EPTBalancing Starcraft 2 around Blizzard maps - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sworn
Canada920 Posts
| ||
|
Zaphid
Czech Republic1860 Posts
On September 25 2010 15:34 SovSov wrote: So... many... single chokepoints. Also, here's an issue, how the hell are huge macro maps suppose to work in SC2? You need a fuckload of workers to saturate a base.. so are these epic games only going to end up with 50 food armies!? ~70 workers to saturate 3 bases and loads of production buildings so you can rebuild ASAP, quite macro intensive. Even if you take 4th base, your main will be mined out at that point, or you are not saturating properly | ||
|
DarkspearTribe
568 Posts
On September 25 2010 08:34 fabiano wrote: I wish Crossfire was in the ladder pool.... whas wrong with Blizzard, letting bad maps in the pool and leaving Peaks of Baekdo out??? Whats frightnening is that they are balancing the game based ONLY in small and bad maps. Edit: for those who dont know, I present you Peaks of Baekdo: ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/2/2c/Crossfire.jpg/405px-Crossfire.jpg) Looks pretty epic map tbh, but dustin said they are "intimidating" to newer players god dam it.... just ban this map to bronze-gold level players?? :| On September 25 2010 15:34 SovSov wrote: So... many... single chokepoints. Also, here's an issue, how the hell are huge macro maps suppose to work in SC2? You need a fuckload of workers to saturate a base.. so are these epic games only going to end up with 50 food armies!? if my opponent has 150 SCV's he's doing it wrong | ||
|
Zeroes
United States1102 Posts
| ||
|
Combine
United States812 Posts
Just hope they focus balance around larger maps. | ||
|
DreamSailor
Canada433 Posts
Further distances and larger hiding spots makes proxing very easy doesnt it? I proxy 2 gate'd a friend of mine on Crossfire today, I hid it in his natural and it was so easy he had no idea where it was cause he completely bypassed the natural. | ||
|
bubblegumbo
Taiwan1296 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On September 25 2010 16:26 DreamSailor wrote: Don't large maps also equate to easier proxying? Further distances and larger hiding spots makes proxing very easy doesnt it? I proxy 2 gate'd a friend of mine on Crossfire today, I hid it in his natural and it was so easy he had no idea where it was cause he completely bypassed the natural. Proxying is harder on a larger map because your worker still needs time to get to the place you want to build the proxy, so you lose time in the process which makes it less useful. Scouting for proxies is / should be something you need to do. On a large 3-4 player map you also need to find your opponent first. | ||
|
x7i
United Kingdom122 Posts
| ||
|
ktffang
United States120 Posts
| ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
| ||
|
GagnarTheUnruly
United States655 Posts
Balancing pro matchups and keeping up with the trends was the job of mapmakers in pro BW and I don't see any reason it shouldn't be the case in SC2 as well. @sovsov That map has lots of chokepoints but it also has 2-3 routes along the length of the map and two easy air routes mutas could take advantage of. It's totally possible that army numbers will drop on large macro maps b/c players are investing heavily in workers, but that actually encourages combat because it reduces unit value. Units are easier to replace and a maxed army comes faster. So as in BW you might see repeated army trades, more harrassment, and more actual fighting for position than is currently the state in SC2. At least that's what I hope would happen. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On September 25 2010 08:30 JTWStephens wrote: Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it was generally understood that most Blizzard maps are absolute garbage, not to mention the obvious Terran bias [DEM CLIFFS]. So yeah, it'd be really frightening to think they're balancing the game around said maps. I don't think you should start this shit about cliffs in SC2 as well... every time someone posted any new BW map someone said it was imba due to cliffs and a lot of the time it was not true at all. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On September 25 2010 17:56 infinity2k9 wrote: I don't think you should start this shit about cliffs in SC2 as well... every time someone posted any new BW map someone said it was imba due to cliffs and a lot of the time it was not true at all. Well, everyone knows LT is a culprit. Kulas Ravine is also bad with all the cliffs, and what the fuck, Delta Quadrant. A tank can hit both the natural, and the back door expo from the cliff on the corner. How is that not imbalanced in Terrans favor? | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
Edit: I mean, how do you make a Protoss favored map that doesn't favor Terran even more? You could just keep making maps bigger and bigger but it's probably just better to fix the root of the problem so you can keep making much more interesting maps. | ||
|
GagnarTheUnruly
United States655 Posts
On September 25 2010 16:15 Combine wrote: Seeing games on ICCup maps compared to the current pool is almost like watching a different game. So many more possibilities open up and lead to way more entertaining games. Bigger maps would want to make me ladder more, since you would see way less 1 base play and 15min games. I don't see why Blizzard thinks smaller maps are better for newer players, since they can get cheesed way easier and not have enough time to do what they are trying. Just hope they focus balance around larger maps. I think it's because the current map encourages 1 or 2 base play and more heavy turtling, which is easier than multi-base macro play. Also cheese is easier for noobs to deal with (and perform) than macro style play. I'm with you about laddering -- I'd way rather ladder on bigger maps. It also seems like there are some really strong pushes that come out at 7 min. or so and that I have a lot of trouble dealing with. As toss (whether it's realistic or not) I feel forced into 3 or 4 gate builds against T and P. I feel these maps would give more build possibilities by making FEs more viable and by encouraging early game econ play, rather than making rush builds the most stable builds. | ||
|
illumination
Korea (South)248 Posts
| ||
|
DarkspearTribe
568 Posts
On September 25 2010 18:19 illumination wrote: You know you guys keep bitching about blizzard and the maps but you never doing anything about it. There are a ton of high quality ICCUP maps out there and no1 plays them. Instead your playing the Blizzard maps which only makes the problem worse. If everyone here would just play the iccup maps (which are more balanced and definitely more fun) then Blizzard would be doing something. If i were Blizzard i wouldn't be following some whines on the internet, i would be watching to see what works, and since these maps are largely unplayed they can't justify using them. Problems: a) hard to find games on those games b) no matchmaking c) those maps are standard in tournaments so pros must practice on them | ||
|
Jameser
Sweden951 Posts
On September 25 2010 18:19 illumination wrote: You know you guys keep bitching about blizzard and the maps but you never doing anything about it. There are a ton of high quality ICCUP maps out there and no1 plays them. Instead your playing the Blizzard maps which only makes the problem worse. If everyone here would just play the iccup maps (which are more balanced and definitely more fun) then Blizzard would be doing something. If i were Blizzard i wouldn't be following some whines on the internet, i would be watching to see what works, and since these maps are largely unplayed they can't justify using them. I would love it if some of the popular caster-types would organize some more showmatches on iccup maps, I think it has to start in that end if they're going to gain popularity | ||
|
Tef
Sweden443 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Carnac/mappics/python.jpg) | ||
| ||
