EPTThe true balance problem - the maps - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SwaY-
Dominican Republic463 Posts
| ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
Now, I'd be lying if I said every map is perfect but experimenting with custom features is probably more productive than flaming Blizzard for making bad maps. We as a community *need* (I can NOT emphasize how detrimental hivemind whining is to a community and game) to stop whining "terran's OP, progamers switching to terran so terran is op, zerg sux, lost temple is a bad map" and start working together on ways we can fix it. iCCup itself and the iCCup mapmaking team have already produced eleven maps designed for competitive tournament play, but since these maps - along with the game - are brand new, most (if not all) of the features are very experimental. How will we ever learn if we don't experiment? How did Terrans ever figure out Mech was strong vs. Zerg? Experimenting. 1000 games played on every possible map in every matchup and THEN Terran is still at a significant advantage? Okay, I'll call that imbalance. Millions of games played on less than ten (i think) maps in every matchup and Terran is winning? I think it's time to change some things up and experiment with maps before we start adjusting the hell out of all of the units. That is after all how Brood War ended up being balanced. So there's my rant. Personally, the "sc2 is imba" bothers me more and more every day. Every minute wasted writing a generic "terran is OP" post about it is a minute someone could have been playing a custom map or trying to do some legitimate research for a solution. I urge everyone to check out the iCCup maps, as well as any other custom melee maps that exist out there. I'm sure if we delve deeper into it, we can find a solution without blizzard changing any of the numbers, or provide clear evidence that the game is fundamentally imbalanced. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
One more thing I'd like to add is not everyone single map needs to have a ramp from the main to the natural (think longinus from sc1, great map). Toss and terran's don't need to be able to wall ling tight and zealot tight on every single map. | ||
|
emperorchampion
Canada9496 Posts
On August 18 2010 15:26 Sentient wrote: Most of the Terran army is immobile? Sorry, but I'm getting tired of this myth. Only the tanks are immobile, and that's not even all that true. With Medivacs, Banshees, and Hellions, Terran can easily out harass a Zerg player. Watch the Korean KOTH videos of the Terran who goes on repeated 10+ win streaks. Back at the Terran base, it only takes one Thor to shut down mutalisk harassment. Off of creep, the Terran army is more mobile than the Zerg army. Every Terran player needs to repeat this to himself. Because of this, large maps are not going to favor Zerg in SC2. Zerg needs to build a creep highway, and that takes longer on the large open maps that supposedly favor them. The Terran immobility is a myth. If there is ever to be balance, map-based or otherwise, people need to stop talking about it. I think this is an excellent point. But, what if you experimented by having some portions of the map already covered in neutral creep? Then you could have a large map, where zerg could still maintain their speed. I mean look at Colloseum, that had nuetral creep, yet kept from being imbalanced. I think that this is so damn important- I am finally excited to see this moving somewhere! On August 18 2010 15:37 prodiG wrote: I think everyone here needs to play the iCCup maps. They're designed from the ground up with balance in mind. Now, I'd be lying if I said every map is perfect but experimenting with custom features is probably more productive than flaming Blizzard for making bad maps. We as a community *need* (I can NOT emphasize how detrimental hivemind whining is to a community and game) to stop whining "terran's OP, progamers switching to terran so terran is op, zerg sux, lost temple is a bad map" and start working together on ways we can fix it. iCCup itself and the iCCup mapmaking team have already produced eleven maps designed for competitive tournament play, but since these maps - along with the game - are brand new, most (if not all) of the features are very experimental. How will we ever learn if we don't experiment? How did Terrans ever figure out Mech was strong vs. Zerg? Experimenting. 1000 games played on every possible map in every matchup and THEN Terran is still at a significant advantage? Okay, I'll call that imbalance. Millions of games played on less than ten (i think) maps in every matchup and Terran is winning? I think it's time to change some things up and experiment with maps before we start adjusting the hell out of all of the units. That is after all how Brood War ended up being balanced. So there's my rant. Personally, the "sc2 is imba" bothers me more and more every day. Every minute wasted writing a generic "terran is OP" post about it is a minute someone could have been playing a custom map or trying to do some legitimate research for a solution. I urge everyone to check out the iCCup maps, as well as any other custom melee maps that exist out there. I'm sure if we delve deeper into it, we can find a solution without blizzard changing any of the numbers, or provide clear evidence that the game is fundamentally imbalanced. I completely agree with this, I just wish that the mods would crack down on a zero tolerance level of terran op. Everyone has an opinion, you just end up with uninformed people slinging them around like monkey shit. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
However, to say that there is no imbalance that is not due to the maps is also incorrect. Clearly, there are problems with the zerg race in terms of options. Making a different map does not give them another 3 choices of openers. The lack of diversity and options is an example of an imbalance problem that maps cannot fix. They COULD however, ease some of the pain zerg players feel. Currently, having to prepare for reapers as well as hellions as well as any other sickening number of things a terran might do is near impossible with the current scouting issues zerg has as well. The maps could make it easier by taking options away from terran. However, that just means you are gimping the game by making units or strategies unviable and while the game might be more playable that way, a better way to balance the game would be to give each race several units or strategies that could respond to different situations satisfactorily In effect, optimum balancing means that there are units and strategies that will work in certain situations or because one chooses to use them. Balancing by using maps means that players are constrained into playing certain ways. This isn't necessarily a BAD thing /if/ one improves balance while doing so. However, it just takes away from the game when you limit what may possibly be done. That's half the problem with zerg anyways, because they are so limited. There isn't really a reason to artificially limit other races and make them boring as well. Just make zerg more dynamic; give them more options. A game that is balanced because people only have the same units, or can only do the same things is boring. A game that is balanced even though each race or faction can do a multitude of things while neither being overpowered is a fun game to both spectate and play. Having pointed out the limits on balancing via maps, I do think there are several problems with the current map pool. 1) It is much more difficult to flank then in bw. There is just not enough open space. Most of the maps are just a few paths from one base to the other. . Additionally, like in BW, zergs need to rely on flanking more, yet they need creep to pre-position when other races are moving out. Except creep is easily destroyed by a few units and a detector. 2) "Cliffs are exciting" Atleast, blizz thinks so. They added the cliff mechanics and it's cool that some races can use / abuse them. Reapers and collos can go up and down cliffs so that is cool! conveniently, the race that everybody complains about as not having options or being boring is also the one that has no options to abuse cliffs while the other races do. b) The new highground mechanics also make this somewhat of a problem. Some races can easily abuse the sight mechanics by using the cliff walking units given. Think the redcoats marching to boston getting harassed the whole way while not being able to fight back. If you can easily use the cliffs // sight mechanics to your advantage while another race cannot, any cliff or high ground over a traveled path or base could potentially translate into significant imbalance. We see that on the ledges over the naturals on LT. I've also abused this by putting collos or tanks on the little highground areas not near the XN highground ledge thing. 3) Easily defensible choke points. These are good for bases, not necessarily as good when scattered around the map. They COULD bring more to the game if all the races could defend chokes easily, but only one race has the tank. Collos do okay, storm works well, and ff can help significantly. On the other hand, the last race has no significant AOE or splash threat. There is fungal growth, but that doesn't do much of anything even when you compare it to storm (which some people think is underpowered as well....) So while some of the issues with balance might be traced back to maps, what they really show is an underlaying problem with the race to begin with. You can cover up the issue by changing the maps such that the issues are not as readily apparent, but they will still be there, and will still affect the game. | ||
|
Iggyhopper
United States259 Posts
Yeah, maps do change the balance because of how they are constructed. If it's an island map, the game will play differently than if it were connected. Also, a map where the watchtowers were activated by air units would be an awesome test. | ||
|
crappen
Norway1546 Posts
New maps, let the dust settle a bit, then tweak some numbers/units if necessary. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
| ||
|
shawster
Canada2485 Posts
you almost never see a zerg win on steppes, but you might see him win on scrap station. however it's still in terran favor even with long rush distances and hard to wall entrance. i just want fighting spirit back since i think that's the best map of all time. i'd play every game on fs and i'd still be happy destination comes close. also i'd like to take some time and point out how terrible blistering sands is. with the way sc2 is designed there should NEVER be a map with a backdoor entrance ever. being 4 gated or 1 base terran'd on that map is impossible to deal with, and that backdoor entrance is one of the more stupid things ever. at least terran can abuse high ground on that map, protoss can cannon, zergs need to spread creep all the way to the backdoor. | ||
|
nybbas
United States71 Posts
| ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
| ||
|
emperorchampion
Canada9496 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 18 2010 15:37 prodiG wrote: I agree with this, and I think it's really important that tournaments need to start going over to true competitive maps. People might be worried that players won't be ready for it because the ladder is only Blizzard maps, but I think it works the other way around. The ladder really doesn't matter for the best competitive players, and they'd probably switch if tournaments called for it. I think everyone here needs to play the iCCup maps. They're designed from the ground up with balance in mind. Now, I'd be lying if I said every map is perfect but experimenting with custom features is probably more productive than flaming Blizzard for making bad maps. We as a community *need* (I can NOT emphasize how detrimental hivemind whining is to a community and game) to stop whining "terran's OP, progamers switching to terran so terran is op, zerg sux, lost temple is a bad map" and start working together on ways we can fix it. iCCup itself and the iCCup mapmaking team have already produced eleven maps designed for competitive tournament play, but since these maps - along with the game - are brand new, most (if not all) of the features are very experimental. How will we ever learn if we don't experiment? How did Terrans ever figure out Mech was strong vs. Zerg? Experimenting. 1000 games played on every possible map in every matchup and THEN Terran is still at a significant advantage? Okay, I'll call that imbalance. Millions of games played on less than ten (i think) maps in every matchup and Terran is winning? I think it's time to change some things up and experiment with maps before we start adjusting the hell out of all of the units. That is after all how Brood War ended up being balanced. So there's my rant. Personally, the "sc2 is imba" bothers me more and more every day. Every minute wasted writing a generic "terran is OP" post about it is a minute someone could have been playing a custom map or trying to do some legitimate research for a solution. I urge everyone to check out the iCCup maps, as well as any other custom melee maps that exist out there. I'm sure if we delve deeper into it, we can find a solution without blizzard changing any of the numbers, or provide clear evidence that the game is fundamentally imbalanced. I haven't tried the ICCUP maps yet, but FS and Desti actually translate really well into SC2. | ||
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
| ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
In the meantime I disagree that the focus should be on changing the maps, especially because they hold so much balance/imbalance potential. Rather the game needs to be carefully examined and those "imbalances" need to be singled out which clearly don't depend on the current map set. In my eyes the main problem with TvZ lies with the Thor, since it somewhat ruins Mutas as an important midgame harass option for Zerg and provides too much air-protection for tanks, while being more than decent against ground. I think much could be won if its crazy anti-air range would be a researchable upgrade and maybe even the splash damage. All in all, I do agree with Blizzard's policy of not rushing to conclusions. Even though it is painful for Zerg at the moment, it will work out in the end. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
| ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
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. The bw pro scene has incredible longevity and it heavily heavily changed maps in order to balance win percentages. Nobody is saying its 100% about the maps, but maps are important. Once upon a time there were no naturals, can you believe that? Once upon a time there were island maps in bw, totally silly. Seriously something like every season new maps are made and pros test them out in the korean bw scene. They keep the good ones and throw out the bad ones. Foreigners usually use the same maps because they are proven to be good. There seems to be no system of map elimination in official ladder maps right now. At least they could be more experimental with a few bigger\more open\less gimmicky maps. Nothing lost. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
On August 18 2010 17:23 Jibba wrote: I agree with this, and I think it's really important that tournaments need to start going over to true competitive maps. People might be worried that players won't be ready for it because the ladder is only Blizzard maps, but I think it works the other way around. The ladder really doesn't matter for the best competitive players, and they'd probably switch if tournaments called for it. I haven't tried the ICCUP maps yet, but FS and Desti actually translate really well into SC2. i think this should be posted like 1000 times in a row in every imba thread. patching the races is like open heart surgery, first we should diagnose and check out all of the little things that can help. i think the game right now could be 99%balanced just by changing maps up. We should start a thread\group to test new, built-for-balance maps and comment on them. Is anyone interested? if we could get a few pros involved i could see this becoming very useful for map makers of the future and blizzard itself. im really sad that tl doesn't have a maps section for sc2. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
| ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
On August 18 2010 17:56 dogabutila wrote: Patching races might be open heart surgery. But a bandaid will not save you from cardiac failure. yeah you dont get it. the whole purpose of changing maps around would be to diagnose, you didnt get the analogy at all. if someones limping you dont go "ok, time to open them up!" | ||
| ||
