EPTMy god are you people for real ?
The true balance problem - the maps - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Kigari
Bahrain134 Posts
My god are you people for real ? | ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
Psiclone
United States23 Posts
Siege tank is only 150m, 125g for 13 range and 50 splash damage. Vikings have 9 range and incredible versatility being able to land and fly at will. Colossus has 9 range (with upgrade of course) and does 46 splash damage, and can walk up and down cliffs of course. What does Zerg have? The Brood Lord? A 250m, 250g unit that moves so slow it seems like its going backwards? And still has less range than a Thor. And stalkers can extremely cost effectively blink towards you and own them. | ||
|
Gedrah
465 Posts
If it requires something like a giant gaping goatse hole in the back of my base to give P and Z an occasional win, there might be a deeper underlying balance problem. But I definitely feel like maps with back-door rocks are plain silly. It's just about a guarantee that there will be 10-12 Zealots showing up to cut them down, and once they're in, it's pretty much just one big battle and then game over. I either had Hellions and turned them into 100-mineral ash piles, or I didn't, and I gg'ed. The reason I post all of this in response to the OP is that I don't think putting gimmicks in the maps is the right way to improve balance. Think of the neutral CC on Holy World, who has forgotten Zero v. Bisu with infested terrans? When the map contributes a change to gameplay that large, it's almost like you're not playing "Starcraft: Brood War" at that time. It's more like "Starcraft: Brood War: Holy World Edition" where you can get Infested Terrans in ZvP. Well, to me, Blistering Sands and Scrap Station are not the same game as the other SC2 maps which don't have back door rocks. And there are not many such maps :[ | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On August 18 2010 13:12 Kigari wrote: Now blaming maps and the entire physics of the game for imbalance ? My god are you people for real ? Clearly you have never played/followed the BW scene. Maps and the balance issues they create play a HUGE role in whether or not a certain matchup is balanced. For example, large, macro maps with tons of expos are better (usually) for Zerg, while maps with tons of choke points everywhere along with ledges are better (usually) for Terran. Maps have a very big role in determining how the game plays out. | ||
|
Psiclone
United States23 Posts
On August 18 2010 13:18 Gedrah wrote: Put up a supply depot by them to detect lings and then move in a few marines to shoot over them.I have not read this thread, and I know I'm unlikely to find any sympathy for my complaint as I'm a Terran player, but back-door rocks (to me) are the silliest kludge ever. I get 80% of my losses because I lapse for a second and there's suddenly 30 speedlings in my base. You can't wall that shit off due to the enormous half-circle of magical eternity grass which occludes vision and is Indestructible, immune to fire and explosions and bullets and certainly immune to the cutting tools of an SCV (yet completely passable to all forms of matter, including giant mechs like the Thor). If it requires something like a giant gaping goatse hole in the back of my base to give P and Z an occasional win, there might be a deeper underlying balance problem. But I definitely feel like maps with back-door rocks are plain silly. It's just about a guarantee that there will be 10-12 Zealots showing up to cut them down, and once they're in, it's pretty much just one big battle and then game over. I either had Hellions and turned them into 100-mineral ash piles, or I didn't, and I gg'ed. The reason I post all of this in response to the OP is that I don't think putting gimmicks in the maps is the right way to improve balance. Think of the neutral CC on Holy World, who has forgotten Zero v. Bisu with infested terrans? When the map contributes a change to gameplay that large, it's almost like you're not playing "Starcraft: Brood War" at that time. It's more like "Starcraft: Brood War: Holy World Edition" where you can get Infested Terrans in ZvP. Well, to me, Blistering Sands and Scrap Station are not the same game as the other SC2 maps which don't have back door rocks. And there are not many such maps :[ | ||
|
kingcomrade
United States115 Posts
| ||
|
ghettohobbit2
United States93 Posts
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. I really need to massively disagree with this assessment. Clearly maps are capable of favoring one race or the other. For example, if a map has a natural expansion whose entrance is blocked by a rock, is on a cliff, has a tower that overlooks its only entrance, and has... say... four geysers, that map will clearly favor Terran, since they can simply load their SCVs into the CC, lift off, turtle in, and make tanks. Or, if a map has a natural expansion that is ONLY accessible through the main, that map will favor Zerg, because they'll only have to worry about being rushed from one direction, and therefore will have fewer spine crawlers to place. Obviously these are hyperbolic examples, but they are still quite capable of manifesting themselves in smaller ways. | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On August 18 2010 13:20 Ryuu314 wrote: Clearly you have never played/followed the BW scene. Maps and the balance issues they create play a HUGE role in whether or not a certain matchup is balanced. For example, large, macro maps with tons of expos are better (usually) for Zerg, while maps with tons of choke points everywhere along with ledges are better (usually) for Terran. Maps have a very big role in determining how the game plays out. yes it does. but its not the sole factor. if it was then MANY of the balance changes like roaches being 2 supply and such should still be in the game since it could have been solved by the making of maps. but that is the wrong way about going about the issue. why make maps solely to depower a overpowered race? why make race specifically to solve balance issues in a match up when all the other match ups are fine? especially when with all the previous nerfs that happened yet no one yelled "change the maps then it would be fine" so why now are ppl starting to blame maps now that terran are imba? On August 18 2010 13:26 ghettohobbit2 wrote: I really need to massively disagree with this assessment. Clearly maps are capable of favoring one race or the other. For example, if a map has a natural expansion whose entrance is blocked by a rock, is on a cliff, has at tower that overlooks its only entrance, and has... say... four geysers, that map will clearly favor Terran, since they can simply load their SCVs into the CC, turtle in, and make tanks. Or, if a map has a natural expansion that is ONLY accessible through the main, that map will favor Zerg, because they'll only have to worry about being rushed from one direction, and therefore will have fewer spine crawlers to place. Obviously these are hyperbolic examples, but they are still quite capable of manifesting themselves in smaller ways. im not trying to argue that it isnt -_-. what im saying is that right now the maps are fine for all the match ups except TvZ and TvP. in beta the PvT match ups were fucked up because toss were imba toward terran yet the TvZ match up was fine. then ZvZ became a roach fest and that needed to be fixed. then PvZ became fucked up and zerg needed a nerf. but TvZ were still fine. all of these nerfs that happened came at the same time as terran buffs. and now both TvZ and TvP are fucked up and terrans are the new imba race while the other races are fine. so why is it that NOW you guys want to blame the maps? what happened to blaming the maps when all of Z and P were getting hit with the nerf bat and terrans were getting gently spanked with the Buff stick? | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
maps should not play THAT much of a role when determining balance. you ever heard of terrain advantage? yea maps are supposed to play a role in balance, the map itself deals with a number of things: Rush distance, chokes, flanking spots, they all cater to terran and protoss, Kulas ravine where you have cliffs and sidepathswould be ok but ultimately because they can leave their base and be dancing on your natural before crawlers get up it starts to grow beyond just merely terran favoured and into boarderline overpowered.. TO top it off when rushdistance start growing beyond 50 sec the sole reason desert oasis is downtumbed is not only because the way the natural is set up is fubar, it is also because terran and protoss figured that hey, since they can scout you leaving your base and react accordingly LETS CHEESE THEM. Sandshorn sands and dedication is a step in the right direction ;D | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 18 2010 13:26 Ballistixz wrote: yes it does. but its not the sole factor. if it was then MANY of the balance changes like roaches being 2 supply and such should still be in the game since it could have been solved by the making of maps. but that is the wrong way about going about the issue. why make maps solely to depower a overpowered race? why make race specifically to solve balance issues in a match up when all the other match ups are fine? especially when with all the previous nerfs that happened yet no one yelled "change the maps then it would be fine" so why now are ppl starting to blame maps now that terran are imba? Because map publishing wasn't available until the patch after the roach nerf? On August 18 2010 12:49 Ballistixz wrote: 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. Steppes of War - Short rush distance, impossible to take a 4th, favors Terran Lost Temple - Ledge over natural and extremely hard-to-cover ledge both favor Terran (tanks/reapers). Xel'naga Caverns - Impossible to cover natural, 3rd base expands toward opponent, 4th has a ledge over it, so it favors Terran. Delta Quadrant - Retardedly open natural makes it impossible to defend from Hellion harassment, and safe 3rd lets Terran cover 3 CCs from a single tank line. Personally, I think almost every map in the Blizzard map pool is crap. The ones that are closer to balanced like Scrap Station also happen to be very irritating to play on. On August 18 2010 12:49 Ballistixz wrote: 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. On August 18 2010 13:09 Ballistixz wrote: 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. You're trying to disentangle map balance from racial balance, when they are one and the same. Racial balance only makes sense in the context of a given map pool, and a map's features are only relevant to balance insofar as the features of each race take advantage of them. Balance is balance regardless of the source--and at the moment, the maps are really the only source of balance changes the community actually has any control over. | ||
|
Lord_of_Chaos
Sweden372 Posts
I completely share OP's opinion and concerns. As he said, this doesn't mean that the races don't need to be balanced in a better way then they are now. But they damn well shouldn't be balanced towards the maps we have now as if they were "neutral". | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
| ||
|
Sixes
Canada1123 Posts
On August 18 2010 12:54 andeh wrote: 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. This is a fair point. Lower resource mains and expansions (but more numerous ones) would force more expanding which in turn stretches defenses and would make Zerg problems of attacking chokes less of one. Given they have implemented the destructible rock mechanic I think it could be put to good use like it was on scrap station where a natural can be defensible early but gets opened up later on rather than using destructible rocks only to impede expansions (like on delta quadrant, I am more annoyed at all the destructible rocks on that map than the cliffs :/). Am I the only Zerg player who loves DO? I go mutaling most games and all that space for runbys makes me giddy. Usually the Terran is stuck trying a suicidal 1 base play or at least risking a counter attack when he loses a battle (which is where Zerg have a big problem usually, we win a battle but then can't do anything). Now I would prefer if DO was scaled up, had 1 defensible natural then was wide open (though again, the lower resource per base would be nice for that) but as it is I don't mind it. One of my biggest issues with defensible naturals right now is that a Terran can get a mech army off 2 base that Zerg needs 4+ bases and 40 minutes to beat (if the Terran doesn't manage to expand more of course). | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On August 18 2010 13:28 TheYango wrote: Because map publishing wasn't available until the patch after the roach nerf? so you are saying that you didnt blame the maps because they were no publishing yet now you are going to say that making certain maps will balance out everything without even testing any of them? first of all map publishing was out for a pretty long time. there were even MANY discussions about maps since ppl were messing around with the editor before map publishing was available. yet nothing was brought up about balancing and addressing the issues with that were present at the time with the races by making certain maps. only now is there any real discussion towards it. and its a blind discussion because people are ignoring the whole facts about why the match ups are how they are right now. basically what your saying is "make new maps and that will solve everything!" thats bull shit and u know it. like i said maps arnt going to solve all the issues that are in the match ups right now because its not the ONLY factor in it. u can just make a map and say "done, the game is perfectly balance now because of my kick ass map" doesnt work that way. theres been MANY maps already been made published and worked on since late phase 1 of beta up until now. and the match up is still imba. and u still think maps are going to fix it? please dont kid urself. | ||
|
YoureFired
United States822 Posts
Maps like metalopalis have way more interesting and balanced games as Zerg can actually get flanks off and macro decently and Terrans can't abuse ledges to infinity. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 18 2010 13:41 Ballistixz wrote: so you are saying that you didnt blame the maps because they were no publishing yet now you are going to say that making certain maps will balance out everything without even testing any of them? first of all map publishing was out for a pretty long time. there were even MANY discussions about maps since ppl were messing around with the editor before map publishing was available. yet nothing was brought up about balancing the current issues at the time with maps. only now is there any real discussion towards it. and its a blind discussion because people are ignoring the whole facts about why the match ups are how they are right now. basically what your saying is "make new maps and that will solve everything!" thats bull shit and u know it. like i said maps arnt going to solve all the issues that are in the match ups right now. Read my edit. Maps are not the only way to make changes. But there's no real point in differentiating map changes and racial changes. They're balance changes any way you slice it, and seeing as maps are the only way for us as the community to actually affect the balance, we may as well use it. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On August 18 2010 13:26 Ballistixz wrote: yes it does. but its not the sole factor. if it was then MANY of the balance changes like roaches being 2 supply and such should still be in the game since it could have been solved by the making of maps. but that is the wrong way about going about the issue. why make maps solely to depower a overpowered race? why make race specifically to solve balance issues in a match up when all the other match ups are fine? especially when with all the previous nerfs that happened yet no one yelled "change the maps then it would be fine" so why now are ppl starting to blame maps now that terran are imba? I'm pretty sure people have been complaining about the maps since like...halfway into beta or earlier. It's just that with the release of the map editor, when people have made maps that are clearly superior to the current map pool, the imbalances are more apparent. Of course, map balance isn't the only issue. That's very true; but maps definitely play their part. I was mostly replying to the idiot who thought maps had nothing to do with balance at all. | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On August 18 2010 13:44 TheYango wrote: Read my edit. Maps are not the only way to make changes. But there's no real point in differentiating map changes and racial changes. They're balance changes any way you slice it, and seeing as maps are the only way for us as the community to actually affect the balance, we may as well use it. ok i think i see what your saying now. the impression i got from this thread is "make a map and done, solve everything. game is perfectly balanced". but your saying to let the community handle one of the issues (the maps since thats all we have control over) and let blizz handle the other stuff that we have no control over right? | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
| ||
| ||
