|
At this point, there has been a general consensus that the blizzard maps are generally imbalanced, usually in favor of Terran. However, something troubles me. Blizzard is making patches based off results of these maps.
In general, most Ladder maps are small, have a relatively open natural, and almost all of them are 2player. This brings up my point: If blizzard is balancing SC2 on these maps, will they become the archetypes? The most entertaining games are always in games where the competitors have room to expand several times, which are always either LT, Kulas Ravine, or Metalopolis. Should small maps like Steppes of War become standard, and will that fare well in SC2's development as a spectator game?
The most common complaints seem to highlight that the real imbalance comes from the maps: Terran being able to put too much pressure on zerg in the early game; games are ending too quickly, and too onesided; Terran being able to turtle too easily...
All of these complaints are side effects of having small maps. another thing to note is that there are multiple units and abilities in the game that allow for frequent reinforcement that can honestly only see use in large maps. Nydus worms and warp prisms are not used simply because just walking towards your opponent is usually faster and more effiecient. The terran still have a slow and immobile army, but that is not important because there is only a few feet from the terran to the opponent.
Another thing of note is that almost all popular competitive maps in BW are quite large, and rather straight forward. I don't pretend to know the history of BW, but honestly, most of the most epic matches in BW wouldn't be nearly as exciting if it wasn't for the fact that the competitors often had several bases to expand to (5+).
That's about all I have to say, but I would like to add on a personal note, that my favorite maps are Lost Temple and Metalopolis for this reason. I believe that, while blizzard is doing a good job of balancing the game, their focus should be on the larger maps, and that they should hasten to add new maps to the ladder, so that they can balance SC2 with a large vocabulary of maps.
Poll: Should Blizzard balance around current maps, or try out new ones?I would like to see Blizzard incorporate larger macro based maps, and balance around them. (363) 82% Blizzard should experiment with new maps in ladder, and balance the maps for the Races. (44) 10% The current maps are fine, and Blizzard should continue as they have been. (20) 5% Blizzard should stop making balance patches, and let user-made maps develop. (17) 4% 444 total votes Your vote: Should Blizzard balance around current maps, or try out new ones? (Vote): The current maps are fine, and Blizzard should continue as they have been.
(Vote): I would like to see Blizzard incorporate larger macro based maps, and balance around them.
(Vote): Blizzard should experiment with new maps in ladder, and balance the maps for the Races.
(Vote): Blizzard should stop making balance patches, and let user-made maps develop.
|
|
|
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.
|
more macro maps will happen due to korean televised gaming which encourages for a more macro style game.
|
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:
|
Sigh, I want maps like that to be on the ladder so bad...
|
This is something I've been frustrated about, as well.
If Blizzard balances Zerg, just as an example, on smaller, claustrophobic maps (where they traditionally perform poorly due to lacking room to manuever and react), then Blizzard's shooting down any hopes of adding different types of maps to the pool, because Zerg could become too good on bigger maps.
We'll just be stuck playing on these small, chokepoint-heavy maps =/.
|
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this topic, and don't want to take the time to rant out what I think about it, but I would like to point out that the poll in the OP is pretty biased.
It's basically asking two questions, A - Do you like the maps, and B - Do you like the way Blizzard is patching the game.
These two issues are intertwined, which is the point of the thread, but the questions themselves are seperate. There's no option for saying "I like the patches, but I don't like the maps" or "I don't like the patches, but I do like the maps".
What you do have is one "I love everything Blizzard does" option, and three "I hate everything Blizzard does" options of differing degrees, and you're not going to get an understandable opinion base out of a poll like that.
|
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:
Playing zvt vs mech on that map is a nightmare.. The passages are so narrow that you're practically feeding your units to terran.
|
Peaks would be a lot better than the other maps but even that's pretty tight for a Brood War map. Not to mention it seems they narrowed a lot of the paths.
|
Yeah definitely, balancing the game around the awful Blizzard maps is going to kill the game at some point. I don't understand why they're the ones making all the maps, shouldn't users be able to suggest maps? Shouldn't there be a community voting system? Why does Blizzard assume they know how to make competitive maps?
|
What we probably want is a meeting in the middle. Some map stuff (destructible rocks, cliffs, occasional chokes, Xel'naga towers) should be reasonably balanced across the races so we can have varied maps. On the other hand we should be building maps that are within a good map size to allow for balance for all races. If that range is too narrow to allow for some variety in map size then that would need to be balanced out as well.
|
On September 25 2010 10:06 AssuredVacancy wrote:
Playing zvt vs mech on that map is a nightmare.. The passages are so narrow that you're practically feeding your units to terran.
Not really, Thats why zerg have mutas and broodlords.
OT. Yea need larger maps, small maps are so annoying 
|
On September 25 2010 10:06 AssuredVacancy wrote:
Playing zvt vs mech on that map is a nightmare.. The passages are so narrow that you're practically feeding your units to terran.
They aren't that narrow... plus there are many different routes to take through the map.
There was another thread on here where someone suggested changing the map pool up for different divisions. As someone moves up the divisions it would make sense if maps that Blizzard define as "more complicated" were added to the pool. And the more imbalanced ones were eliminated. I hope that as tournaments begin to use more "made for TV maps" Blizzard goes with the flow and adds them to the map pool.
PS. It seems to me that "more complicated" would mean more macro oriented maps, not just more paths across the map
|
I don't see why people assume that Blizzard will never allow community maps into the ladder pool.
I've seen posts saying that Blizzard thinks that they're too hard for the average gamer or whatever, but tbh it seems like more of the usual QQ casuals ruining everything bullshit. Has anyone got a source? Maybe if more people ask about it they'll make changes.
|
I have been thinking about this lately as well. Most of the maps are quite bad for Zerg. I would really like to see more maps with bigger ramps and natural expansions that are easier to defend.
|
Well that makes it pretty damn clear Blizzard. I know you're watching. Get on it!
|
i like how all blizzard ladder maps are small, excluding one which is medium. >.>
|
I can think of a zerg favored map, and if that's what we need to play on to make the game balanced, I find that rather depressing. Terrible as they are, I'd much rather the game be balanced on the current maps so that in the future when we do have more balanced maps, they can have more unique characteristics like cliffs.
|
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!?
|
I would love to see some new maps or at least some way of playing against someone of the same skill level on any map without laddering. I wanna see like FS in sc2 map pool
|
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
|
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:
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
|
I really think blizz should release a new map pool to balance around or wait for hots to release a ptr to rebalance around bigger maps
|
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.
|
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.
|
Large macro maps will definitely make SC2 a better game, and will definitely make Zergs better as well, which is a good thing. Right now Zerg players are always on the defense against harassment from Terran and larger maps will help alleviate that without changing the game unit balance.
|
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.
|
im always for 2 20min games stead one 40min long
|
I'm not really digging the blizzard maps. Putting rocks all over the place doesn't make for good maps. They should just rotate maps out that are played on less frequently.
|
i feel like that crossfire map would be better if the middle was all connected.
|
@psion
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.
|
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.
|
On September 25 2010 17:56 infinity2k9 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
The way Terran plays right now, I don't think it is possible to make maps that aren't favored to Terran in one way or another. You could make one or two, but how are you going to keep them diverse as well as fairly race neutral?
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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
|
They should balance the game around Python, it was the most balanced map in BW. ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Carnac/mappics/python.jpg)
|
On September 25 2010 18:35 Tef wrote:They should balance the game around Python, it was the most balanced map in BW.
reapers
|
On September 25 2010 18:36 DarkspearTribe wrote:
reapers
Yeah, I guess they would have to make some water in between the islands, but it's the openess that I miss.
|
Italy172 Posts
python was NOT the most balanced map in bw.
From liquipedia:
The map layout of Python is similar to the previously popular map, Lost Temple, but is known to fix various imbalances. Statistically, the map favors Terran. Python has become the default 1v1 map on Battle.net and is easily the most popular map on iCCup to the point that many people complain about it being overplayed
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/147_Python_1.3
Do some research before saying bullshit.
|
On September 25 2010 18:32 DarkspearTribe wrote:Show nested quote +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
The problem can be fixed in any of the spots. If pros play them then players will want to see the games, caster can get players interested in these maps but if the maps get played by ordinary players like us then it raises on the custom games list. Lost temple is like the third most popular map and these maps outclass LT easily. This what makes your posts simple whining cuz your not playing them. If you would wait in the lobby for a iccup game while you browse the forums like i do then you would actually be improving things instead of making your useless post.
|
largermap is so so needed
|
Good point but I doubout blizzard will do anything about it. The community should.
|
The game should never be balanced around maps. Maps should help balance the game. Not the other way around.
|
I wish they would cooperate with some professional dedicated map makers for their ladder-pool (why not paying a small fee to them (in blizzard terms) and raise the quality of the whole game with seasonly new maps endlessly?!).
|
Maps are only one of many issues and a relatively small one. There is no need to even worry about maps until they get things in the right ballpark. I do agree a couple more maps would be nice so tournaments could just not use the maps that almost always get removed but its way too early to think about fine tuning balance with maps.
|
Crossfire would be in the right direction, but they really need some more solid maps.
They shoulda copied Fighting Spirit.
|
I definitely feel that they would have done a good job making more BW knockoff maps. Yeah, we could keep most of the new maps, but making a few more big maps would have been nice.
Edit: Python is pretty solid as far as a balance standard goes. "Statistically" it's Terran favored, but "statistically" it's nothing compared to Kulas or somesuch.
|
We need:
1. Sufficient data about the 3 matchups being published.
2. A means to reform the ladder map pool.
How are we supposed to do that? Do we have to found a software company first, become successful at that and invest our capital to write sophisticated data-mining software?
Lack of map stats is one of the biggest issue. Only Blizzard can pull it off. Most games are played on the ladder.
e: I also prefered Fighting Spirit and Tau Cross.
|
Hardware limitations people, hardware limitations. Can't have maps like that and expect everyone to run it smoothly.
This whole 3D business is all hype anyway. You don't need 3D in RTS. How often do people take advantage of rotate and zoom. Tasteless and Artosis use it for LOLs occasionally but that's it. It's just there so Blizzard can say:
"Hey look! SC2 is in 3D! Give us your money NAO!"
Because of hardware limitations we are stuck with small maps and the 200 unit limit.
It's not even real 3D. It doesn't accurately portray how line-of-sight would be obscured by cliffs and whatnot. Nor does it take into account obstruction of hitscan (straight line) weapons vs lobbed weapons. They just put the same mechanic as BW... if it's on a cliff you automatically can't see it.
Nice you all fell for the marketing gimmick though. I think Dustin Browden would say: "3D is keeeeeewl!!!"
.
|
Another thing about Blizzard maps is they try to over-emphasize the 3D-ness of it. It's like when Valve released HL2 they put over the top physics to hype the physics engine, and how 3D TV keeps thrusting things at the camera (uselessly).
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE HYPE
|
I'm miffed at how many maps aren't used in ladder, Crossfire being a PRIME example.
|
When it takes less than .05 sec to drop a nexus with a few marauders, i really doubt big maps will bring terran nerf... No matter where i position my army, a few marauders can be dropped in one of my bases and it's gg. Small maps = less distance to where they are dropping marauders.
|
On September 25 2010 21:34 junkacc wrote:
Hardware limitations people, hardware limitations. Can't have maps like that and expect everyone to run it smoothly.
This whole 3D business is all hype anyway. You don't need 3D in RTS. How often do people take advantage of rotate and zoom. Tasteless and Artosis use it for LOLs occasionally but that's it. It's just there so Blizzard can say:
"Hey look! SC2 is in 3D! Give us your money NAO!"
Because of hardware limitations we are stuck with small maps and the 200 unit limit.
It's not even real 3D. It doesn't accurately portray how line-of-sight would be obscured by cliffs and whatnot. Nor does it take into account obstruction of hitscan (straight line) weapons vs lobbed weapons. They just put the same mechanic as BW... if it's on a cliff you automatically can't see it.
Nice you all fell for the marketing gimmick though. I think Dustin Browden would say: "3D is keeeeeewl!!!"
.
....
lawl.
No your completely wrong lol, and have no idea what your talking about. Note the existence of 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4.
|
On September 25 2010 21:34 junkacc wrote:
Hardware limitations people, hardware limitations. Can't have maps like that and expect everyone to run it smoothly.
This whole 3D business is all hype anyway. You don't need 3D in RTS. How often do people take advantage of rotate and zoom. Tasteless and Artosis use it for LOLs occasionally but that's it. It's just there so Blizzard can say:
"Hey look! SC2 is in 3D! Give us your money NAO!"
Because of hardware limitations we are stuck with small maps and the 200 unit limit.
It's not even real 3D. It doesn't accurately portray how line-of-sight would be obscured by cliffs and whatnot. Nor does it take into account obstruction of hitscan (straight line) weapons vs lobbed weapons. They just put the same mechanic as BW... if it's on a cliff you automatically can't see it.
Nice you all fell for the marketing gimmick though. I think Dustin Browden would say: "3D is keeeeeewl!!!"
.
Look at how smart this guy is.
We're all so stupid for playing SC2. You got us there.
|
On September 26 2010 01:28 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2010 21:34 junkacc wrote:
Hardware limitations people, hardware limitations. Can't have maps like that and expect everyone to run it smoothly.
This whole 3D business is all hype anyway. You don't need 3D in RTS. How often do people take advantage of rotate and zoom. Tasteless and Artosis use it for LOLs occasionally but that's it. It's just there so Blizzard can say:
"Hey look! SC2 is in 3D! Give us your money NAO!"
Because of hardware limitations we are stuck with small maps and the 200 unit limit.
It's not even real 3D. It doesn't accurately portray how line-of-sight would be obscured by cliffs and whatnot. Nor does it take into account obstruction of hitscan (straight line) weapons vs lobbed weapons. They just put the same mechanic as BW... if it's on a cliff you automatically can't see it.
Nice you all fell for the marketing gimmick though. I think Dustin Browden would say: "3D is keeeeeewl!!!"
. Look at how smart this guy is. We're all so stupid for playing SC2. You got us there.
Yeah, enjoy paying 180 bucks for the whole thing. Dustin Browden would say: "Money is keeeeeewl!!!"
User was banned for this post.
|
Why can't blizzard just hire the iccup mapmakers? They would have one to three mapmakers who can publish high quality tournament maps and never have to worry about making maps again.
One thing they truly suck at is making maps. Just look at the Brood War maps and WC3 maps!
I'm getting sick and tired of having a Xel Naga tower and a destructible rock on every single fucking map. Does every map need to have a DESTRUCTIBLE ROCK? What the fuck is wrong with Blizzard?
Oh, let's have a Xel Naga Watch tower and a destructible rock on every ladder map. They sure are very original and bring a lot of deep strategy to the game!
|
On September 26 2010 03:03 junkacc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 01:28 Bagi wrote:On September 25 2010 21:34 junkacc wrote:
Hardware limitations people, hardware limitations. Can't have maps like that and expect everyone to run it smoothly.
This whole 3D business is all hype anyway. You don't need 3D in RTS. How often do people take advantage of rotate and zoom. Tasteless and Artosis use it for LOLs occasionally but that's it. It's just there so Blizzard can say:
"Hey look! SC2 is in 3D! Give us your money NAO!"
Because of hardware limitations we are stuck with small maps and the 200 unit limit.
It's not even real 3D. It doesn't accurately portray how line-of-sight would be obscured by cliffs and whatnot. Nor does it take into account obstruction of hitscan (straight line) weapons vs lobbed weapons. They just put the same mechanic as BW... if it's on a cliff you automatically can't see it.
Nice you all fell for the marketing gimmick though. I think Dustin Browden would say: "3D is keeeeeewl!!!"
. Look at how smart this guy is. We're all so stupid for playing SC2. You got us there. Yeah, enjoy paying 180 bucks for the whole thing. Dustin Browden would say: "Money is keeeeeewl!!!"
OK, if you didn't buy, or don't intend to buy SC2, then why are you even here?
And I'm pretty sure a majority of people who are visiting this site, and have SC2 didn't buy it becuase it was 3d...
with that said, large maps are very playable, as is larger supply, even with 3d, proven simply because of the fact that I have played on them. therefore, "hardware limitations" is an illegitamate argument, and the rest of the points stated here have nothing to do with the topic.
|
On September 26 2010 03:13 Mr.Minionman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 03:03 junkacc wrote:On September 26 2010 01:28 Bagi wrote:On September 25 2010 21:34 junkacc wrote:
Hardware limitations people, hardware limitations. Can't have maps like that and expect everyone to run it smoothly.
This whole 3D business is all hype anyway. You don't need 3D in RTS. How often do people take advantage of rotate and zoom. Tasteless and Artosis use it for LOLs occasionally but that's it. It's just there so Blizzard can say:
"Hey look! SC2 is in 3D! Give us your money NAO!"
Because of hardware limitations we are stuck with small maps and the 200 unit limit.
It's not even real 3D. It doesn't accurately portray how line-of-sight would be obscured by cliffs and whatnot. Nor does it take into account obstruction of hitscan (straight line) weapons vs lobbed weapons. They just put the same mechanic as BW... if it's on a cliff you automatically can't see it.
Nice you all fell for the marketing gimmick though. I think Dustin Browden would say: "3D is keeeeeewl!!!"
. Look at how smart this guy is. We're all so stupid for playing SC2. You got us there. Yeah, enjoy paying 180 bucks for the whole thing. Dustin Browden would say: "Money is keeeeeewl!!!" OK, if you didn't buy, or don't intend to buy SC2, then why are you even here? And I'm pretty sure a majority of people who are visiting this site, and have SC2 didn't buy it becuase it was 3d... with that said, large maps are very playable, as is larger supply, even with 3d, proven simply because of the fact that I have played on them. therefore, "hardware limitations" is an illegitamate argument, and the rest of the points stated here have nothing to do with the topic.
I bought the game (shame on me I bought the hype too) and the standard maps only run with graphics mid-low. Not everyone has a great comp like you so just because it runs fine on your comp doesn't mean it runs on everyone's.
And does your comp run well on 4vs4 with 800 units on it? Don't think so.
|
Here is what blizzard should do.
Make Ladder seasons like Diablo 2.
Ladder resets bring about new maps into the rotation. For instance, 5 maps are played on this ladder. Out of the five maps, two are the least played. Scrap those two and bring two new maps to the rotation. After a few ladder seasons. Bring fresh new maps to the rotation.
Finally, maps should be a copy of Fighting spirit with a few tweaks to accomodate reapers and blinking stalkers.
From there, create maps which are different and much more variable. The reason terran is destroying right now is because of the million chokepoints on maps. Xel naga towers also create unneeded choke points.
Small ramps were an issue in BW, Terran and toss could defend key points with ease. With Python things started to change.
Bigger ramps, they need to be implemented.
|
I run everything on low because I favor performance over eye candy. And while I haven't actually played any 4v4's, I know that those maps are massive, therefore making such maps in 1v1 a definite possibility.
|
Has Bliz said anything about when they are going to switch up the map pool? Swapping Desert Oasis with a new map for example. Even if it's not a bad map nobody wants to play it...I would like to see some user maps in there personally.
A simple yes/no will suffice so I don't hijack this thread.
|
On September 25 2010 21:00 Tump wrote:
Crossfire would be in the right direction, but they really need some more solid maps.
They shoulda copied Fighting Spirit.
I can't believe it took this long for someone to mention fighting spirit or eye of the storm. IMO those are the way that sc2 maps need to go.
|
I feel like there are a lot of these threads and I think everyone agrees that larger/new maps would be ideal. They would also make balancing easier. I really think it's strange that all of their maps are small with one medium and zero large.
I really like the idea of adding more maps to the pool based on division. When a platinum player plays against a gold player, they could only draw a map from the 'gold' pool. This could end up causing problems with players not being able to ladder on maps they like.
The solution would be IMO to give each division the same map pool, but different amounts of vetos. Each division would then have a certain set of maps automatically vetoed. Players would be able to uncheck some and check others, etc.. This would allow all of the maps to be played at any division, but would still keep it friendly for casual/new players.
Granted not a perfect solution, but it's a thought in the right direction.
|
I absolutely LOVE the size of Lost Temple and without the major abuse on ledges this map would be my favorite map. When Terran's don't abuse these cliffs I have some of the best games ever. I really hope Blizzard starts adding better maps or talking with Korean map makers to come up with new designs. Honestly, with all the Customs out there I think Blizzard should be pumping out at least 2 maps per month for us in patches.
|
Yeah completely agree.
This is probably why toss is not having the same problems versus terran as zerg, because they have their own tricks to abusing and traversing terrain, like blink stalkers and using proxy pylons to warp in units on otherwise inaccessible terrain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/2/2c/Crossfire.jpg/405px-Crossfire.jpg)
