• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 05:36
CEST 11:36
KST 18:36
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall9HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL62Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?13FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event21Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster16Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1
StarCraft 2
General
Statistics for vetoed/disliked maps Program: SC2 / XSplit / OBS Scene Switcher The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? PiG Sty Festival #5: Playoffs Preview + Groups Recap
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Korean Starcraft League Week 77 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL Player “Jedi” cheat on CSL Practice Partners (Official) ASL20 Preliminary Maps SC uni coach streams logging into betting site
Tourneys
[BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Trading/Investing Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Blogs
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 695 users

The true balance problem - the maps

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Normal
BeMannerDuPenner
Profile Blog Joined April 2004
Germany5638 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:26:23
August 18 2010 02:53 GMT
#1
firstoff im a ~600+ diamond random player(only played ~100 ladder games so far) and played/followed bw for years. while im not great i think i understand the game pretty well.


I dont say maps solve evrything. i dont say the game is perfectly balanced in anyway.



With all the huge balance threads and the masses of raging guys that will tell you how pretty much evrything is super OP/UP/unfair i think the biggest issue totally gets ignored. i keep saying it almost evry balance thread i post in and i opened a thread about it somewhere in phase 1.

the biggest and most influential issue sc2 has right now are the maps.


maps change evrything in starcraft. its widely accepted that the only remaining imbalance in bw was map imbalance.

for the new guys,it becomes very obvious when we look at maps like blood bath + Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
, gorky park + Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
or python + Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
how both gameplay and balance change entirely depending on the map.

even slight adjustment can be the difference between a crappy map and a decent one ( blizzards lost temple and the later iterations)





now if we look at the fairly balanced to balanced maps that were/are used in the pro leagues/on icc and at the maps blizzard gave us for sc2 there is a huge difference.

blizzard focused on small maps, on gimmicks and abusable terrain. while the pro maps focus on big maps with none or small gimmicks(and only cause only standart would be boring) and terrain that is important from a strategic point of view and not the "oh cliffs evrywhere. guess ill abuse that with tanks/colloxen!" way.
there is a reason why metalopolis is considered the best map, it is kinda big, has many "normal" expos (not blocked,nonisland) and has no weird gimmicks or terrain. it is the most similar to what we had in bw. its the most balanced map and produces the "biggest" games.



this also is the reason why we see so many games that end up in cheesy/allin play. games that end after one fight. games where mass+ 1a wins the game. pretty much the majority of the complains we have/had with sc2 in the early beta are largely related to the maps blizzard provided us with.

but thats not the point of this thread.


cause more important right now is that most balance talk is going in the wrong direction


i dont think anyone can disagree that maps are one of the biggest reasons for Zs early game problems. with maps like kulas,blistering or the caverns its no wonder that Z is having problems. other way round Terran is the race which has the smallest problems adapting cause of the nature of the race. the safe early game, the defensive power and units that are happy about cliffs and narrow spaces.

but instead of complaining about the maps like we did in broodwar (lol@the old wcg maps) people come up with absolutely ridiculous claims how evrything is OP/UP and needs to be changed.fact is the game is in a very great shape balance wise. sure far from perfect but also far from how bad all the QQ makes it out to be. the maps tho are terrible all around and almost evryone agrees on that.





also the other problem:

if blizzard balances the game for the maps we have now we will never have balance on "good" maps that produce good/bw like matches.if we want the game to be more like broodwar the maps should be the target

when balance is achieved for those small gimmicky maps we wont be able to just transfer on "real" maps cause we will again have balance issues . and i doubt we want to play "which allin is the strongest" for years instead of epic macro and strategy battles we know and love from bw.



kinda forgot what i wanted to add. its 5am here and beer doesnt help typing . might edit it in but my basic points are made.


tl,dr:

1. maps are the root of most "balance problems" right now
2. if people keep complaining about "stupid stuff" they work against the good of the game
3. if the game gets balanced for the current set of maps we turn away more and more from bw the best and most entertaining rts ever made




/edited so balance crusaders dont feel offended.
life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
Qzy
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Denmark1121 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:21:24
August 18 2010 02:59 GMT
#2
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
TG Sambo... Intel classic! Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
iamJason
Profile Joined June 2010
Australia25 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:10:06
August 18 2010 03:05 GMT
#3
I think it's a widely accepted fact that the current ladder maps are not tournament quality, and it's hard to gauge where the balance is at with the current map pool. That's not to say that Zerg doesn't need to be looked at as well, however, but let's look more at solving the problem of maps first...

So the community makes better, more balanced, more fun maps and everyone plays them, just like SC. Easy. Problem solved, right? Nope. There's another problem: Blizzard have made it incredibly difficult for new, community melee maps to hit the mainstream and become standard.

Blizzard need to take community maps, preferably frequently -- like weekly, and implement them into the ladder map pool. They should also consider redesigning the map preference option so that we never, ever have to play on shitty maps, and can more frequently and reliably play on the maps we like to play on and need to practice on.
Al Bundy
Profile Joined April 2010
7257 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:05:55
August 18 2010 03:05 GMT
#4
Sure maps are a big part of ZvT balance issues ... Did you really have to make a new thread in order to state the obvious? I mean there are already dozens of threads talking about balance.
o choro é livre
Redmark
Profile Joined March 2010
Canada2129 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:09:04
August 18 2010 03:05 GMT
#5
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

User was warned for this post
Ballistixz
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:08:27
August 18 2010 03:06 GMT
#6
map is an issue and important. but ur still wrong. the balance issues go deeper then the maps. all of the maps arnt even that bad seeing as how ZvP, ZvZ, PvP are perfectly fine on all of the current maps. yet when ever TvP or TvZ enters the fray everything gets stupid. yet TvT is fine aswell. and u rly think its a map issue? it goes much deeper then just the maps.


so to put it bluntly and shortly, the maps are only ONE part of the issue out of many. the maps are not the ultimate and main factor in it.
Dyllyn
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
Singapore670 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:08:23
August 18 2010 03:06 GMT
#7
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.

edit: normally i wouldn't disagree so vehemently but you really need to acknowledge the general feeling that Z is UP. Completely dismissing others isn't the way to make people agree with you

User was warned for this post
scv rush ftw
BeMannerDuPenner
Profile Blog Joined April 2004
Germany5638 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:13:53
August 18 2010 03:09 GMT
#8
On August 18 2010 12:06 GenericTerranPlayer wrote:
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.



i never said that in any way. dont put words in my mouth. i just think that the biggest issue by far are the maps that hugely affect balance and gamestyles in a negative way.

if you think the maps are good fine. if you think the game is so broken fine. but dont try to turn my post into something it isnt.

and btw, im one of those diamond randoms you speak of. also i said that the game is still far away from balance.


Sure maps are a big part of ZvT balance issues ... Did you really have to make a new thread in order to state the obvious? I mean there are already dozens of threads talking about balance.


im not talking about balance in the way all those others threads are doing it. and i dont want to.
life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
Redmark
Profile Joined March 2010
Canada2129 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:14:31
August 18 2010 03:10 GMT
#9
On August 18 2010 12:06 GenericTerranPlayer wrote:
edit: normally i wouldn't disagree so vehemently but you really need to acknowledge the general feeling that Z is UP. Completely dismissing others isn't the way to make people agree with you

He literally didn't say anything about whether or not Zerg was underpowered.

map is an issue and important. but ur still wrong. the balance issues go deeper then the maps. all of the maps arnt even that bad seeing as how ZvP, ZvZ, PvP are perfectly fine on all of the current maps. yet when ever TvP or TvZ enters the fray everything gets stupid. yet TvT is fine aswell. and u rly think its a map issue? it goes much deeper then just the maps.

Why do you think so? You're putting unit strengths and race mechanics on a higher pedestal than map design without any real reason for it. They are all parts of the overall balance, and changing any part will change the balance. If it's only stupid with TvP and TvZ, then the map is Terran-favored. It doesn't matter whether it's 'actually the map' or 'actually the game', change the maps and things will balance out. The reason maps are what we should focus on are that 1) if you screw it up all you need is a new map and 2) we don't need Blizzard (as much).
Ballistixz
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
August 18 2010 03:13 GMT
#10
On August 18 2010 12:05 Redmark 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!

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.

Show nested quote +
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.

Show nested quote +
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.
Jugan
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States1566 Posts
August 18 2010 03:14 GMT
#11
I think his argument is more that the races don't need to be changed, more that the maps need to be... As I see some people in this thread saying the opposite. I agree with the assessment that the maps DO indeed need to be changed... There are a lot of "gimmicks" regarding most of the maps on the ladder (excluding the gold mineral gimmick). I really REALLY hate the backdoor rocks on blistering sands... I know Neo Medusa wasn't the most balanced map ever, but at least they had like 12 temples blocking the backdoor @_@
Even a Savior couldn't fix all problems. www.twitch.tv/xJugan
peachsncream
Profile Joined April 2010
United States289 Posts
August 18 2010 03:15 GMT
#12
You guys need to stop using your point rating as credibility. Almost everybody who says their rating as a point of credibility is basically saying they are not very good, but that aside alot of the maps do give terran a huge advantage. like the choke points and cliffs on maps like lost temple... and reapers on kulas..... Not to mention these rush distances. If zerg mis calculates when the other guy is going to push out and they do a wave of drones and they move out, it's over no matter who the zerg is. Not to mention half the maps have towers in perfect spot for tanks to just chill and they dont even need to 1 a to win they just need to stare at the screen
I Micro I Micro - PLZLEAVEDUCK
BeMannerDuPenner
Profile Blog Joined April 2004
Germany5638 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:21:13
August 18 2010 03:19 GMT
#13
On August 18 2010 12:13 Ballistixz wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
Qzy
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Denmark1121 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:35:02
August 18 2010 03:21 GMT
#14
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?

No i didn't bring an argument or replay to support my claim... If he asked for it, I would bring it?

You are chasing people away from TL.net with that kind of warnings.

User was warned for this post

Edit: This post was also warned, cos I question my warning - I'll stop posting. Gl hf. My edit accidently removed the red warning text.
TG Sambo... Intel classic! Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
Al Bundy
Profile Joined April 2010
7257 Posts
August 18 2010 03:21 GMT
#15
On August 18 2010 12:09 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:


im not talking about balance in the way all those others threads are doing it. and i dont want to.


Well I think these are all part of the bigger picture so in my humble opinion matchup balance and map balance are inseparable. I think that even a better map pool would not resolve all the issues.
o choro é livre
BeMannerDuPenner
Profile Blog Joined April 2004
Germany5638 Posts
August 18 2010 03:24 GMT
#16
On August 18 2010 12:21 AlBundy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 18 2010 12:09 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:


im not talking about balance in the way all those others threads are doing it. and i dont want to.


Well I think these are all part of the bigger picture so in my humble opinion matchup balance and map balance are inseparable. I think that even a better map pool would not resolve all the issues.


fully agree. i never said maps solve evrything. i also said the game is far from balanced outside of the maps.

still the biggest and most obvious issue are the maps which doesnt get enough attention.



life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:26:03
August 18 2010 03:25 GMT
#17
On August 18 2010 12:13 Ballistixz wrote:
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.

You can't disentangle map balance and racial balance from each other like that. They are one and the same.

If they weren't then you could say that SC1 is imbalanced against P--because the current balance in PvZ is centered around the ability of Protoss to forge-expand, and the "default" maps for SC1 don't all allow that.

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?

You come in just to say "no, you're wrong" without any reasoning as to why. You're not contributing anything to the discussion.
Moderator
happyness
Profile Joined June 2010
United States2400 Posts
August 18 2010 03:25 GMT
#18
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.
Ftrunkz
Profile Blog Joined April 2007
Australia2474 Posts
August 18 2010 03:26 GMT
#19
I completely agree and have been saying this since beta phase 2 =[.

literally almost every problem the masses are complaining about can be fixed by maps. have larger traveling distances and more wide-open maps would help zerg drastically in ZvT, giving them more time to react to 1-base T shenanigans and helping them out late game drastically, as well as helping protoss a little in PvT, and helping zerg in ZvP.

I really hope blizz just rotates the entire map pool really soon =[.
@NvPinder on twitter | Member of Gamecom Nv | http://www.clan-ta.com | http://www.youtube.com/user/ftrunkz | http://www.twitchtv.com/xghpinder
Al Bundy
Profile Joined April 2010
7257 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:26:55
August 18 2010 03:26 GMT
#20
On August 18 2010 12:24 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:

[...] are the maps which doesnt get enough attention.




This seems true indeed.
o choro é livre
Manifesto7
Profile Blog Joined November 2002
Osaka27140 Posts
August 18 2010 03:26 GMT
#21
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.
ModeratorGodfather
miklotov
Profile Joined March 2010
United States62 Posts
August 18 2010 03:26 GMT
#22
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.
Ballistixz
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
August 18 2010 03:26 GMT
#23
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...
BeMannerDuPenner
Profile Blog Joined April 2004
Germany5638 Posts
August 18 2010 03:28 GMT
#24
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.
life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
August 18 2010 03:31 GMT
#25
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.
Moderator
Sealteam
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Australia296 Posts
August 18 2010 03:34 GMT
#26
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.
Ighox
Profile Joined July 2009
Norway580 Posts
August 18 2010 03:35 GMT
#27
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.
Ballistixz
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:40:55
August 18 2010 03:36 GMT
#28
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.
Madkipz
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Norway1643 Posts
August 18 2010 03:40 GMT
#29


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."
"Mudkip"
ghettohobbit2
Profile Joined April 2010
United States93 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:42:05
August 18 2010 03:41 GMT
#30
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.
?
hehe
Profile Joined April 2009
United States132 Posts
August 18 2010 03:41 GMT
#31
yep this is 114% true sc2 in ladder right now is like just as bad as playing maps like challenger. the maps are terrible
Pyrrhuloxia
Profile Blog Joined May 2008
United States6700 Posts
August 18 2010 03:41 GMT
#32
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.
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:43:00
August 18 2010 03:41 GMT
#33
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.
Moderator
Ballistixz
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
August 18 2010 03:42 GMT
#34
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 =/
Pyrrhuloxia
Profile Blog Joined May 2008
United States6700 Posts
August 18 2010 03:44 GMT
#35
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.
Ballistixz
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 03:55:31
August 18 2010 03:49 GMT
#36
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.
Necrosjef
Profile Joined March 2010
United Kingdom530 Posts
August 18 2010 03:50 GMT
#37
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.
Europe Server Diamond Player: ID=Necrosjef Code=957
Ighox
Profile Joined July 2009
Norway580 Posts
August 18 2010 03:54 GMT
#38
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
andeh
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
United States904 Posts
August 18 2010 03:54 GMT
#39
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.
Ballistixz
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 04:15:01
August 18 2010 04:09 GMT
#40
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.
Kigari
Profile Joined August 2010
Bahrain134 Posts
August 18 2010 04:12 GMT
#41
Now blaming maps and the entire physics of the game for imbalance ?

My god are you people for real ?
Wr3k
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada2533 Posts
August 18 2010 04:14 GMT
#42
I agree with you OP. I'm just glad we now have maps like xel'naga (a big step in the right direction imo).
Psiclone
Profile Joined May 2010
United States23 Posts
August 18 2010 04:17 GMT
#43
Completely agree with OP. The problem with the current maps is that they are full of cliffs and chokepoints which heavily favor the Terran and Protoss.

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
Profile Joined February 2010
465 Posts
August 18 2010 04:18 GMT
#44
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 :[
What is a dickfour?
Ryuu314
Profile Joined October 2009
United States12679 Posts
August 18 2010 04:20 GMT
#45
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
Profile Joined May 2010
United States23 Posts
August 18 2010 04:21 GMT
#46
On August 18 2010 13:18 Gedrah wrote:
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 :[
Put up a supply depot by them to detect lings and then move in a few marines to shoot over them.
kingcomrade
Profile Joined August 2007
United States115 Posts
August 18 2010 04:22 GMT
#47
Maps are not that big of a deal compared to Zerg macro and unit power issues.
N/A
ghettohobbit2
Profile Joined April 2010
United States93 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 04:31:51
August 18 2010 04:26 GMT
#48
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
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 04:32:58
August 18 2010 04:26 GMT
#49
On August 18 2010 13:20 Ryuu314 wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.



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:
Show nested quote +
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 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
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Norway1643 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 04:33:25
August 18 2010 04:27 GMT
#50
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

"Mudkip"
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 04:37:00
August 18 2010 04:28 GMT
#51
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.
Moderator
Lord_of_Chaos
Profile Joined June 2007
Sweden372 Posts
August 18 2010 04:29 GMT
#52
I've been saying from the start that they maps are bad. They are clearly Terran favoured with small paths, chokes and small distances, while zerg want the opposite.

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
Profile Joined September 2006
Australia1933 Posts
August 18 2010 04:31 GMT
#53
I know that maps are a major influence on balance, but setting the goal to balance each class to be balanced on a variety of terrain types should also be taken into consideration. If the balance in based purely or mostly on maps then the diversity of maps available in the future will be effected. Continuing to attempt to balance the races as well to allow equality on a larger pool of terrain types should also be a goal.
"Poor guy. I really did not deserve that win. So this is what it's like to play Protoss..." - IdrA
Sixes
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada1123 Posts
August 18 2010 04:31 GMT
#54
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
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 04:46:21
August 18 2010 04:41 GMT
#55
On August 18 2010 13:28 TheYango wrote:
Show nested quote +
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?



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
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States822 Posts
August 18 2010 04:42 GMT
#56
I agree, maps were also one of the main things that changed balance in BW. Correct me if I'm wrong since I didn't start following BW til two years ago, but maps like Destination and Heartbreak Ridge are the main reason that PvZ had such a giant switch in balance, where Zergs began to dominate Protoss due to easy to contain naturals, very strong muta harass areas, more easily defensible expos and a bunch of other factors.

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.
ted cruz is the zodiac killer
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
August 18 2010 04:44 GMT
#57
On August 18 2010 13:41 Ballistixz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 18 2010 13:28 TheYango wrote:
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?



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.
Moderator
Ryuu314
Profile Joined October 2009
United States12679 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 04:48:15
August 18 2010 04:47 GMT
#58
On August 18 2010 13:26 Ballistixz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 18 2010 13:20 Ryuu314 wrote:
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.



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
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 04:51:15
August 18 2010 04:50 GMT
#59
On August 18 2010 13:44 TheYango wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 18 2010 13:41 Ballistixz wrote:
On August 18 2010 13:28 TheYango wrote:
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?



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.



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
Profile Joined February 2009
New Zealand1543 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 04:57:24
August 18 2010 04:54 GMT
#60
lmao, i've been complaining that maps are too zerg favoured since beta. open naturals and spaces...what more could a zerg want? The maps are actually pretty good for zerg yet they are clearly the weakest race even with these brilliant maps for them..(by representation of top 200)
hi
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 05:02:30
August 18 2010 05:01 GMT
#61
On August 18 2010 13:50 Ballistixz wrote:
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?

Yes.

Maps do 2 things that balance patches can't:

1) They can change quickly, when Blizzard has to test and evaluate much more strongly for a balance patch because the changes are hard to revert. A bad map can just be removed from the map pool. Undoing a balance change in a patch invariably causes a shitstorm (read the beta responses to the removal of Frenzy/reversion of Infested Terran).
2) They can continue to work even after Blizzard has abandoned support for the game.

The first is relevant now, because Blizzard's balance patch is still in the works. The second one will be necessary if SC2 is to survive as an e-sport.
Moderator
emperorchampion
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada9496 Posts
August 18 2010 05:05 GMT
#62
On August 18 2010 13:50 Ballistixz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 18 2010 13:44 TheYango wrote:
On August 18 2010 13:41 Ballistixz wrote:
On August 18 2010 13:28 TheYango wrote:
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?



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.



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?


I completely agree with this. I think the problem is that there is no good way at the moment to get a lot of testing for maps.

WHY DID YOU MAKE SUCH A RETARDED CUSTOM MAP SYSTEM BLIZZARD!?!
TRUEESPORTS || your days as a respected member of team liquid are over
ArvickHero
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
10387 Posts
August 18 2010 05:06 GMT
#63
Like I've said before, tournaments should start pushing their own maps or maps from the community into play, and force them into play by doing a fixed map order. This is the only way we're going to get to know what works and what doesn't work in terms of map design.. please let it not be like WC3 where map pool stagnates for multiple years.
Writerptrk
ZomgTossRush
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States1041 Posts
August 18 2010 05:07 GMT
#64
Pretty good points, but in the end no map is perfectly balanced, let's not forget that.
Coaching for 1v1 and Team games at Gosucoaching.com
emperorchampion
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada9496 Posts
August 18 2010 05:08 GMT
#65
On August 18 2010 14:06 ArvickHero wrote:
Like I've said before, tournaments should start pushing their own maps or maps from the community into play, and force them into play by doing a fixed map order. This is the only way we're going to get to know what works and what doesn't work in terms of map design.. please let it not be like WC3 where map pool stagnates for multiple years.


This is why the iccup map tournament is so good, we need more of this type of tournament.
TRUEESPORTS || your days as a respected member of team liquid are over
ArvickHero
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
10387 Posts
August 18 2010 05:14 GMT
#66
On August 18 2010 14:07 zomgtossrush wrote:
Pretty good points, but in the end no map is perfectly balanced, let's not forget that.

so, lets keep making new maps with new concepts and variations on the ones already known, and have these played extensively so that map makers have good data to work with, and we can get damn close to that perfectly balanced map.

The perfect setting to do so is in a tournament, where something is actually on the line to make people care enough to practice the maps and abuse it.
Writerptrk
Ballistixz
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1269 Posts
August 18 2010 05:19 GMT
#67
On August 18 2010 14:01 TheYango wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 18 2010 13:50 Ballistixz wrote:
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?

Yes.

Maps do 2 things that balance patches can't:

1) They can change quickly, when Blizzard has to test and evaluate much more strongly for a balance patch because the changes are hard to revert. A bad map can just be removed from the map pool. Undoing a balance change in a patch invariably causes a shitstorm (read the beta responses to the removal of Frenzy/reversion of Infested Terran).
2) They can continue to work even after Blizzard has abandoned support for the game.

The first is relevant now, because Blizzard's balance patch is still in the works. The second one will be necessary if SC2 is to survive as an e-sport.


ok then, i agree with in that regard.
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
August 18 2010 05:19 GMT
#68
On August 18 2010 14:14 ArvickHero wrote:
The perfect setting to do so is in a tournament, where something is actually on the line to make people care enough to practice the maps and abuse it.

It's unfortunate--I think the best tournament style to actually test a map is in Proleague. First, you get balance ideas not just based on results, but also on race selections. Second, maps don't become overly disruptive to the tournament--they're relevant enough for people to practice and abuse the maps, but not enough that they might overly skew the end results.
Moderator
howerpower
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States619 Posts
August 18 2010 05:25 GMT
#69
I hope that blizzard will start filtering out unbalanced maps and adding new ones to the ladder.

P.S. I love the admins on T.L, they really keep this community clean.
Maelkyral
Profile Joined June 2010
United States22 Posts
August 18 2010 05:45 GMT
#70
The question is whether Blizzard is willing to significantly change the map pool in order to examine balance. I remember that during one of the dev chats in beta someone brought up the question of balance through map pool changes like it was done by the community in BW. Dustin Browder responded that he felt the community had to resort to such measures because they could not change the core game and that for SC2 Blizzard would rather patch the game itself on the current map pool instead of changing the maps to create balance.

So far, all the major tournaments seem to be sticking to the Blizzard ladder maps, and if GOM TV decides to continue that for their 2011 league then the game will have to be balanced on these maps, however bad they may be.
Kexx
Profile Joined May 2010
Germany240 Posts
August 18 2010 05:52 GMT
#71
I completely agree, the official laddermaps are made for quick and fast games that don't go past 20 minutes.
It caters more to your average casual gamer who wants quick fun and which is the big majority.
I can understand that from a business point but it also does make sense, the tournament scene shouldn't ladder anyway that much, they should practices with partners and stuff, so I think it's okay that the ladder consists of faster smaller maps.

I do hope that the tournaments will all start using new custom made maps especially made for competitive gaming.

Maybe, if blizzard ever adds the proleague division, they will be smart enough to include popular tournaments maps there.
chooooch
aznhockeyboy16
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States558 Posts
August 18 2010 05:54 GMT
#72
I think blizzard does need to change the map pool, and see if that helps anything, while either slightly buffing zerg or slightly nerfing terran mech, and I mean very slightly. there's not a huge problem with the racial balance, although everyone probably wants terran to be severely nerfed, but the major problem imo is that playing tvz while turtling is both really strong, and not all that much fun for either player.
Seam
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States1093 Posts
August 18 2010 05:59 GMT
#73
Imo, maps in BW(And maybe in SC2 soon) seem to fight the imbalance by making imbalance.

Basically, I think the races are imbalances(Say, ZvT for an example), and the maps make new imbalances to counter this, and make it balance out.(Say the map is super good for Z vs T).

Now, I actually like this method, but it feels more like a bandaid. I'd prefer it over balancing from Blizz which can't be changed as quickly like maps can.
I only needed one probe to take down idra. I had to upgrade to a zealot for strelok. - Liquid`Tyler
Vaporized
Profile Joined July 2010
United States1471 Posts
August 18 2010 06:03 GMT
#74
im sure we will see new maps when actiblizz figures out how to charge for them.

the maps dont help the balance situation, they probably make it worse, but they are just one part of the problem, not the whole solution.
Ketara
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States15065 Posts
August 18 2010 06:09 GMT
#75
It is really difficult to actually read a discussion on these forums because it ends up being a lot of the same arguments over and over again. So sorry if I'm posting stuff that has already been said, thereby making the next person who reads this read the same argument one more time.

Personally, I actually like the maps we have at the moment. I don't think they're perfect, and I don't think they couldn't use some tweaking. But I do like them.

One key thing that I think people should realize is that it's important for maps to be different, because that is how you end up with different games. Take Scrap Station when compared with Metalopolis or Blistering Sands. All 3 of these maps are different, and different playstyles on them are good, for all 3 races.

I do think that we could use more maps in the ladder pool though, and I do agree that the maps we have often focus on confined areas and lots of narrow chokes and cliffs, and one or two more wide open maps may do the game some good. I also see how that may or may not be heavily Zerg favored, but I'd like to watch or play a few games on said maps before forming an actual opinion of the sort. I can see how some of the current maps seem Terran favored.

The current ladder pool has 9 maps. As a Terran player, I can play 3 different kinds of game, TvT, TvP, or TvZ. That means there's essentially 27 different base matches I can play, each of the 3 matchups on each of the 9 ladder maps. If I veto my 3 least favorite maps, that's actually down to 18.

Even adding 3 maps to the pool, would give me 9 different matchups I can play. If I'm vetoing my 3 least favorite maps, that brings me from 18 up to 27. That's a 50% increase in how many types of game I can play, just from adding 3 maps to the ladder pool. That goes a huge way into making the game more diverse, more interesting, and more fun.

I would love to see more maps in the ladder pool, and I'd love for some of those maps to be big, wide open maps like the BW ones listed above. I wouldn't like EVERY map to be like that, because to me, that would be boring. Maps should be different.



I also want to stress something that has been pointed out before, that this is the one avenue the community really can alter if they so choose. Rather than be making dozens of threads on Terran and Zerg balance all the time, us Team Liquid denizens should be going into the map editor, and making maps. There should be some sort of a committee of pro-nerds here that is making maps, and then distributing them on B.net for people to try out.

I'm willing to bet that if a lot of the top rated players endorse a user-made map as better or as good as the Blizzard maps, that Blizzard would be willing to add it to the pool, or at the very least make a map of their own that is extremely similar.
http://www.liquidlegends.net/forum/lol-general/502075-patch-61-league-of-legends-general-discussion?page=25#498
happyness
Profile Joined June 2010
United States2400 Posts
August 18 2010 06:13 GMT
#76
On August 18 2010 13:31 DeCoup wrote:
I know that maps are a major influence on balance, but setting the goal to balance each class to be balanced on a variety of terrain types should also be taken into consideration. If the balance in based purely or mostly on maps then the diversity of maps available in the future will be effected. Continuing to attempt to balance the races as well to allow equality on a larger pool of terrain types should also be a goal.


I agree competly.

Especially when it comes to distance, the races ought to be balanced. If the distance on steppes favors terran over zerg (and steppes isn't blood-bath short) then that means there's a problem with balance between the races.
Liquorshot_852
Profile Joined July 2010
Korea (South)72 Posts
August 18 2010 06:16 GMT
#77
blizzard is still making balance changes on different units. so its not quite yet correct to say that the maps are what makes the game imbalanced. sure it has some imbalances, but all of the units would have to be balanced first.
UniversalSnip
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
9871 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 06:19:43
August 18 2010 06:19 GMT
#78
lol@the people saying the game should be balanced for bad maps... that is just silly.

Speaking from a spec perspective, another problem with the maps is that they produce incredibly boring games to watch. Games are on brood war map translations are 10 times as likely to be entertaining.
"How fucking dare you defile the sanctity of DotA with your fucking casual plebian terminology? May the curse of Gaben and Volvo be upon you. le filthy casual."
Sentient
Profile Joined April 2010
United States437 Posts
August 18 2010 06:26 GMT
#79
On August 18 2010 12:54 Ighox wrote:
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.


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.
Rabiator
Profile Joined March 2010
Germany3948 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 06:29:36
August 18 2010 06:27 GMT
#80
On August 18 2010 11:53 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
the biggest and most influential issue sc2 has right now are the maps.


maps change evrything in starcraft. its widely accepted that the only remaining imbalance in bw was map imbalance.

blizzard focused on small maps, on gimmicks and abusable terrain. while the pro maps focus on big maps with none or small gimmicks(and only cause only standart would be boring) and terrain that is important from a strategic point of view and not the "oh cliffs evrywhere. guess ill abuse that with tanks/colloxen!" way.
there is a reason why metalopolis is considered the best map, it is kinda big, has many "normal" expos (not blocked,nonisland) and has no weird gimmicks or terrain. it is the most similar to what we had in bw. its the most balanced map and produces the "biggest" games.

this also is the reason why we see so many games that end up in cheesy/allin play. games that end after one fight. games where mass+ 1a wins the game. pretty much the majority of the complains we have/had with sc2 in the early beta are largely related to the maps blizzard provided us with.

Sooo true. The size of the maps is too small and because of this Terran (and Protoss if you use Immortals / Colossi) immobility doesnt matter that much, you get back to your bases to defend fast enough. Zerg do not get to use their mobility to outflank or go around enemies to harrass in the back and obviously small maps are much easier to cheese on as big ones.



On August 18 2010 11:53 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
cause more important right now is that most balance talk is going in the wrong direction

also the other problem:

if blizzard balances the game for the maps we have now we will never have balance on "good" maps that produce good/bw like matches.if we want the game to be more like broodwar the maps should be the target

Sooo true, but it would be hard for Blizzard to admit the fact that they screw up maps IMO.

I am just adding my voice to this in an attempt to make this whining louder than the usual Terran is IMBA shit. Maybe Blizzard will then start to listen. The balance of units is fine IMO, because there is no clear one unit for any race which will guarantee you a victory in a regular fight, so the issues come from "outside the units".
If you cant say what you're meaning, you can never mean what you're saying.
SwaY-
Profile Joined March 2009
Dominican Republic463 Posts
August 18 2010 06:34 GMT
#81
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.
Do it beautifully
prodiG
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2016 Posts
August 18 2010 06:37 GMT
#82
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.
ESV Mapmaking Team || http://twitter.com/prodiGsc || Real talk, I don't have time to sugar-coat it for you sir
kidcrash
Profile Joined September 2009
United States620 Posts
August 18 2010 06:37 GMT
#83
I don't mind 1 or 2 maps that have narrow chokes, cliffs and cramped areas, but there needs to be a lot more variety so than that. I'd like to see a few more maps with wide open areas that promote things like flanking and back stabs. It'd be interesting to see what kind of strategies a macro map with long rush distances would promote. Then of course we have maps that have the far rush distance with close air/drop distances that are also good for creative tactics. The map makers also have to be very careful with giving players too many maps with cliff abuse. I like them here and there but I'd like to see some maps that don't promote reaper play.

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
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada9496 Posts
August 18 2010 06:55 GMT
#84
On August 18 2010 15:26 Sentient wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 18 2010 12:54 Ighox wrote:
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.


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.
TRUEESPORTS || your days as a respected member of team liquid are over
dogabutila
Profile Blog Joined December 2009
United States1437 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 10:47:54
August 18 2010 07:10 GMT
#85
I don't think the OP is wrong, but I don't think he is completely right either. Everybody who plays or follows BW knows that maps play a factor in what is viable and what is not. Some maps are better for certain strategies because of how they are laid out. Maps can be used to cover imbalances or to make other races competitive in certain aspects or to promote certain kinds of games.

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.
Baller Fanclub || CheAse Fanclub || Scarlett Fanclub || LJD FIGHTING!
Iggyhopper
Profile Joined July 2010
United States259 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 07:27:12
August 18 2010 07:25 GMT
#86
So would we ever fight on a map that is completely flat? Who would win? This is very interesting to me, lol.

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
Profile Joined April 2010
Norway1546 Posts
August 18 2010 07:43 GMT
#87
As a loyal zerg player, I would much rather see new maps in the direction of bw-style. Fixing the maps is a huge step, and contribute not only to balance factor alone, but to the fun factor. I hope the community realize this soon enough and start putting more effort in demanding better maps.

New maps, let the dust settle a bit, then tweak some numbers/units if necessary.

Rabiator
Profile Joined March 2010
Germany3948 Posts
August 18 2010 07:45 GMT
#88
The sad fact is that people like to ladder and iCCuo maps dont work for laddering. They are also restricted to the NA server, so sadly you guys must do the work of promoting them for the rest of the world. Only playing custom maps would be a clear sign to Blizzard that something is wrong, but I doubt it will happen that much.
If you cant say what you're meaning, you can never mean what you're saying.
shawster
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Canada2485 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 07:55:02
August 18 2010 07:52 GMT
#89
it's half and half

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
Profile Joined April 2010
United States71 Posts
August 18 2010 07:58 GMT
#90
While the maps are definitely a problem, I am also getting annoyed at people saying terran is so immobile... someone brought up this point already and it was just ignored. Terran is not nearly as immobile as people want to make them out to be... you want to see immobile, look at a zerg army off creep... ugh...

Phanekim
Profile Joined April 2003
United States777 Posts
August 18 2010 07:59 GMT
#91
yes. i agree this.
i like cheese
emperorchampion
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada9496 Posts
August 18 2010 08:14 GMT
#92
Also this if you haven't already seen it.
TRUEESPORTS || your days as a respected member of team liquid are over
Jibba
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States22883 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 08:24:56
August 18 2010 08:23 GMT
#93
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 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.
ModeratorNow I'm distant, dark in this anthrobeat
d_so
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)3262 Posts
August 18 2010 08:25 GMT
#94
balance threads about to go the way of "serious discussion"
manner
MiraMax
Profile Joined July 2009
Germany532 Posts
August 18 2010 08:29 GMT
#95
I kind of diasagree. Of course the maps aren't balanced and will remain imbalanced for the next months or even years to come, since the game is still evolving. But as already another poster has said, Zerg is currently feeling somewhat bland and is lacking options which is independent of the maps. Imo this structural problem can only (and will) be fixed by the next expansion (Zerg will probably also get a gimmicky cliff jumper like the reaper or some other spec ops unit which is useful as an opener).
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
Profile Joined July 2009
Germany532 Posts
August 18 2010 08:38 GMT
#96
Without turning this into a terran nerf thread I would also like to see terrans macro mechanic becoming a bit more unforgiving, either by putting a strong cooldown on the mule ability or by introducing a "one mule per CC at a time" policy. Like this a "late mule" would actually damage terran macro in much the same way as a late larva or late chrono affects zerg and protoss.
ShaperofDreams
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada2492 Posts
August 18 2010 08:42 GMT
#97
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.
Bitches don't know about my overlord. FUCK OFF ALDARIS I HAVE ENOUGH PYLONS. My Balls are as smooth as Eggs.
ShaperofDreams
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada2492 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 08:49:27
August 18 2010 08:48 GMT
#98
On August 18 2010 17:23 Jibba wrote:
Show nested quote +
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 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.
Bitches don't know about my overlord. FUCK OFF ALDARIS I HAVE ENOUGH PYLONS. My Balls are as smooth as Eggs.
dogabutila
Profile Blog Joined December 2009
United States1437 Posts
August 18 2010 08:56 GMT
#99
Patching races might be open heart surgery. But a bandaid will not save you from cardiac failure.
Baller Fanclub || CheAse Fanclub || Scarlett Fanclub || LJD FIGHTING!
ShaperofDreams
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada2492 Posts
August 18 2010 09:01 GMT
#100
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!"
Bitches don't know about my overlord. FUCK OFF ALDARIS I HAVE ENOUGH PYLONS. My Balls are as smooth as Eggs.
dogabutila
Profile Blog Joined December 2009
United States1437 Posts
August 18 2010 09:11 GMT
#101
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?
Baller Fanclub || CheAse Fanclub || Scarlett Fanclub || LJD FIGHTING!
wolfe
Profile Joined March 2010
United States761 Posts
August 18 2010 09:19 GMT
#102
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.
Swift as the wind, felt before noticed.
Drium
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
United States888 Posts
August 18 2010 09:35 GMT
#103
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?
KwanROLLLLLLLED
epik640x
Profile Joined May 2010
United States1134 Posts
August 18 2010 09:44 GMT
#104
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.
wiesel
Profile Joined September 2008
Germany727 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 09:52:00
August 18 2010 09:51 GMT
#105
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
Baarn
Profile Joined April 2010
United States2702 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 10:29:10
August 18 2010 10:16 GMT
#106
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.
There's no S in KT. :P
scrdmnttr
Profile Joined May 2010
United States96 Posts
August 18 2010 10:24 GMT
#107
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.
dogabutila
Profile Blog Joined December 2009
United States1437 Posts
August 18 2010 10:49 GMT
#108
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).
Baller Fanclub || CheAse Fanclub || Scarlett Fanclub || LJD FIGHTING!
kickinhead
Profile Joined December 2008
Switzerland2069 Posts
August 18 2010 10:55 GMT
#109
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!
https://soundcloud.com/thesamplethief
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
August 18 2010 10:58 GMT
#110
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).
Moderator
durecell
Profile Joined April 2010
United Kingdom85 Posts
August 18 2010 11:47 GMT
#111
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.



Plexa
Profile Blog Joined October 2005
Aotearoa39261 Posts
August 18 2010 11:55 GMT
#112
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.
Administrator~ Spirit will set you free ~
BeMannerDuPenner
Profile Blog Joined April 2004
Germany5638 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 12:04:31
August 18 2010 12:00 GMT
#113
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 :/

life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
Lennon
Profile Joined February 2010
United Kingdom2275 Posts
August 18 2010 12:09 GMT
#114
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.
cuppatea
Profile Joined April 2010
United Kingdom1401 Posts
August 18 2010 12:10 GMT
#115
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.
Rabiator
Profile Joined March 2010
Germany3948 Posts
August 18 2010 12:15 GMT
#116
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.
If you cant say what you're meaning, you can never mean what you're saying.
Adjudicator
Profile Joined May 2010
United States44 Posts
August 18 2010 13:03 GMT
#117
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!"
PulseSUI
Profile Joined August 2010
Switzerland305 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 13:37:14
August 18 2010 13:33 GMT
#118
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
Uhh Negative
Profile Joined May 2010
United States1090 Posts
August 18 2010 13:46 GMT
#119
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.
Ndugu
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States1078 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 14:46:55
August 18 2010 14:43 GMT
#120
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
Asta
Profile Joined October 2002
Germany3491 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-18 15:01:26
August 18 2010 14:56 GMT
#121
Luckily I knew this already halfway through the Beta and decided to stop wasting my time on SC2.

There's one problem that's bigger than the fact that Blizzard is making horrible maps:
Blizzard is controlling which maps are being played and they don't care if theirs are bad for e-Sports.

Actually, this is only a facet of the general problem:
Blizzard is taking control over every single aspect of SC2 and they are as ignorant to e-Sports as they always were.

Because Blizzard was always clueless about the e-Sports scene and while they proclaimed to focus on e-Sports for SC2 to lure newbies into it, in reality they are still clueless and have no interest in e-Sports other than to use it for advertising.
That wasn't a problem in BW because there were private servers, private tournaments (including the Korean scene), private 3rd party applications AND non-Blizzard maps! Now all of that's under the control of a company which regards e-Sport as a mean to get kids to buy their game, but nothing more.
blacktoss
Profile Joined August 2010
United States121 Posts
August 18 2010 15:07 GMT
#122
That is the premise of a company, yes.
Escape
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada306 Posts
August 18 2010 15:55 GMT
#123
I agree to this somewhat.

Imagine on a wild open map, without chokes or ramps, zerg could overrun everything from all angles.. that's the way zerg was meant to be played.
Empyrean
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
16978 Posts
August 18 2010 16:01 GMT
#124
Haha, definitely. I actually posted on this a while back, but I closed the thread because there was a similar one out at the same time. Here's the text:

There've been a lot of posts on the forums recently addressing balance, especially in the TvZ matchup. Most, if not all, of these posts generally involve unit/mechanical fixes, such as lowering Roach supply to 1, increasing mech unit costs, etc. While these suggestions all have their own merits to some degree, I think a lot of people are forgetting another element that is responsible for matchup balance - map design.

Looking back at Brood War, the last patch that affected unit/mechanical balance was 1.08. In the subsequent patches, the only things that changed were bug fixes and additional features on battle.net. Yet people have consistently considered BW one of the most balanced and dynamic RTS games of all time. Of course there may have been cases such as Savior/Flash/etc., but as a whole, BW has been incredibly well balanced, with no race having a commanding advantage at any level.

A large part of this balance was achieved through the mappool used in competitive play. Once a game's unit/mechanical balance evolves to a satisfactory enough point (e.g., BW 1.08), gameplay becomes increasingly determined by map layout and map mechanics. Certain maps have features that promote certain styles of play/certain races in matchups, and it's these features that influence balance.

An example is the recent map Battle Royale, a map so hilariously favored for Zerg, that the vast majority of games were simply ZvZ mirrors, and any other race (barring one exception) who played against Zerg was a loss (in pro games). The reason was a map mechanic that allowed Zerg aggression with a 9 pool build to dictate the layout of the map, and short main distances that encouraged Overlord scouting/Mutalisk harass. No amount of unit/mechanical balance would ever make the map remotely balanced.

As a further example to show that game "balance" is affected by map balance, take the map Nostalgia; back when it was released, it was heralded as one of the most balanced maps of all time. Since then, gameplay has evolved to a point where few (if any) people would consider Nostalgia balanced. While it's not as racially imbalanced as some maps (looking at you, Battle Royale/Gorky Park/etc.), there are significant race advantages that become evident between series of players of equal caliber.

So, instead of complaining about certain races being inherently stronger than others, why not consider the ability of the mappool to help affect game balance? For example, could there be features of maps that would help Zerg against Terran, but not significantly affect the TvP or ZvP matchups? Would having, say, wide open middles that are easy to flank in help "balance" the TvZ matchup without affecting the others?

The game has only been out for a few weeks. Certainly in the first few weeks of any game release, people are going to complain about certain races being inherently stronger than others, without regard to the effect maps or stylistic influences can have on game balance. Why not try making maps that encourage a certain style of gameplay to further balance the game?

Just something to consider.
Moderator
BeMannerDuPenner
Profile Blog Joined April 2004
Germany5638 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-19 02:02:10
August 19 2010 01:44 GMT
#125
On August 18 2010 20:55 Plexa wrote:
My thoughts on the issue:
Show nested quote +
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.
Show nested quote +
On August 18 2010 20:54 Plexa wrote:
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.


youre definitly have some points but it doesnt exactly fit on this thread on some parts. i dont even demand huge custom maps or whatever cause ofc there are still problems and some ICC maps i saw are not much better then blizzards maps.also i would be happy for now if some people just switch their race complains to map complains so blizzard sees that maybe there are big problems as well.



and if you consider my 2nd point we MUST HAVE "good" maps before any big race changes happen.
i doubt you disagree that the current mappool is not only imbalanced but also promotes gameplay that is exactly the opposite of broodwar maps. its not hard to see that we pretty much have no map that is as big as sc1 LT. not to mention maps like match point. if the games gets tuned for allins,allin defense and 1a play we might never be able to get to a bw-esque level of play.
so balancing around those bad maps hurts the games progress.
we all complained about how terrain lost its "real" role in sc2,how its only 1a, how evrything revolves around quick 1-2 base games and the rock-paper-scissor problem. all of that is exactly what those games promote. and i dont want that to be the future of sc2.



about the 2nd part i really think you give blizzard too much credit here. blizzard has a horrible history when it comes to maps. many in wc3 were outright bad and in the whole time there was only a handful added to the pool.
even if it would be a hope if it was true i doubt blizzard just decided to throw out many gimmick maps to draw some super educated balance conclusion in a long term plan. maybe im totally wrong on this and they changed alot for sc2. but history tells a different story.


really bad maps wont tell you anything about balance at all. lets take incineration zone. all we learned from that map is that tiny spaces and ability to siege the nat from like evrywhere is imba. great job, i couldve told them this after looking 1 sec at the map.also its not hard to see how open/weird nats hurt Z the most esp without the lurker that helped alot in the defense/buying time.
fact is ALOT of broodwars race characteristics carried over. with them a certain idea of mapbalance carried over.
so why not make some decent big maps and some special maps to see certain extreme situations so we can see the whole picture ?



only thing i can see is that blizzard made terrible maps, plans to balance for those maps and thus plans and has to continue making "bad" ,small and gimmicky maps.and imho we have to do something against that in one way or the other instead of complaining about problems that maybe are only the result of the maps instead of the actual root of the problem.






why do i always post at freakin 4 am or later <.<


/edit oh and empyreans post is great.
life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
NihiloZero
Profile Joined March 2010
United States68 Posts
August 19 2010 02:24 GMT
#126
OP, you admit that the race mechanics are "sure far from perfect" but then entirely changes focus from that with every other sentence. And sure maps are important, but if you just focus on the maps despite racial imba you won't really be helping to make more diverse maps -- you'll just be making maps which one or two of the races show an advantage. It would really be good to see some result statistics on the current map pool, but that may have to wait a little while longer.

Anyway... even you write:

[B]On August 18 2010 11:53 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:other way round Terran is the race which has the smallest problems adapting cause of the nature of the race. the safe early game, the defensive power and units that are happy about cliffs and narrow spaces.


YES! The greater diversity and adaptability of Terran is precisely what a lot of people are talking about!!! And that's before and besides the individual unit combinations being too powerful or the easy tech path is criticized! A claim that broad adaptability to various map conditions is part of Terran's racial identity seems kinda bogus to me. Every race should have very similar abilities in terms of dealing with various map features. Obviously, some differences must remain -- but you are overstating things in a way which, I feel, works against your overall argument.
Terran are the plague!
shreepy
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States121 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-19 02:58:31
August 19 2010 02:57 GMT
#127
I agree with the OP's sentiments for the most part. On top of being able to help even out the game I also think that creating some more well-rounded maps would be much easier on Blizzard's part rather than doing sweeping race balance changes, ie. creating new units, as many have suggested. A pretty win-win approach to game balance imo.

The.Doctor
Profile Joined February 2010
Canada333 Posts
August 26 2010 10:50 GMT
#128
I just made a thread about this a while ago and found out this thread existed. I too feel that the problem with SC2 balance currently is the maps as the race-specific balance issues can not be gauged properly with the current maps. Kulas ravine, for example is the most retarded map I've ever played in my life. The entire map is a choke point. I can just imagine SC2 on python or fighting spirit. Infestors would be able to go burrowed behind a terran army and when they confront, can unburrow and neural parasite everything. No early tank drop cheese. There would finally be slow pushes where each small confrontation makes a huge difference. Terran MMM could be properly surrounded. If you lose a battle, you might have just enough time to macro up again instead of being overrun instantly because of how small the maps are.
The Boss.
Sadistx
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
August 26 2010 10:58 GMT
#129
On August 26 2010 19:50 SouLja wrote:
I just made a thread about this a while ago and found out this thread existed. I too feel that the problem with SC2 balance currently is the maps as the race-specific balance issues can not be gauged properly with the current maps. Kulas ravine, for example is the most retarded map I've ever played in my life. The entire map is a choke point. I can just imagine SC2 on python or fighting spirit. Infestors would be able to go burrowed behind a terran army and when they confront, can unburrow and neural parasite everything. No early tank drop cheese. There would finally be slow pushes where each small confrontation makes a huge difference. Terran MMM could be properly surrounded. If you lose a battle, you might have just enough time to macro up again instead of being overrun instantly because of how small the maps are.


I agree entirely and have been saying this since beta - maps are too small to let the defender have enough of defender's advantage, so not only is a 1 base allin going to be stronger (comes quicker), but the attacker will actually be able to reinforce much quicker, preventing the stronger macro of the defender to kick in in time.

Maps like steppes (good map, but should be 20% larger) and kulas need to be replaced by something much more open to flanking maneuvers. I'm actually not a big fan of destructible rocks, so I'd just like to see more maps with backdoor expos that can't be harrassed by hellions or reapers that easily.
The.Doctor
Profile Joined February 2010
Canada333 Posts
August 26 2010 11:19 GMT
#130
Also, after reading MasterAsia's post on the problem with ZvT, why is it an issue that terran now calls the shots? In BW, terran had to respond to everything.

First check for fast SP + expo, then check gas, then check if saving larvae, then check if 3rd hatchery anywhere. Okay 3hatch. Now, muta or lurker? Scan main...hmm no lair. Scan natural...OMG SPEEDLING BUST.

In a PvT: check 14 nexus, check gateways, count pylons, notice one is missing, check proxies, okay we'll do seige expand, micro like a boss and repair tanks, setup turrets for dts and/or reaver drop, make a slow 1/4" per minute push to protoss base only to get annihilated at the last second.

The thing zerg lacks is scouting. I think there should be a way to get fast speed suicide overlords to be able to do the scouting earlier.
The Boss.
Vz0
Profile Joined August 2010
Canada378 Posts
August 26 2010 11:23 GMT
#131
On August 18 2010 12:06 GenericTerranPlayer wrote:
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.

edit: normally i wouldn't disagree so vehemently but you really need to acknowledge the general feeling that Z is UP. Completely dismissing others isn't the way to make people agree with you

User was warned for this post

because if everyone says the same thing, that thing must be true !

the earth is the center of the universe!!!
women are inferior to men !!
heishe
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Germany2284 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-26 11:37:35
August 26 2010 11:33 GMT
#132
I'm not saying if some specific imbalances can be changed purely by redesigning maps or if it can not, but I want to say something about Blizzard for the people who didn't follow WC3, where there was a matchmaking + map system running very much like this in SC2.

Over the years, Blizzard added 3 Community maps to the official map pool: Twisted Meadows (yes! many people actually don't know it, but Twisted Meadows was the winner of a map design contest right around the time TFT came out), Echo Isles and Secret Valley.

Twisted Meadows came in very early, I don't remember exactly but it must've been very very close to the release of TFT.

Echo Isles came about 2 or 3 years after release, but back then it was in it's ridiculously imbalanced version, with 1 mana fountain and 2 health fountains. Blizzard removed those and replaced it by one market and two mercenary camps and all leagues and tournaments adapted that official version (Echo Isles was already played in several leagues and tournaments before it came to the map pool).

Secret Valley came really late, about two years ago if I remember correctly. They changed a few details of the map with release and that was it.

In addition to these additions (yes) Blizzard made a lot of balance changes to the maps over the years, most of which I can't really remember (there were quite a few). One I can remember was where they made a few choke points on Turtle Rock wider so it doesn't favor range-heavy armies as much.

It's important to note that before those maps were added by Blizzard, they were widely used in tournaments and leagues.

It's not a problem when it comes to practice btw. When custom maps were introduced to tournaments and leagues in WC3, players simply played them a lot in custom games.

tl;dr. Blizzard will make changes to the maps, just give them time. And this will be in bold so the important people get to read this: Tournament Organizers: If you want to make Blizzard add better maps to the map pool, start using them in big tournaments! Otherwise Blizzard won't notice.
If you value your soul, never look into the eye of a horse. Your soul will forever be lost in the void of the horse.
Champi
Profile Joined March 2010
1422 Posts
August 26 2010 11:44 GMT
#133
im on the fence about whether or not i agree with you, and this is why:

if blizzard balances the game for the maps we have now we will never have balance on "good" maps that produce good/bw like matches.if we want the game to be more like broodwar the maps should be the target


sc2 is a different game entirely, and im not sure that clinging onto BW is the best way to approach the balance issues in sc2.
Marine0945x
Profile Joined May 2009
United States25 Posts
August 26 2010 11:46 GMT
#134
I agree. Maps are pretty bad and cause a imbalance but terran reapers still imbalanced on its own...
Coil
Profile Joined May 2010
Argentina119 Posts
August 26 2010 12:04 GMT
#135
I totally agree, i've been saying this for a while now, the new maps are horrendous, so small and chokes everywhere, it makes for really stupid battles.

For instance, the worst thing that bothers me personally and makes me hate maps is every time im against ghosts as protoss, i just CANNOT split my army, not enough room for that on maps like steppes of war for example. So all my units clump together and 1 emp just destroys me.

I'm pretty sure this affects other races as well, zergs are very much affected by short rush distances for example. Not to mention every expansion/main having unaccesible cliffs for siege tanks... Coincidentaly terran seems the most MAP favored.

I'd love to play all the iccup maps instead, but then you have to play ladder :/ So you still have to practice there WTB iCCup 2.0 !
<@Failure> I GOT RIZZIED <@Failure> NO ORDINARY GURL KAE <@Failure> SHE RIZZIE
Velr
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Switzerland10686 Posts
August 26 2010 12:07 GMT
#136
On August 26 2010 20:19 SouLja wrote:
Also, after reading MasterAsia's post on the problem with ZvT, why is it an issue that terran now calls the shots? In BW, terran had to respond to everything.


Because Terran calls the shots and sits savely behind a Wall-In.


The Strats Terrans are doing to "open" the game would be pretty all-in for every Zerg, but they aren't because there is allways a wall-in/choke.
ScarPe
Profile Joined January 2010
Germany392 Posts
August 26 2010 12:11 GMT
#137
@topic: for myself i found out, that in some cases, there is a way to use your disadvantage as an advantage. my thoughts are more vor ZvT (me as Z), where i actually shouldnt fight in chokepoints, but as the opponent comes with a quite strong midgame army (mostly metal), neural parasite can turn the fighting points, as he cant get through to my infestors and so on.

i basically try to play kinda idra-style, but i found out, that i am clearly not good enough to hold sth like that with pure roaches, as he does sometimes. so i added infestors with NP and it turned out very well, cause you can use them in soooo many ways.
Awaken my child and embrace the glory that is your birthright. -[The Overmind]
MaYuu
Profile Blog Joined April 2008
Sweden516 Posts
August 26 2010 12:17 GMT
#138
I think most of the maps are total crap.
But still, I don't think blizzard will change map pool in ladder unless they get to claim the maps as thier own. Greedy as they are.
ehh`?
MrBarryObama
Profile Joined August 2010
Korea (South)141 Posts
August 26 2010 12:29 GMT
#139
Mappers balanced BW, not Blizzard. Don't forget it!
floor exercise
Profile Blog Joined August 2008
Canada5847 Posts
August 26 2010 12:41 GMT
#140
On August 26 2010 21:29 MrBarryObama wrote:
Mappers balanced BW, not Blizzard. Don't forget it!

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
Jameser
Profile Joined July 2010
Sweden951 Posts
August 26 2010 12:46 GMT
#141
I honestly think it would be a mistake to balance the game around the current maps, stuff that is balanced on steppes of war will not be balanced on proper (larger) maps
hydezyne
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States38 Posts
August 26 2010 13:01 GMT
#142
I think testing and balancing maps is equally as important as the races. In my opinion, I believe Blizzard will tweak the maps as they see fit and that should sort out some of the little problems. Players are always more than welcome to create their own maps for tournament or casual use. If a 3rd party map is really, really good then I don't see why Blizzard wouldn't incorporate into their ladder eventually. If there's one thing to be learned from WoW it's that Blizzard loves to absorb very popular 3rd party creations into their games.
There is Power in Simplicity
MrBarryObama
Profile Joined August 2010
Korea (South)141 Posts
August 26 2010 13:20 GMT
#143
On August 26 2010 21:41 floor exercise wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 26 2010 21:29 MrBarryObama wrote:
Mappers balanced BW, not Blizzard. Don't forget it!

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
Profile Joined December 2008
Switzerland2069 Posts
August 26 2010 13:39 GMT
#144
Just play SC2 on larger Maps like "ICCUP Fighting Spirit", "ICCUP Matchpoint" etc.

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.
https://soundcloud.com/thesamplethief
theSAiNT
Profile Joined July 2009
United States726 Posts
August 26 2010 13:47 GMT
#145
Hopefully the professional Korean map makers start working on SC2 and play their leagues on it. Eventually, they might migrate on to the ladder? Wishful thinking...
Toxiferous
Profile Joined June 2009
United States388 Posts
August 26 2010 13:49 GMT
#146
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
Profile Joined September 2009
United States1832 Posts
August 26 2010 13:57 GMT
#147
The maps are truly awful, there is no doubt.

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...
Half man, half bear, half pig.
cocosoft
Profile Joined May 2010
Sweden1068 Posts
August 26 2010 14:19 GMT
#148
No, I don't agree.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
QuanticHawk
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States32049 Posts
August 26 2010 14:58 GMT
#149
Don't agree with all the hyperbole about how the game is screwed if it isnt addressed immediately, but it's definitely the maps more than anything that effect match ups. Terran benefits from being massed in a blog in all match ups. Zerg needs flanking or it is boned. P needs flanking vs T and is better in tight space vs Z. No different than BW though.

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.
PROFESSIONAL GAMER - SEND ME OFFERS TO JOIN YOUR TEAM - USA USA USA
Rabiator
Profile Joined March 2010
Germany3948 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-26 18:29:25
August 26 2010 18:28 GMT
#150
On August 26 2010 22:49 Toxiferous wrote:
Show nested quote +
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

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 ...
If you cant say what you're meaning, you can never mean what you're saying.
latan
Profile Joined July 2010
740 Posts
August 26 2010 19:04 GMT
#151
how about this: units that can't shoot air can't shoot up cliffs.
Kilby
Profile Joined August 2010
Finland1069 Posts
August 26 2010 19:07 GMT
#152
It's strange that there are no big maps in SC2 and compared to SC1 the maps seem confined and sort of clumped up with everything in close proximity and no open areas at all. So basically it is impossible for a largeish army to move without constantly being in a narrow choke. That kind of takes away some of the epicness of big battles in my opinion.

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
Profile Joined February 2010
United States642 Posts
August 26 2010 19:10 GMT
#153
this is how wc3 is as well. the maps create most of the imbalance. it will probably always be like that in rts.
3clipse
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
Canada2555 Posts
August 26 2010 19:19 GMT
#154
Cliffs and tight chokes certainly put zerg at a disadvantage, but I would argue that the #1 problem by far is small map size. Zerg needs to be able to adjust their combat unit and drone production based on their opponent's play. This is impossible on the most extreme examples like Steppes, but difficult on every map but Desert Oasis. With the long build times of spine crawlers, you have to build them preemptively, and you will usually only have time to rush out one round of combat units before you're hit by your opponents' attack. A good T or P can use this against you and feign attacks by moving forward and the retreating, negating your drone-powering advantage, but you have to respond every time they do or risk losing right then and there (unless you've made half a dozen spine crawlers, in which case you lose the macro game if you aren't attacked).
Furycrab
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada456 Posts
August 26 2010 20:02 GMT
#155
Maps do cause problems, however playstyles do come into play also... and these change and evolve as the weeks/months/years go by... Are you agressive, Unpredictable, Safe but strong mechanics... etc...etc...etc...

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 .
Too tired to come up with something witty.
GhostFall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States830 Posts
August 26 2010 20:07 GMT
#156
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.
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-26 20:21:38
August 26 2010 20:19 GMT
#157
I completely agree with everything you said.

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
Profile Joined September 2008
Germany727 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-26 20:28:46
August 26 2010 20:26 GMT
#158
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
Profile Joined May 2010
Norway713 Posts
August 26 2010 20:27 GMT
#159
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
Profile Joined July 2010
United States259 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-26 20:37:48
August 26 2010 20:29 GMT
#160
Balance changes need to be made, but I agree with the notion that maps need to be changed too. For example, minerals on the left or right sides of the base, so Zerg doesn't have differences when the minerals are above or below.

No cliffs, or a raised cliff perimeter (2) with allowance for cliff chokes for reapers to be useful.
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
August 26 2010 20:32 GMT
#161
A better map pool would probably make balancing the races a lot easier as well :/
cascades
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
Singapore6122 Posts
August 26 2010 20:41 GMT
#162
On August 18 2010 12:05 Redmark 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!

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.
User was warned for this post



This is a good post that deserves more attention. Wonder about the warning.
HS: cascades#1595 || LoL: stoppin
heishe
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Germany2284 Posts
August 26 2010 20:45 GMT
#163
On August 27 2010 05:41 cascades wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
User was warned for this post



This is a good post that deserves more attention. Wonder about the warning.


Some admins are really throwing some weird warnings around today.
If you value your soul, never look into the eye of a horse. Your soul will forever be lost in the void of the horse.
Kishkumen
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States650 Posts
August 26 2010 20:48 GMT
#164
Day[9] agrees, as confirmed in his daily last night.
Weird, last time I checked the UN said you need to have at least 200 APM and be rainbow league to be called human. —Liquid`TLO
Raelcun
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
United States3747 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-26 20:53:12
August 26 2010 20:50 GMT
#165
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140754

too lazy to find the other threads this is nothing new is it?

Yeah blizz maps are terrible we need new maps but getting players to play the new maps is not easy as they tend to bitch and moan when you put a map in play that isnt on the ladder pool.

So yes we need to improve the maps but the real problem is the players not playing on the maps

edit: Don't mean to discount the OP seeing as I agree with it jsut the problem is the maps when it comes to balance but the problem with that problem is that players dont want to fix that problem until Blizzard incorporates the new maps into the Ladder pool so they can practice on them easier.
Sanguinarius
Profile Joined January 2010
United States3427 Posts
August 26 2010 20:50 GMT
#166
While maps are some of the problem, there are also interrace balance issues also at play. It will take time to sort out the game.
Your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others -Heart of Darkness
Klive5ive
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
United Kingdom6056 Posts
August 26 2010 20:51 GMT
#167
I thought it was the maps at first and they certainly would help BUT they won't fix the inherent scouting problems that the game has.

As many people have said it's the number of viable options that T has that's imbalanced. Any one specific build can be countered but there's so many builds that all require different responses. Morrow vs Idra game 4 is a perfect example of this.

I guess you could try Xel'naga towers right outside every base, that might work for a while.
Don't hate the player - Hate the game
QuanticHawk
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States32049 Posts
August 26 2010 21:10 GMT
#168
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.


But all the races operate differently in each match up

Z: Needs open maps for flanking in all MU
P: Needs flanking vs T and is better on tight maps vs Z
T: More chokes the merrier

On that same note though, I don't want all boring ass macro maps like what was all over BW in the later years. FUCK LUNA and all those boring clones. There's got to be some with short distances and different stuff too.


On August 27 2010 05:51 Klive5ive wrote:
I thought it was the maps at first and they certainly would help BUT they won't fix the inherent scouting problems that the game has.

As many people have said it's the number of viable options that T has that's imbalanced. Any one specific build can be countered but there's so many builds that all require different responses. Morrow vs Idra game 4 is a perfect example of this.

I guess you could try Xel'naga towers right outside every base, that might work for a while.


Ive never found an issue with scouting, but I admit I play little competitive zerg in SC2. Scouting is essentially the same from BW. You always had to sac ovies in BW ZvT. I think the difference is that it's not as easy to recognize what is coming anymore because people aren't used to recognizing a build just based on the units you see.

Why is that any different here??

PROFESSIONAL GAMER - SEND ME OFFERS TO JOIN YOUR TEAM - USA USA USA
Adron
Profile Joined February 2010
Netherlands839 Posts
August 26 2010 21:27 GMT
#169
Not saying everything else is fine and balanced (and PLEASE people the game has just been released!) but i agree with the OP that most maps in the map pool have all these quirky features, like short flight distance, destructible rocks influencing movement, cliffs overlooking Naturals, cliffs in general, island maps, sight interuptors (the hedges/smoke) OR any combination of the above.

Seriously scrap station has a ridiculous flight rush distance, smoke right down your ramp, 1 island, rocks to backdoor the nat, a huge space to hide tech/get highground advantage near the nat, a short rush distance blocked by 2 rocks, and 2 semi-islands blocked with rocks...
That is a mind boggling amount of features in map, and only tests a persons quirkiness and ability to fend off quirkiness than anything else.
kariido
Profile Joined December 2007
Saudi Arabia179 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-26 21:30:47
August 26 2010 21:30 GMT
#170
Thanks OP for openning a dedicated thread to such an important issue. The maps of SC2.

Ever since the beginning I've disliked the maps in SC2 since they were so off-base in relation to the maps that I've grown accustomed to in BW. I've attributed this to nostalgia and that the new maps would better serve SC2's playstyle. This is SC2 after all, not BW. Well, as time passed the maps on the ladder just didn't make the game flow as it should and I grew weary of them. I found myself searching online for custom melee remakes of the ICCUP maps for SC2. After downloading a few (and publishing them) low and behold everything just clicked, I love everything there is to the game now. The awkward small narrow pathways in the middle of the map were non-existant and the choke points at the naturals really added another layer of depth and planning to the game that was, to my analysis, was purposefully avoided in SC2 since Blizzard wanted to thwart any accusation that SC2's playstyle was slow and cumbersome in comparison to BW. This however promoted one base all-ins due to the inherent dangerous nature of expanding into an open and vulnerable position. I've played around 90 ladder games and I've more than tripled that number since then in custom (melee) games using remakes of the ICCUP BW maps.

If you're somehow dissatisfied with the way games are played on the ladder try playing some remakes and you'll notice an immediate difference in planning, tactics and even the power level of units. Until Blizzard incorporates such maps in the ladder or an ICCUPesque ladder shows up with ICCUPesque maps; I'll stick to the remakes .
http://campaignforliberty.org/
Cloak
Profile Joined October 2009
United States816 Posts
August 26 2010 21:30 GMT
#171
I feel like there's a balance factor that exists outside of maps, and that's each race's flexibility to the given map elements. Sure, you can stack the elements of a map to balance the disparity, but that ultimately limits the diversity of your map pool. What is more important is to focus on each race having means of capitalizing on the maximum number of unique elements possible.
The more you know, the less you understand.
SARgeant47
Profile Joined August 2009
United States24 Posts
August 26 2010 21:33 GMT
#172
I agree that the maps r favored towards terran. But I also think that blizzard knows that and mayb have plans for the next expansion to have zerg favored maps then in the last expansion have protoss favored maps (I think I got the expansions in the right order)

Yes I also believe that scouting is very hard to do cuz terrans ability to make several different units out of just one building with a tech lab is a bit...dare I say...'OP'. But instead of takn away the terrans ability to surprise his opponents (cuz I actually kinda like to guess what t might get out his rax with tech lab so I dont consider it op but Im probably 1 out of 15% that agree) but to fix the scouting for both protoss and zergs to help scout in early and mid game is to make obs speed upgradable in the cyber core ( well nvm cuz if protoss feels he needs to scout research hullicination instead of rushing for warp gates) But for zerg its to difficult and to sac an ovie and is just a waste of time most of the time cuz the overlord is just too slow. Rushing to lair tech to get overlord speed or overseers takes alot of time and terran might b rushing with a huge marauder ball. Instead mayb overlord speed should b able to b researched in tier 1. Then the zerg has to decide whether to get overlord speed and delay a queen/lair, get ling speed, or roaches. Mayb even make ovie speed require evo chamber but still b tier 1.

These r just my thoughts on the maps and scouting issues. Thx for reading.
1ec2a3a4a5g6r7s
kariido
Profile Joined December 2007
Saudi Arabia179 Posts
August 26 2010 21:35 GMT
#173
On August 27 2010 05:48 Kishkumen wrote:
Day[9] agrees, as confirmed in his daily last night.

Link please?
http://campaignforliberty.org/
Floophead_III
Profile Joined September 2009
United States1832 Posts
August 26 2010 21:47 GMT
#174
On August 27 2010 05:50 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140754

too lazy to find the other threads this is nothing new is it?

Yeah blizz maps are terrible we need new maps but getting players to play the new maps is not easy as they tend to bitch and moan when you put a map in play that isnt on the ladder pool.

So yes we need to improve the maps but the real problem is the players not playing on the maps

edit: Don't mean to discount the OP seeing as I agree with it jsut the problem is the maps when it comes to balance but the problem with that problem is that players dont want to fix that problem until Blizzard incorporates the new maps into the Ladder pool so they can practice on them easier.


Have you guys actually formally contacted Blizzard about inclusion of a competitive map pool or at least having them take a look at your maps? I've been playing through them, some are meh but most are awesome. I think of course they're pretty basic right now and there's a lot more you can do given the power of the editor, but compared to ladder maps they're amazing.
Half man, half bear, half pig.
Kishkumen
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States650 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-26 22:04:35
August 26 2010 22:03 GMT
#175
On August 27 2010 06:35 kariido wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 27 2010 05:48 Kishkumen wrote:
Day[9] agrees, as confirmed in his daily last night.

Link please?


http://day9tv.blip.tv/file/4049854/
@44:30
I asked the question to the Thought Hammer himself, after hearing it discussed in several threads on TL and on the JP's State of the Game podcasts. While he didn't respond to any particular threads on TL, he confirmed that he thinks the maps need to be bigger and more like BW.
Weird, last time I checked the UN said you need to have at least 200 APM and be rainbow league to be called human. —Liquid`TLO
Grummy
Profile Joined July 2010
Sweden70 Posts
August 26 2010 22:05 GMT
#176
I think they need to mirror the maps before they can even start balancing them. Some maps right now are so wierd and unsymetrical. Scrap station is the worst, if you look at it and compare the 2 sides you will se how horrible it looks. Most of the maps right now are far from acceptable, mirroring wise.

And i know mirror =/= balance.
But its part of the balance.
starcraft911
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Korea (South)1263 Posts
August 26 2010 22:12 GMT
#177
using bloodbath as evidence is rather suspect. I agree that some maps lean one way or another... i.e. scrap station favoring Z in ZvT, but there are only a handful of people who can capitalize on that.
Coil
Profile Joined May 2010
Argentina119 Posts
August 26 2010 22:14 GMT
#178
As i said earlier in the thread, i think most of us would love to play the iCCup maps that were ported, i do from time to time because i like 'em. But the reality is that if you want to be playing tournaments and ladder, you need practice on Blizzard maps. I would love it if most of the tournaments started using non-ladder maps, even as a spectator, until then...

On August 27 2010 05:50 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140754

too lazy to find the other threads this is nothing new is it?

Yeah blizz maps are terrible we need new maps but getting players to play the new maps is not easy as they tend to bitch and moan when you put a map in play that isnt on the ladder pool.

So yes we need to improve the maps but the real problem is the players not playing on the maps

edit: Don't mean to discount the OP seeing as I agree with it jsut the problem is the maps when it comes to balance but the problem with that problem is that players dont want to fix that problem until Blizzard incorporates the new maps into the Ladder pool so they can practice on them easier.

<@Failure> I GOT RIZZIED <@Failure> NO ORDINARY GURL KAE <@Failure> SHE RIZZIE
Klive5ive
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
United Kingdom6056 Posts
August 26 2010 22:37 GMT
#179
On August 27 2010 06:10 Hawk wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 27 2010 05:51 Klive5ive wrote:
I thought it was the maps at first and they certainly would help BUT they won't fix the inherent scouting problems that the game has.

As many people have said it's the number of viable options that T has that's imbalanced. Any one specific build can be countered but there's so many builds that all require different responses. Morrow vs Idra game 4 is a perfect example of this.

I guess you could try Xel'naga towers right outside every base, that might work for a while.


Ive never found an issue with scouting, but I admit I play little competitive zerg in SC2. Scouting is essentially the same from BW. You always had to sac ovies in BW ZvT. I think the difference is that it's not as easy to recognize what is coming anymore because people aren't used to recognizing a build just based on the units you see.

Why is that any different here??

Surely you see the difference.

It's not that people aren't "used" to recognising builds, it's that you literally can't recognise them.

What does it mean if you see a Terran with early gas and no barracks? It could be a proxy reaper, or he could be getting gas for an early factory.
What does it mean if you see a wall with a factory with addon and 1rax? It could be marines+tank into expand or it could be marines+igniter hellions into all-in attack.
What does it mean if you see just a barracks and marines? There could be hellions hidden, there could be marines/marauders hidden, there could be banshees hidden, there could be Thors coming, he could just be expanding.

Plus the hard-counter system of the game means if you get it wrong the consequences are far worse.
If you get mass lings against hellions or mass reapers you will lose.
If you get roaches against marauders or marines you will lose.
Reapers and marauders are exactly the same tech yet require two different counter.

Plus of course there is no chance for Zerg to be aggressive. Most of Terran aggression can be backed out of. You just sit behind your wall. Hydras are far too slow to counter you and mutas are nothing like as strong as they were.

In BroodWar it was either mech or bio and the responses were reasonably strong against the wrong thing anyway.
Hydras work against any high tech play, wraiths, vulture runbys, or standard mech.
Sunkens into mutas work reasonably well against both too.
The only thing that could catch you out is a sunken bust.
Don't hate the player - Hate the game
Fadetowhite
Profile Joined August 2010
Korea (South)302 Posts
August 26 2010 22:39 GMT
#180
python... such a good map

wtb for sc2 laddering
메신저
Kpyolysis32
Profile Joined April 2010
553 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-26 22:43:25
August 26 2010 22:41 GMT
#181
On August 27 2010 05:41 cascades wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
User was warned for this post



This is a good post that deserves more attention. Wonder about the warning.


I agree with this, so I'll copy it yet again.
Also, going to see if I can make red text (=

Ooh, and the top of a page, no less.
Man, do I not keep this up to date, or what?
wiesel
Profile Joined September 2008
Germany727 Posts
August 26 2010 22:42 GMT
#182
On August 27 2010 07:37 Klive5ive wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 27 2010 06:10 Hawk wrote:
On August 27 2010 05:51 Klive5ive wrote:
I thought it was the maps at first and they certainly would help BUT they won't fix the inherent scouting problems that the game has.

As many people have said it's the number of viable options that T has that's imbalanced. Any one specific build can be countered but there's so many builds that all require different responses. Morrow vs Idra game 4 is a perfect example of this.

I guess you could try Xel'naga towers right outside every base, that might work for a while.


Ive never found an issue with scouting, but I admit I play little competitive zerg in SC2. Scouting is essentially the same from BW. You always had to sac ovies in BW ZvT. I think the difference is that it's not as easy to recognize what is coming anymore because people aren't used to recognizing a build just based on the units you see.

Why is that any different here??

Surely you see the difference.

It's not that people aren't "used" to recognising builds, it's that you literally can't recognise them.


Hm but when you can't recognise the builds i don't think it's a problem with scouting rather with game design?
DrainX
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
Sweden3187 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-26 22:50:17
August 26 2010 22:49 GMT
#183
It is important to balance the game both through maps and through balance changes of the races. The goal of balance changes are to make the game balanced on as many different maps as possible. If we only balance the game through maps we might end up in a situation where a lot of features are needed in a map and a lot of other features are impossible to implement in maps while still keeping the game balanced. Another way you can see it is if there is an obvious imbalance between the races and you force the imbalance away by using very specific maps then the total set of maps that can be used shrinks.

If we don't want all the maps to look the same and we still want balance we need to balance it from both ends. If we don't have a wide variety of different possible maps then the game will get boring. If none of the maps are balanced it will also get boring. I think a good idea is to first try to balance it through balance changes and then try to balance through maps and only add very slight balance changes after that point. I'm not sure we have reached that point yet.
Klive5ive
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
United Kingdom6056 Posts
August 26 2010 23:03 GMT
#184
On August 27 2010 07:42 wiesel wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 27 2010 07:37 Klive5ive wrote:
On August 27 2010 06:10 Hawk wrote:
On August 27 2010 05:51 Klive5ive wrote:
I thought it was the maps at first and they certainly would help BUT they won't fix the inherent scouting problems that the game has.

As many people have said it's the number of viable options that T has that's imbalanced. Any one specific build can be countered but there's so many builds that all require different responses. Morrow vs Idra game 4 is a perfect example of this.

I guess you could try Xel'naga towers right outside every base, that might work for a while.


Ive never found an issue with scouting, but I admit I play little competitive zerg in SC2. Scouting is essentially the same from BW. You always had to sac ovies in BW ZvT. I think the difference is that it's not as easy to recognize what is coming anymore because people aren't used to recognizing a build just based on the units you see.

Why is that any different here??

Surely you see the difference.

It's not that people aren't "used" to recognising builds, it's that you literally can't recognise them.


Hm but when you can't recognise the builds i don't think it's a problem with scouting rather with game design?

Yes we mean the same thing. Scouting in the wider sense.
For instance if you had to build a merc haven to make reapers again I would say that would make scouting easier but it's game design too.
Don't hate the player - Hate the game
0neder
Profile Joined July 2009
United States3733 Posts
August 26 2010 23:05 GMT
#185
I really hope Blizzard doesn't balance the game with their existing or similar style maps. It will really get out of whack.
Half
Profile Joined March 2010
United States2554 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-27 00:21:31
August 27 2010 00:10 GMT
#186
The entire first page made me very very sad .

Blizzards ironfisted control on the mappool can only hurt the game in the long run. The current issues in the ZvT MU are incredibly minute in the grand scheme of "online game imbalances", and this should be evident towards anyone with even the slightest bit of experience playing any online game besides SC2 and its predecessor.

Of course, this thread is going to be get swamped by a bunch of new players with poor understanding of game balance or the game itself crying for DRASTIC CHANGES TO CORE GAMEPLAY MECHANICS. Like flying building.


As many people have said it's the number of viable options that T has that's imbalanced. Any one specific build can be countered but there's so many builds that all require different responses. Morrow vs Idra game 4 is a perfect example of this.


Which is why Terran have been overpowered versus zerg throughout the Beta, despite many changes to address the problem.

Oh Wait. No they fucking haven't :o.

Now I'm not saying that the game is 100% fine and only map tweaks are all it needs. But even in game tweaks, all zerg needs would be a few minor buffs and T a few minor tweaks and that could potentially fix it. Big fixes are generally unwarranted unless there is a big "big problem".
Too Busy to Troll!
Alexstrasas
Profile Joined August 2010
302 Posts
August 27 2010 00:12 GMT
#187
This ideia might sound kinda crazy BUT

Wouldn't be really cool if someone did a tournament were they would just thrown in random unkown maps and the players would just have to adapt on the spot ?

First it would open up the map pool ALOT.

Second it would be a nice test to see if the players have that something extra to cook something on the spot.
waffling1
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
599 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-27 00:26:01
August 27 2010 00:22 GMT
#188
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?

No i didn't bring an argument or replay to support my claim... If he asked for it, I would bring it?

You are chasing people away from TL.net with that kind of warnings.

User was warned for this post

Edit: This post was also warned, cos I question my warning - I'll stop posting. Gl hf. My edit accidently removed the red warning text.



despite agreeing with the OP, more so than yourself, i wholly agree with you on the warning/ban/opinion thing here. that's why i just lurk mostly now. mods here are way too harsh. and often times there will be huge difference in one mods opinion from another and their actions. it ends up being a pretty inconsistent standard. but of course they never get reprimanded or punished for anything. Appearances and not showing "weakness" to the public or admit anything comes before being fair, or whatnot.

ban me for this? like i care
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
August 27 2010 01:52 GMT
#189
On August 27 2010 07:49 DrainX wrote:
It is important to balance the game both through maps and through balance changes of the races. The goal of balance changes are to make the game balanced on as many different maps as possible. If we only balance the game through maps we might end up in a situation where a lot of features are needed in a map and a lot of other features are impossible to implement in maps while still keeping the game balanced. Another way you can see it is if there is an obvious imbalance between the races and you force the imbalance away by using very specific maps then the total set of maps that can be used shrinks.

If we don't want all the maps to look the same and we still want balance we need to balance it from both ends. If we don't have a wide variety of different possible maps then the game will get boring. If none of the maps are balanced it will also get boring. I think a good idea is to first try to balance it through balance changes and then try to balance through maps and only add very slight balance changes after that point. I'm not sure we have reached that point yet.


It will take careful balancing on both sides, but I think it would be a lot easier to get to that initial balance point on maps that are easier to balance for. I think it would be a nightmare to find a perfect balance on these maps. I also think it's easier to balance maps than actual gameplay.
rockon1215
Profile Joined May 2009
United States612 Posts
August 27 2010 01:56 GMT
#190
I agree.

If every BW map were designed like Blue Storm, mutas would simply be imbalanced against Terran. When in reality, it was simply a feature of the map (the nat cliff that disallowed any good turret placement)
Flash v Jaedong The finals that is ALWAYS meant to be
Gentlebite
Profile Joined May 2010
United States132 Posts
August 27 2010 02:04 GMT
#191
I always belived this to be true in any Balance issue, the maps are soley the reason Double gateway is so effective against Zerg, the maps are the reason why it's hard for Zerg to get a decent flank, it's also why the 200/200 Armies are considerbly weaker because of Protoss stronger units and Ball compared to Zerg Ball, same against Terran
.risingdragoon
Profile Joined January 2008
United States3021 Posts
August 27 2010 02:21 GMT
#192
I said even before SC2 came out that these maps are gonna be considered crap once we learn how the game is really played, and that gimmicks like watchtower and the dumb expo rock are gonna fall by the wayside.

But the old Blizzard managed to balance SC in time, even on shitty ladder maps. So give it more time and hopefully they don't pull a WC3 on SC2, where in its death throes it's still unbalanced.
......::::........::::........::::........::::........::::.......::::.......::::... Up☆MaGiC ...::::.......::::.......::::........::::........::::........::::........
WniO
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2706 Posts
August 27 2010 02:27 GMT
#193
On August 27 2010 11:21 .risingdragoon wrote:
I said even before SC2 came out that these maps are gonna be considered crap once we learn how the game is really played, and that gimmicks like watchtower and the dumb expo rock are gonna fall by the wayside.

But the old Blizzard managed to balance SC in time, even on shitty ladder maps. So give it more time and hopefully they don't pull a WC3 on SC2, where in its death throes it's still unbalanced.

... if you start removing things like watchtowers and LOS grass you begin to remove what makes sc2 sc2. i think the gameplay style of sc2 is faster and more aggressive and for the current map pool that is perfect. i mean playing on some of the bw remakes just feels out of place. some of them are just way to big.
.risingdragoon
Profile Joined January 2008
United States3021 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-27 02:38:26
August 27 2010 02:32 GMT
#194
I don't think the watchtower and the rock are what makes sc2, sc2 at all. They're very minor compare to dead giveaways like techtree and player skill reset.

It may be faster, nobody can argue that, but it's less nuanced. You can blame player skill to a very small degree, but to me it's still the way the game is made to look right now, the amoeba-like group animation, etc. Tester also made the point that hard counters are too effective which is another good point.

And without the nuances, you can't overcome small degree of imbalance with skills, much less large imbalances.
......::::........::::........::::........::::........::::.......::::.......::::... Up☆MaGiC ...::::.......::::.......::::........::::........::::........::::........
Buddhist
Profile Joined April 2010
United States658 Posts
August 27 2010 02:36 GMT
#195
At the risk of seeming ignorant, exactly what is imbalanced about the current maps in the pool?

Can I get a list of examples from specific parts of specific maps and in what specific way they are imbalanced?
Ksyper
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Bulgaria665 Posts
August 27 2010 02:39 GMT
#196
I think we're gonna start seeing awesome maps soon, I just hope we don't have to pay extra for them.
I'd be very angry if I have to pay 10$ or something for a map pack.
Buddhist
Profile Joined April 2010
United States658 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-27 02:42:33
August 27 2010 02:42 GMT
#197
On August 27 2010 09:12 Alexstrasas wrote:
This ideia might sound kinda crazy BUT

Wouldn't be really cool if someone did a tournament were they would just thrown in random unkown maps and the players would just have to adapt on the spot ?

First it would open up the map pool ALOT.

Second it would be a nice test to see if the players have that something extra to cook something on the spot.

This already happened. The first cyberneticpunks open tournament used some maps like Destination and Match point. I was seriously like, "wtf? I've never played on these maps before :/"

And btw, I think the watch towers, grass, and destructible items make maps better in most cases. They just add more to what you have to consider when playing the map, and create more points of interested and more interesting nuances.
_Darwin_
Profile Joined August 2010
United States2374 Posts
August 27 2010 02:45 GMT
#198
On August 27 2010 11:36 Buddhist wrote:
At the risk of seeming ignorant, exactly what is imbalanced about the current maps in the pool?

Can I get a list of examples from specific parts of specific maps and in what specific way they are imbalanced?


Quoted from the OP:
cliffs and narrow spaces


Cliffs and narrow spaces are prevalent on most sc2 maps.

Think thor drop on Lost Temple, drops on Kulas Ravine, and seige lines outside the natural on Steppes of War. This is coupled with narrow paths which do not allow the zerg to easily surround or swarm the opponent, and this is an issue for almost every zerg unit.

I think a minor 5 second build time increase for either barracks or reapers and gateways would address a lot of the problem. Also adding more Metalopolis-esque maps would help a lot too.
I cant stop lactating
TheAngelofDeath
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2033 Posts
August 27 2010 02:51 GMT
#199
Maps need to be larger, just that simple. It's hard to have a strong macro game with such tiny maps. Look at the BW maps, those are the design that SC2 should aim for.
"Infestors are the suck" - LzGamer
Buddhist
Profile Joined April 2010
United States658 Posts
August 27 2010 02:54 GMT
#200
On August 27 2010 11:45 _Darwin_ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 27 2010 11:36 Buddhist wrote:
At the risk of seeming ignorant, exactly what is imbalanced about the current maps in the pool?

Can I get a list of examples from specific parts of specific maps and in what specific way they are imbalanced?


Quoted from the OP:
Show nested quote +
cliffs and narrow spaces


Cliffs and narrow spaces are prevalent on most sc2 maps.

Think thor drop on Lost Temple, drops on Kulas Ravine, and seige lines outside the natural on Steppes of War. This is coupled with narrow paths which do not allow the zerg to easily surround or swarm the opponent, and this is an issue for almost every zerg unit.

I think a minor 5 second build time increase for either barracks or reapers and gateways would address a lot of the problem. Also adding more Metalopolis-esque maps would help a lot too.

Most of these factors of map design just don't seem very... intuitively imbalanced. Narrow paths, of course, favor the unit with longer range, but cliffs themselves can be abused by all races.

One subtle example: Zerg players use the cliffs by the naturals on LT every game to keep their overlord out of vision while still in range to see everything there, giving them safe and useful scouting information.
TurboDreams
Profile Joined April 2009
United States427 Posts
August 27 2010 02:57 GMT
#201
On August 27 2010 11:51 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
Maps need to be larger, just that simple. It's hard to have a strong macro game with such tiny maps. Look at the BW maps, those are the design that SC2 should aim for.

Not just that, but the Zerg race needs large maps just to stay alive. If maps were like Fighting Spirit, we wouldnt have to many complain threads since Zerg benefit from large maps.
Music is the medicine of the mind || Kill a Zergling and a hundred more will take its place.
.risingdragoon
Profile Joined January 2008
United States3021 Posts
August 27 2010 03:01 GMT
#202
The early sc ladder maps have even more cliffs and narrow spaces

look at ashrigo, looks insane by today's standard

[image loading]
......::::........::::........::::........::::........::::.......::::.......::::... Up☆MaGiC ...::::.......::::.......::::........::::........::::........::::........
_Darwin_
Profile Joined August 2010
United States2374 Posts
August 27 2010 03:08 GMT
#203
On August 27 2010 11:54 Buddhist wrote:

Most of these factors of map design just don't seem very... intuitively imbalanced. Narrow paths, of course, favor the unit with longer range, but cliffs themselves can be abused by all races.


Yes, narrow paths favor the units with longer range. In ZvT, those units belong to Terran. Thus, narrow paths favor Terran in ZvT.

One subtle example: Zerg players use the cliffs by the naturals on LT every game to keep their overlord out of vision while still in range to see everything there, giving them safe and useful scouting information.


This "subtle" example seems to be the only prominent example of Zergs utilizing cliffs. Would you rather have a slow t1 supply unit that can, under normal circumstance, gain vision of your opponents natural, or would you rather have the ability to drop high damaged ranged units on a cliff of your opponents natural that can effectively end the game?
I cant stop lactating
Vortok
Profile Joined December 2009
United States830 Posts
August 27 2010 03:35 GMT
#204
On August 27 2010 09:10 Half wrote:
Now I'm not saying that the game is 100% fine and only map tweaks are all it needs. But even in game tweaks, all zerg needs would be a few minor buffs and T a few minor tweaks and that could potentially fix it. Big fixes are generally unwarranted unless there is a big "big problem".


Pretty much this x 100. The imbalance isn't anywhere near as bad as many people claim. Blizzard just has to find the right two or three knobs to tweak.
TriniMasta
Profile Joined December 2009
United States1323 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-08-27 03:42:03
August 27 2010 03:40 GMT
#205
sigh another balancy thread...
When is that new section in TL coming out?

On August 27 2010 12:35 Vortok wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 27 2010 09:10 Half wrote:
Now I'm not saying that the game is 100% fine and only map tweaks are all it needs. But even in game tweaks, all zerg needs would be a few minor buffs and T a few minor tweaks and that could potentially fix it. Big fixes are generally unwarranted unless there is a big "big problem".


Pretty much this x 100. The imbalance isn't anywhere near as bad as many people claim. Blizzard just has to find the right two or three knobs to tweak.

Can people like you please considering PvZ is balanced, (I won't talk about TvP, as the situation isn't distressful for people to cry about yet). Buff zerg, Protoss are going to start to cry. Nerf Terran, Terran might cry in TvP. Please look at all matchups before going like "Nerf T, TvZ balanced, we're all happy"
정명훈 FIGHTING!!! Play both T and P.
Qzy
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Denmark1121 Posts
August 27 2010 05:14 GMT
#206
Again... Blizz wants to help terran, cos 99% of terrans are noobs.

Blizz only sees 50/50 win/loss, and believe that's balance, yet due to more noobs playing terran, they are pushing the balance in the other direction.
TG Sambo... Intel classic! Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
kariido
Profile Joined December 2007
Saudi Arabia179 Posts
August 27 2010 10:02 GMT
#207
On August 27 2010 14:14 Qzy wrote:
Again... Blizz wants to help terran, cos 99% of terrans are noobs.

Blizz only sees 50/50 win/loss, and believe that's balance, yet due to more noobs playing terran, they are pushing the balance in the other direction.

I bet Blizzard, in all their "profound" wisdom, hadn't taken that into consideration when looking at win/loss ratios.
http://campaignforliberty.org/
Grond
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
599 Posts
August 27 2010 14:02 GMT
#208
Blizzard may add a few maps, the community may add a lot of maps. The ladder map pool will not change much. If you want ladder games to be balanced you have to fix the units for the current maps.
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 24m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Crank 60
MindelVK 24
Tasteless 23
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 9352
Horang2 2080
Bisu 727
Hyuk 653
Leta 378
Soma 260
Killer 188
TY 174
PianO 151
ToSsGirL 136
[ Show more ]
EffOrt 105
ZerO 80
Rush 57
JulyZerg 36
HiyA 23
Free 22
zelot 16
ajuk12(nOOB) 9
Movie 8
ivOry 4
Sacsri 4
Dota 2
XcaliburYe724
XaKoH 681
Fuzer 220
League of Legends
JimRising 578
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1724
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor285
Other Games
Happy528
Pyrionflax186
crisheroes183
ZerO(Twitch)20
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH329
• LUISG 21
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2315
League of Legends
• Lourlo1319
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
24m
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
2h 24m
WardiTV European League
2h 24m
BSL: ProLeague
8h 24m
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
1d 14h
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
WardiTV European League
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
RSL Revival
4 days
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
FEL
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
FEL
6 days
FEL
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 2v2 Season 3
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.