EPTThe true balance problem - the maps - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Jameser
Sweden951 Posts
| ||
|
hydezyne
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
MrBarryObama
Korea (South)141 Posts
On August 26 2010 21:41 floor exercise wrote: The game was pretty decently balanced during the days of Lost Temple. Maps perfected it over years and tens of thousands of games. I believe the game needs to be working on a fundamental level before we fine tune it with maps Case and point... over 100 maps by blizzard and only one was deemed playable (barring that 2 player twilight map that was played when BW was released... forgot the name). After that, every map was just a copy of LT (must have natural or else zerg get rofl'd, big open middle area or terran rofl, include ramp/choke to main or else lings and zealots roflrofl, include gas at main AND natural, 7 to 8 mineral patches on each, have mineral-only expansion in middle, etc). | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
The Game plays totally different and it's much more balanced. Besides, it's more interesting cuz it's more Macro-oriented and not just 1-base-play, so it will show the true skill of some players, which means that ppl can't just reach 1000+ Points on Diamond by all-inning and cheesing in all the games they play. | ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
| ||
|
Toxiferous
United States388 Posts
On August 18 2010 11:53 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: maps change evrything in starcraft. its widely accepted that the only remaining imbalance in bw was map imbalance. Key word: remaining It is naive to say the game is absolutely balanced this early in it's life while it may not be as bad as some say and maps will make quite the difference, the game is going to undoubtedly get balance patches in the future | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
The biggest problems I have with them are these: -backdoors into main being race-imbalanced (Zerg really has issues with them) -ledges above bases (so so so abusable for terran, but also protoss with blink stalkers/colossi) -open naturals (really hurt zerg, who needs crawlers to defend the FE vs some plays, such as hellions, 4 gate, mara/hellion, etc) -distances from main to natural (everyone knows that xelnaga is impossible for zergs because they can't stop hellion runbys due to this.) -air rush distances smaller than ground (TvP, makes voidrays really really strong, early terran aggression is very limited and risky. Zerg actually benefits with mutas though.) -small rush distance (makes 2 gate PvZ insane) Most of these negatively impact zerg. This is part of the reason why people can't really accurately determine the balance of zerg right now. Is ZvP broken on some maps? Absolutely. Is ZvT broken on some maps? Definitely. Is ZvT broken on all maps? Harder to answer. Without good statistics and high level games on balanced maps we can't accurately determine whether there exists a true game imbalance. That's why I don't like to ladder. I can win 90% of my games TvZ just by map abuse. Half of the games I lose are to map abuse (maybe more if you count when I ladder as zerg and get any map other than metal.) So I just play Iccup maps in CGs. I strongly suggest everyone do the same. They're fun maps, and they give better games. They'll help you understand more about the game in a general sense as compared to how to win on every map by being abusive. I hope Blizzard gets the message and just adopts Iccup maps into its map pool. However, they seem to really like 1 base allin cheese play, so I doubt we'll ever see that. Cmon Iccup 2... | ||
|
cocosoft
Sweden1068 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32075 Posts
It's also the people too. There are soooooo many idiots who go for pure macro builds (FE, late gates followed by core, etc) on 2p maps and wonder why they lose. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On August 26 2010 22:49 Toxiferous wrote: Key word: remaining It is naive to say the game is absolutely balanced this early in it's life while it may not be as bad as some say and maps will make quite the difference, the game is going to undoubtedly get balance patches in the future Battles between equal forces can go either way in all matchups according to the units you built and the micro you apply. So the matchups are balanced and the only real [perceived] imbalance comes from the speed with which the races can put pressure on their opponents. We have seen a lot of fiddling around with Protoss Warp Gates in the beginning of the beta, but for Terran vs. Zerg it isnt that easy. Reapers are already slow to build at 40 seconds and they are pretty weak if the Zerg can hit them, so increasing their build time doesnt really make sense. The only real option is to increase the size of the maps so that Reapers arrive a little bit later to give Zerg a few extra seconds to prepare [Spine Crawlers take an age to build]. With a proxy Pylon you can warp in wherever you want to, so the "solution" for Protoss had to be fiddling around with Warp Gate tech. For Terrans it can simply mean: make them walk longer, which is not only important for the early game, but also for the rest of the game as well as shown below. The size of maps is important for another TvP "problem" and that comes up later in the game. Zerg are supposed to be more maneuverable and have a speed advantage over supposedly immobile Terrans, but that doesnt matter if you are fighting on a map where the bases are withing rock throwing distance of each other and where you cant really outflank the enemy by making use of your maneuverability. Personally I would love to see people think about their implications and suggestions more and apply more "What happens next machine" knowledge from Sesame Street ... | ||
|
latan
740 Posts
| ||
|
Kilby
Finland1069 Posts
Of course it is important that the maps play a role in the gameplay and you should need to take into account the map you're playing on, but I also feel that it should be the players who make and dictate the game, not the maps. The map should be in the background, sort of as the "canvas" that the players paint on. I think currently the maps play a bit too big a role in how the game flows. | ||
|
blizzind
United States642 Posts
| ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
| ||
|
Furycrab
Canada456 Posts
Maps will never be perfectly balanced, however a player who always just plays builds based on map features will eventually become predictable and easier to beat. Will say this though: Thor drop against top right FE is silly, they need to increase the distance to that cliff by 1 so the thor can't just destroy the expo from the cliff  . | ||
|
GhostFall
United States830 Posts
I mean take a completely symmetrical map. Add in a main and a natural for each side. That map, should be considered 100% balanced. Do not consider the races, do not even consider the game of starcraft, just looking at a perfectly symmetrical world, you should take one look at it and say, that is balanced. How could you say it is not? Then add the races, add the differences between them all, and they should be balanced in this symmetrical map. If there are any inbalances in the matchups, it is not due to the map, IT IS DUE to the race. | ||
|
Augury
United States758 Posts
IMO almost all of the maps are way too small, which really hurts Zerg a lot. It's also a large reason why we see so much early aggression, it's just so strong right now because the map distances are so small. Also the cliffs/terrain really allow Terran to shine. If some of the chokes/key points were more open we would see a lot better play too. Right now on half the maps I can hold a choke with siege tanks while giving them incredible range and defending them with a huge wall that's built into the map. I really think you hit it right on with Metalopolis, which makes sense because 90% of my favorite games happened on that map. Edit: The largest issue is that Blizzard controls the map pool for ladder which also somewhat forces tournaments to use that map pool. It's the exact same thing that happened in Wc3. | ||
|
wiesel
Germany727 Posts
On August 27 2010 05:07 GhostFall wrote: I mean take a completely symmetrical map. Add in a main and a natural for each side. That map, should be considered 100% balanced. Do not consider the races, do not even consider the game of starcraft, just looking at a perfectly symmetrical world, you should take one look at it and say, that is balanced. How could you say it is not? Cause symmetrical isn't = balanced? What makes you think that Only if you play mirror all the time it's balanced. Edit: The largest issue is that Blizzard controls the map pool for ladder which also somewhat forces tournaments to use that map pool. It's the exact same thing that happened in Wc3. Thats what i hate most about sc2. Im don't want to play the same maps for months and months in ladder. | ||
|
Dystisis
Norway713 Posts
On August 27 2010 05:07 GhostFall wrote: There is something inherently wrong about balancing the game using maps. It is fundamentally better to balance the races first. I mean take a completely symmetrical map. Add in a main and a natural for each side. That map, should be considered 100% balanced. Do not consider the races, do not even consider the game of starcraft, just looking at a perfectly symmetrical world, you should take one look at it and say, that is balanced. How could you say it is not? Then add the races, add the differences between them all, and they should be balanced in this symmetrical map. If there are any inbalances in the matchups, it is not due to the map, IT IS DUE to the race. You have misunderstood. The races are supposed to play differently depending on the map. In your example, where there is a symmetrical map with just a main and a natural, f.ex. zerg would be underpowered. Why? Because there is no easily taken third. There would also be issues concerning the size of the map, and the distance to the other bases. So, that a map is symmetrical actually says very little in terms of balance (even though it can be seen as a general prerequisite). The races aren't alike. You can say that there is "something wrong" about balancing using the game maps, but the point is this: The game's balance depends on the maps whether you agree or not. | ||
|
Iggyhopper
United States259 Posts
No cliffs, or a raised cliff perimeter (2) with allowance for cliff chokes for reapers to be useful. | ||
| ||
