|
On August 18 2010 18:01 ShaperofDreams wrote:Show nested quote +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!"
No, you don't get it. It's quite obvious what the problem is. Why would you continue to diagnose somebody when you know what the issue(s) is/are?
"This guy needs a heart transplant!"
"No, he might just have a broken leg"
"Yea...he has a sudden chest pain, up his left arm, can't breathe well and is sweating..."
"No we have to keep checking, don't jump to a conclusion. It could be something else..."
Really?
|
Also another point of this thread is to HIGHLIGHT how whining about imba does the community and sc little good. Regardless of the current balance I'm pretty dam sure that whine spreads pretty fast and people continue to use it just because everyone else and some notable players may also believe it. Recently the group think "imba" argument has been appearing left and right before people are even beginning to think about what the specific problem really represents.
Everyone talks about how SC2 will mature and diversify with time, but that's not going to happen if everyone wants to run their one build and if that doesn't work out claim imba. Day9 recently mentioned a zerg build with no queen, Nony pioneered phoenix use back when it was a paper plane, and many other developments have occurred. Just try stuff out.
Personally I agree with the OP to an extent. The maps on the whole feel rather constricted as there feels like there's always an island or choke in the way of everything. This in itself lends a rather large helping hand to mech and hurts zerg's ability to wrap around and flank easily. A popular map I liked from BW, Python, for example is far more wide open than a vast majority of the current sc2 map pool and siegeing across that against a toss sure as hell was more fun and harder. Tanks were more spread out and at the same time goons got could get really nice concaves.
|
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.
Games aren't played in a vacuum. Race balance and map balance are one and the same because games have to be played on maps.
Is zerg overpowered against protoss in broodwar because protoss depends on the maps to be able to fast expand? Maybe all contemporary broodwar maps favor protoss over zerg because they have natural chokes that can be defended by forge fast expand builds.
If this is in fact the case, does it matter at all? Does it mean broodwar is imbalanced?
|
I think you're right on, OP. Maps definitely favor the Terran/Protoss fighting in chokes with range style. But I think there are other things as well, as how slow zerg units are without creep and the lack of scouting options early for zerg after walls.
|
Broodwar only was well balanced because of all the korean maps. They play probably the biggest role in balance strategies. And the actual maps are total crap for ZvT in sc2
|
The new maps do needs revisions to fix a few advantages that exist for certain units. Replacing Lost Temple with BW Python isn't gonna not make it a Terran favor map either. The new maps suffer from rng also which can end up positioning players next to each other which creates the short rush distances. Which in turn leads people to believe that the newer same tile set sized maps as bw for the most part are actually smaller than they really are. Any of us can revise these maps also to fix issues and let others test it. Community driven maps aren't a bad thing. Things get done faster than waiting on Blizzard to do anything every couple months or so.
|
I more than completely agree. Even though Bliz has obviously invested a lot time into making the current ladder map pool, many of the maps are imbalanced.
Of course this is completely understandable as a balanced map in bw is not necessarily the same for sc2.
I suppose us early-players must suffer until Bliz updates/eliminates the imbalanced maps.
|
On August 18 2010 18:35 Lysdexia wrote:Show nested quote +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. Games aren't played in a vacuum. Race balance and map balance are one and the same because games have to be played on maps. Is zerg overpowered against protoss in broodwar because protoss depends on the maps to be able to fast expand? Maybe all contemporary broodwar maps favor protoss over zerg because they have natural chokes that can be defended by forge fast expand builds. If this is in fact the case, does it matter at all? Does it mean broodwar is imbalanced?
Go back a page. I already addressed this. Map and race balance are not one and the same, although they both affect balance. The reason they are not one and the same are because they affect balance in separate ways.
I hate it when somebody hears something and just parrots it. Yes, maps play a part in balance. Yes race plays a part in balance. No they are not both the same thing. Racial balance constrains how one can balance the maps, and also how one can do balancing with the maps.
Again, map balancing can take away options from races, but it cannot GIVE them options (aside from making a counter to an option unviable/difficult).
|
I agree with OP.
The sc2-maps are too small, imbalancd and too gimmicky. Play TvZ on iccup-map like fighting spirit and it's totally different!
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 18 2010 16:10 dogabutila wrote:
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.
...
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.
Actually, the map balance of Brood War does exactly what you say that map balance cannot do--create new options and new openings (in the case of PvZ, the ability to forge-expand--and from it all the modern standard variations of it and their zerg responses).
|
I've only seen a quote from Blizzard saying they expect us to use new maps for tournaments but nothing about them being added to the ladder pool. Is Blizzard open to user maps being added?
If they are going to let us add new maps when are they going to do so? It'll suck if it involves waiting several months.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
My thoughts on the issue:
On August 18 2010 17:41 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 16:49 prodiG wrote:Maybe some sort of dedicated map balancing team should be formed, consisting of an even amount of top players. Also if smaller tournaments experimented using custom maps (like gosucoaching weekly- ok that's not small, but it's regular and relatively low key), this would give huge exposure to custom maps (all we really need is Trump to play on them XD).
Every week we run the iCCup Map series with three of the latest maps from myself, konicki and SUPEROUMAN. There are 4 showmatches from high-level players played on all three maps every tuesday and the event seems to be attracting more and more people every week, which is fantastic (last week we hit 2k, i missed this week for reasons that definitely contribute to my desire to rant tonight but are completely unrelated). The iCCup Map Series and iCCup using the custom maps in general is definitely a step in the right direction, but I'm worried that if we sit around on the Blizzard maps for too long, that standard will become too... standard and we could lose our chance at SC2 being the e-sport that it has the potential to be. iCCup using custom maps is completely the WRONG direction for the development of the game. You are just setting yourselves up for disasters once you use them in high level tournaments - as you've already experienced yourself with Huk recently. The reason being is that we don't even understand balance of the game on the maps that Blizzard are providing for us. If we don't have a grasp of how the games works properly then how can you design a map to be balanced? With the stigma that's already attached to the foreign mapping scene any damage you do to its credibility now may be irreversible. Incredibly careless of the iCCup team, but hey, that's somewhat to be expected since they've been pushing foreign maps so hard during SC1. You're not going to lose out on SC2 becoming an esport, it already is an esport. An with 3 years of expansions it's not just going to up and die like that. There is plenty of time for development and there are going to be dramatic changes in balance that happen with each patch and as the metagame evolves. Custom maps slow down this process, not speed it up. Indeed, if players have to work out how to play on too many maps then we aren't able to get the game balanced as quickly as we would like since they're spending time working out maps rather than working out matchups. Further, the first SC1 custom maps game about 2~ years after BW was released - there certainly is no rush here. If you rush things, you could possibly cause irreparable damage to the foreign map making community - but I hope that the damage is just limited to the iccup map team. On August 18 2010 20:54 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 17:50 rockon1215 wrote:On August 18 2010 17:41 Plexa wrote:On August 18 2010 16:49 prodiG wrote:Maybe some sort of dedicated map balancing team should be formed, consisting of an even amount of top players. Also if smaller tournaments experimented using custom maps (like gosucoaching weekly- ok that's not small, but it's regular and relatively low key), this would give huge exposure to custom maps (all we really need is Trump to play on them XD).
Every week we run the iCCup Map series with three of the latest maps from myself, konicki and SUPEROUMAN. There are 4 showmatches from high-level players played on all three maps every tuesday and the event seems to be attracting more and more people every week, which is fantastic (last week we hit 2k, i missed this week for reasons that definitely contribute to my desire to rant tonight but are completely unrelated). The iCCup Map Series and iCCup using the custom maps in general is definitely a step in the right direction, but I'm worried that if we sit around on the Blizzard maps for too long, that standard will become too... standard and we could lose our chance at SC2 being the e-sport that it has the potential to be. iCCup using custom maps is completely the WRONG direction for the development of the game. You are just setting yourselves up for disasters once you use them in high level tournaments - as you've already experienced yourself with Huk recently. The reason being is that we don't even understand balance of the game on the maps that Blizzard are providing for us. If we don't have a grasp of how the games works properly then how can you design a map to be balanced? With the stigma that's already attached to the foreign mapping scene any damage you do to its credibility now may be irreversible. Incredibly careless of the iCCup team, but hey, that's somewhat to be expected since they've been pushing foreign maps so hard during SC1. You're not going to lose out on SC2 becoming an esport, it already is an esport. An with 3 years of expansions it's not just going to up and die like that. There is plenty of time for development and there are going to be dramatic changes in balance that happen with each patch and as the metagame evolves. Custom maps slow down this process, not speed it up. Indeed, if players have to work out how to play on too many maps then we aren't able to get the game balanced as quickly as we would like since they're spending time working out maps rather than working out matchups. Further, the first SC1 custom maps game about 2~ years after BW was released - there certainly is no rush here. If you rush things, you could possibly cause irreparable damage to the foreign map making community - but I hope that the damage is just limited to the iccup map team. I disagree with the bold statement. I believe zerg was overnerfed, but I believe a large problem the largest problem with the balance comes with the maps. How can we examine racial balance if the maps skew the balance? If the maps are skewing the balance, why are custom maps going to change that? The mapset blizzard provided makes a lot of sense from a balance testing point of view. Each map is unique and has various features which make it distinct from the others in the pool. While some concepts are not working as well (e.g. Kulas, DO) they provide invaluable information as to how the races play out on an incredibly diverse set of maps. Yes, it sucks for the competitive scene in the short term - but in the long term is going to make for a better balanced game. You can't just spit out 16 different Lost Temple clones for 4 years and expect people to stay interested. The variety of maps that were possible in Broodwar was only because the races were so well balanced in general that many different map designs were possible. That's not to say we didn't have imbalanced maps, but we had a large set of balanced maps which were incredibly diverse. If you stop thinking about balance on maps like DO/Kulas etc then those map concepts will be forever lost and unbalanced since we never bothered to balance them in the first place. Custom maps will have a time in the competitive scene - but that time is definitely not now.
|
On August 18 2010 15:34 SwaY- wrote:
Words of wisdom, +100 internets. I've been trying to get this idea to my rl ex-wc3 gamer friends but they dont seem to get why maps would changed balance since that didnt exist almost at all in that community. But it's just because they never followed/played BW.
yeah this seems to be a pretty common thing. the newguys dont realize what a huge role maps play and how they can completly change the game in starcraft.
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.
the funny thing is that often kneejerk "balance" changes are the bandaid. when idra complains about 2gate pressure beeing a problem on some maps dont you think it would be smarter to change the maps instead of changing something about either race just to fix one issue till other maps are used ? not to mention that this affects all matchups of the changed race then. especially when the maps are widely considered bad to terrible.
maps create problems. if the maps are as terrible as the current ladder games it can alter the whole state of the game. if we throw weird "fixes" on the game just so it is better on shitty maps it can never evolve to the better on good maps. and if that happens sc2 will never grow to be the game we all wanted but will stay boring(compared to bw) one dimensional play where 2 guys just fight over who can allin/survive the allin better for years.
gtg now. will respond to plexas post when i come back :/
|
Imbalanced maps:
Blistering Sands because of the destructible rocks. It favours Protoss too heavily to be called a balanced map. Terrans and Zergs have problems fast expanding because those rocks leave them too vulnerable.
Scrap Station because of the ground unit travel distance between each base. It favours Zerg because it's much harder for drones to be harassed which is a necessity at top level. I don't know about Protoss but for Terran, Reapers and Hellions are too weak on SS and Banshees are easily countered with Queens and Spores because they're so predictable.
Desert Oasis because I've never met anyone who actually enjoys playing on this map. It should be deleted since the ground unit distance is even larger than on SS. Again favouring Zerg as it's harder to harass that expansion right at the back. Most games on this map end up being a base trade because if you move out of your base to push, you can't go back if you're attacked since it takes too long.
Just my opinion but these maps should be removed from the ladder map pool.
|
1. These are the same maps we had since day 1 but Terran weren't raping everyone until the balance of the game was changed.
2. Blizzard are going to be balancing the game towards their own maps, not custom ones. You can create these maps that are favourable to Zerg now but what happens when Blizzard buffs Zerg/nerfs Terran and suddenly it's on your maps that the game is imbalanced?
3. Blizzard won't allow 3rd party ladders so players will be stuck with Blizzard maps if they want to ladder. Maybe the pros can just stop laddering and stick to custom games but that leaves fans watching games on maps they've never played and probably never will play.
4. What are the odds of the Korean scene adopting custom maps created in the West? You'd just end up with different servers using different maps and cross-server matches would be a mess.
|
On August 18 2010 21:00 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 15:34 SwaY- wrote:
Words of wisdom, +100 internets. I've been trying to get this idea to my rl ex-wc3 gamer friends but they dont seem to get why maps would changed balance since that didnt exist almost at all in that community. But it's just because they never followed/played BW. yeah this seems to be a pretty common thing. the newguys dont realize what a huge role maps play and how they can completly change the game in starcraft. Show nested quote +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. the funny thing is that often kneejerk "balance" changes are the bandaid. when idra complains about 2gate pressure beeing a problem on some maps dont you think it would be smarter to change the maps instead of changing something about either race just to fix one issue till other maps are used ? not to mention that this affects all matchups of the changed race then. especially when the maps are widely considered bad to terrible. maps create problems. if the maps are as terrible as the current ladder games it can alter the whole state of the game. if we throw weird "fixes" on the game just so it is better on shitty maps it can never evolve to the better on good maps. and if that happens sc2 will never grow to be the game we all wanted but will stay boring(compared to bw) one dimensional play where 2 guys just fight over who can allin/survive the allin better for years. gtg now. will respond to plexas post when i come back :/
Anyone should notice the importance of maps and especially the size of them on the early game. Many Zerg players agree that they have problems early, but are fine mid- to late-game. So what are the problems? Reapers and Hellions and if these can only reach the Zerg base after enough time has passed to build defenses the Zerg should be fine. Currently they can not, because the Spine Crawler has a build time of 50 seconds - necessary to prevent Spine Crawler rushes in ZvZ - and that is really long.
Usually people whine about cliffs, destructible rocks and choke points when they talk about imbalanced maps, but I think these terrain features will be less of an issue if the map is big enough. Lets take Incineration Zone. Make twice as wide and twice as high while keeping the same proportions of choke points. You will have many more "canyons", but because of these you can bypass an enemy force advancing on you, to strike at his base at the back. Terrans and Protoss will take a lot longer to get back there and are forced to devote more resources to defense when faced with that threat. That would make the map MUCH more balanced, even though you might still be able to shell a mineral line across a ridge.
|
I've been saying this for a while now! Maps focus down too much to open areas and narrow chokes at the entrance of each base... there aren't really any critical strategic positions in the current maps that yield any benefit to the player.
Think of blistering sands. What benefit do you gain from holidng mid? Why would you even TRY to hold mid? There are two Xel'Naga watch towers that can completely scout you, not to mention being in mid is low ground which puts you at a disadvantage. And what purpose is there really from going mid to, say, going top or bottom to get to your opponent's base? None, really: the rush distance is all the same.
I will say, Xel'Naga caverns looks like a map that is headed in the right direction, but even then I have to say the huge open area in the middle (leading to a short rush distance) tends to pressure the player too much into thinking: "attak through here, attack through here!"
|
maps certainly play a role, but right now, people can not even agree on what features favor wich Race.
narrow chokes favor terran? certainly.. so we remove them, but now you not only removed a terran favorite, but also made it harder for protoss to use forcefield.
Cliffs? who gets more benefits from Cliffs? Protoss or Terran?
in-accessiable terrain behind the Mineral lines, who benefits more from that? or wich race suffers the most from that?
i honestly believe that in order to fix the currently balance and gameplay issues simply by changing the mappool, you would have to make diffrent pools for all 9 matchups, wich in turn will often not work at all in a diffrent matchup.
*edit*
btw
BeMannerDuPenner, your nickname makes me laught everytime i read it. :D
|
I think it's also worth mentioning the number of mineral patches per base. The amount of mineral patches right now hurts zerg GREATLY. Zerg usually has to stay a base ahead but to saturate a base to make it worth taking you need around 26 drones. Once you get up to 3 bases of full saturation thats 78 of your food being used up on drones leaving you with a significantly smaller army than your opponent usually. If the number of mineral patches was reduced to something like 4 or 5 (but keeping the total amount of minerals) it would actually encourage zerg expansion because you would only need something like 18 drones instead (6 of which being gas). That brings up another point that from bw to sc2 the number of geysers and consequently the number of workers needed to fully saturate them has gone up as well. This also hurts the zerg but I'm not sure about a solution to this one unless you can somehow edit how much gas you get per trip and remove one geyser per base.
|
Honestly, my dream is for the game to be so balanced that you could play on any conceivable map and all races would have a close to 50% difference. You could play on Desert Oasis, Metalapolis, and a conceivable map with zero chokes or high ground.
That being said, OBVIOUSLY the races can't just do the same exact opening and builds on every map and ignore the fact that its not Lost Temple. Some maps just straight up will not allow 14 pool 15 hatch... others, conceivably, might allow you to get away with 15 hatch 14 pool.
I'm still amazed by how almost Zero Terrans build a bunker when they wall in at Kulas. Thanks for ignoring the map you're on and letting me kill one of your buildings, or force you to lift it and attack me! Or how people dont expect a higher chance of air attacks on DO.
So far, I think the stock maps are pretty good and seem to be going for what i consider to be the ideal design.
Every map-based QQ I see is a disguised "Terran is OP" or "Terran is not ridiculous the maps are!" post.
Edit: Just read what Plexa said instead of my post 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
