Ballistixz wrote:
this isnt broodwar. the type of protoss, terran, and zerg favored maps that were in broodwar doesnt always hold ground in SC2.
Funny, that's exactly my point.
On August 18 2010 12:36 Ballistixz wrote:
the way it seems to work in SC2 is that it doesnt matter what map terran is on, they still will be good at it because of how versatile and mobile there units are if its not mech. hellions and reapers have speed upgrades making them almost as fast as speed lings. they also have drops ships that DOUBLE as healers so they can take there bio army anywhere on the map and have effective medics right there as they unload.
So you can say with absolute certainty that despite the game being out for only 2 weeks, it will never be possible to design a map that's unfavorable for Terran? That's absurdly presumptuous.
Reapers can be negated by designing mains that are surrounded by impassable terrain (notice how Scrap Station is closer to balanced than other maps?). Hellions can be negated by designing tighter naturals that can be walled in.
Also, last I checked, no high-level Zerg actually has serious problems fighting pure-bio in longer games. If bio is relevant, it's either in the form of all-ins (which can be negated by long rush distances) or as part of biomech.
|
On August 18 2010 12:40 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +
ive been watching the iccup streams that had some pretty good maps. the maps are HUGE compared to the blizzes standard maps. there arnt any terrain or nothing u can abuse on these maps or no BS line of sight blockers either. yet what do u see happening on these maps? terrans still pretty much kicking toss and zergs ass.
Yea, because the zerg players put there so far have failed to adapt the maps, with zerg being as fragile as they are, new maps can be an overwhelming thing that force you out of your comfort zone from the getgo and also while exploring a new maps there is a tendency to apply old logic with new as well as to opt for the safest builds possible. In addition to that you have the other crowd that shouts "too big" the moment the map grows beyond 144/144 and considering you can make 250/250 maps thats kinda mindblowing. =/ long story short: map in favour of zerg can be a nice bandaid while we wait for balance and lets be honest, we dont really want it to be completely balanced yet, we want idra to be the last bastion of top tier zerg so he can be the only one to say. "remember kids i played zerg when it was hard."
thats my whole point tho. why is it that zerg needs certain maps to be good on or toss needs certain maps to be good on yet terran is good on any map no matter what it is? there is no such thing as a bad map for terran in SC2 as far as ive seen. so how can anyone say that is balanced =/
|
On August 18 2010 12:41 ghettohobbit2 wrote:
Has anybody besides me played Melee on Jungle Basin? IMO it's absolutely brilliant, natural expansion is absurdly well defended in the early game and not difficult to attack later on. My only complaint with it is that it isn't in the ladder and that it's name doesn't start with an A, so, because you have to click the 'show more' button a dozen times to get to it, it generally averages about 3 games per hour >.<
...I'm actually quite tempted to copy paste it, rename it "Aardvark," and upload it.
Yet another awful story produced by this asinine Battle.net 0.2 map availability / search. Why can't we have a search bar? This is like the internet before Google - or even before Alta Vista or Hot Bot. Unfathomable that this could be around post-launch.
If (and it is a big if) the balance problem is real and maps are the problem, we could fix it like we did with brood war if Blizzard just gave us the chance.
|
On August 18 2010 12:41 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 12:36 Ballistixz wrote:
this isnt broodwar. the type of protoss, terran, and zerg favored maps that were in broodwar doesnt always hold ground in SC2. Funny, that's exactly my point. Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 12:36 Ballistixz wrote:
the way it seems to work in SC2 is that it doesnt matter what map terran is on, they still will be good at it because of how versatile and mobile there units are if its not mech. hellions and reapers have speed upgrades making them almost as fast as speed lings. they also have drops ships that DOUBLE as healers so they can take there bio army anywhere on the map and have effective medics right there as they unload.
So you can say with absolute certainty that despite the game being out for only 2 weeks, it will never be possible to design a map that's unfavorable for Terran? That's absurdly presumptuous. Reapers can be negated by designing mains that are surrounded by impassable terrain (notice how Scrap Station is closer to balanced than other maps?). Hellions can be negated by designing tighter naturals that can be walled in. Also, last I checked, no high-level Zerg actually has serious problems fighting pure-bio in longer games. If bio is relevant, it's either in the form of all-ins (which can be negated by long rush distances) or as part of biomech.
thats not what im saying. look at the current maps right now. are u really trying to say that every single one of those maps are in favor of terran and that is the reason terran are winning games? alot of the blizz maps are pretty good with the exception of kulas ravine and dessert oasis. as a result ZvP, PvP, and ZvZ and TvT are all good on the maps and pretty balanced. yet when it comes to TvZ and TvP everything gets diffrent. u cant blame all blizz maps for that.
the beta lasted for months. many balance changes were made. first protoss was imba, then zerg was imba, then protoss was imba again, and towards the end of beta terran became imba and remained imba for release. so no u cant blame just solely the maps. like i said before the maps are not the only issue right now. infact i dont think its the issue at all. if anything maps should be the last factor in it seeing as balance fluctuated between the 3 races for months on the very same maps. the maps were not the cause of the balance issue since the maps remained the same all thru beta.
|
Maps are part of the problem. Having maps expansions that are difficult to defend doesn't help the Zerg problems. In BW most of the good maps had a very easy to defend expansion and then a 3rd which was slightly less defendable but still more defendable than most of the naturals in SC2.
Really there is not a map in SC2 which is a Zerg Map.
Like 70% of the problem is just that Zerg has been nerfed too many times, things like roach being 2 food is a joke when you take into consideration that the unit was already nerfed before that.
|
On August 18 2010 12:36 Ballistixz wrote:
the way it seems to work in SC2 is that it doesnt matter what map terran is on, they still will be good at it because of how versatile and mobile there units are if its not mech. hellions and reapers have speed upgrades making them almost as fast as speed lings so they can easily get across long distance maps fairly quickly to harass. they also have drops ships that DOUBLE as healers so they can take there bio army anywhere on the map and have effective medics right there as they unload. or if they need to retreat then they can just load up and get out.
it doesnt matter what kind of map u make, the terrans will always adapt to it and make it there own. thats just how versatile the race is right now.
Bigger maps would be better for zerg regardless though, most of the terran army is pretty immobile, flanking as zerg is great, expanding on large maps would be more safe.
Responding to different things would be easier because you'd have more than two and a half second before whatever traveled from the terran base arrived in your base.
I'd even go as far as saying zerg might actually have become OP on a really big map but we've never even really tried it.
That's kinda one of the things I dislike that Blizzard didn't try out in the beta, probably because they wanted some stats on different matchups etc. but they could have done like 1 or 2 resets with a few big maps in the ladder pool and gather stats as to how things played out on those maps compared to the smaller ones.
On August 18 2010 12:40 Madkipz wrote:
[we dont really want it to be completely balanced yet, we want idra to be the last bastion of top tier zerg so he can be the only one to say. "remember kids i played zerg when it was hard."
I never thought of it like that, thanks, now I feel better :D
|
Maps need to be fixed. They need to be bigger, and the number of minerals should be played around with so you cant as easily go 200/200 on two base.
|
i dont think u guys get my point. if ur going to make maps specifically to try and weaken terran so they can be on par with zerg and toss then dont u think something is wrong with that? cuz i personally do. i think maps should be the last factor in determining balance of a race not the first and main reason.
like i mentioned the maps remained the same all through beta, yet the balance of each race fluctuated when balance changes hit. the maps didnt play to much of a part in that. but now that terran has became over powered its automatically the maps fault now? what happened to the maps when zerg was over powered and toss over powered and terran was weakest race? nothing, they just get hit with the nerf bat. and now its terrans turn to be overpowered. but its now the maps fault there over powered? thats BS imo.
if what ppl in this thread are saying is true then the should still be how it was since week 1 of beta and just change the maps to make it balanced. thats what it seems like ppl are saying in this thread. maps should not play THAT much of a role when determining balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
