EPTOn October 07 2010 20:52 228zip wrote:
its a very rare sight though....
but again the players should not suffer imbalance for the sake of the viewer.
[D] Let's Play Shakuras Plateau! - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES51621 Posts
its a very rare sight though.... but again the players should not suffer imbalance for the sake of the viewer. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On October 07 2010 20:40 Shikyo wrote: Seriously? Too narrow pathways, natural is too difficult to defend, ramp is blockable with 2 pylons(still don't get why this isn't patched out of every map), the fog in the mainbase is bad, etc. Metalopolis isn't a good map either, it just is less worse than pretty much all the others. I seriously think that Lost Temple would be a brilliant map if they just put something like forest or stuff on the ledge above the natural so that no units could be placed there. I really don't understand why they're letting the cliff ruin the game when it'd be so simple to fix. Okay, so any map that makes expanding anything less than super comfortable is bad. Every map should be LT without the cliffs, and while we're at it lets get rid of Colossi, Blink Stalkers and Reapers too so they can't abuse the wide ledge. Let's harass fourth expansions with 2-3 units and make 200/200 armies and then clash them in the middle of the map. | ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
| ||
|
Art_of_Kill
Zaire1232 Posts
| ||
|
Teddyman
Finland362 Posts
| ||
|
[Silverflame]
Germany640 Posts
| ||
|
Meff
Italy287 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:14 kojinshugi wrote: Okay, so any map that makes expanding anything less than super comfortable is bad. Every map should be LT without the cliffs, and while we're at it lets get rid of Colossi, Blink Stalkers and Reapers too so they can't abuse the wide ledge. Let's harass fourth expansions with 2-3 units and make 200/200 armies and then clash them in the middle of the map. Well... I don't go the the extreme of Shikyo (so: I don't have any problem with Metalopolis), but with the current state of the game you pretty much have to open with mutas on LT during every ZvT. That's not too good for variety. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On October 07 2010 19:33 kojinshugi wrote: What's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious. Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z Beta: TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ] ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ] PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ] International: TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ] ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ] PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ] Korean: TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ] ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ] PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ] | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES51621 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:27 Teddyman wrote: Total count of posts saying they have played the map in the 2 Let's Play threads so far: 7. am i counted in there...just wondering. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:30 Sfydjklm wrote: Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z Beta: TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ] ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ] PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ] International: TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ] ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ] PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ] Korean: TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ] ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ] PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ] I wouldn't call meta Zerg favored, but with the crap pool we've got now, its the best option out there. Pretty much any ICCup map beats the crap out of it. | ||
|
Obsolescence
United States270 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:30 Sfydjklm wrote: Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z Beta: TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ] ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ] PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ] International: TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ] ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ] PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ] Korean: TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ] ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ] PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ] [Citation Needed]? Sorry, but where did you get this data? Is this your personal record? You and friends? I'm assuming the Koreans have played more than 5 games of TvZ on meta. Are those ratios or actual # of games? You have an interesting set of data there but I have no idea if it is actually meaningful or if it is entirely fabricated (no offense). | ||
|
Silu
Finland165 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:30 Sfydjklm wrote: Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z Beta: TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ] ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ] PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ] International: TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ] ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ] PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ] Korean: TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ] ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ] PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ] You're making extensive assumptions from a sample size of A HUNDRED games spanning months of balance changes and strategy evolution? And to think I got flak for making map stats with a sample size of tens of thousands of games spanning a week or two...  | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:45 Obsolescence wrote: [Citation Needed]? Sorry, but where did you get this data? Is this your personal record? You and friends? I'm assuming the Koreans have played more than 5 games of TvZ on meta. Are those ratios or actual # of games? You have an interesting set of data there but I have no idea if it is actually meaningful or if it is entirely fabricated (no offense). TLPD | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:47 Silu wrote: You're making extensive assumptions from a sample size of A HUNDRED games spanning months of balance changes and strategy evolution? And to think I got flak for making map stats with a sample size of tens of thousands of games spanning a week or two... Well that and experience. I always thought meta was shitty for zerg, and when i sc2geared my reps i found out to my enormous surprise that Metalapolis was the only map where my winrate dipped below 50% And the one of the two where it dipped below 60%(the other being delta quadrant). I understand all yada yada about sample size but thats teh best thing we got right now, and we only have two option, either hypothesize out of thin air or hypothesize using concrete facts. I chose the sane option. Other then that i bet that there is no zerg out tehre that has metalapolis in top 5 of their ladder maps if tehy sc2gear it. Also i would like the link to the map stats youre talking about. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES51621 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:45 Obsolescence wrote: [Citation Needed]? Sorry, but where did you get this data? Is this your personal record? You and friends? I'm assuming the Koreans have played more than 5 games of TvZ on meta. Are those ratios or actual # of games? You have an interesting set of data there but I have no idea if it is actually meaningful or if it is entirely fabricated (no offense). its taken from the TLPD SC2 stats.. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:29 Meff wrote: Well... I don't go the the extreme of Shikyo (so: I don't have any problem with Metalopolis), but with the current state of the game you pretty much have to open with mutas on LT during every ZvT. That's not too good for variety. That's fine. I think the LT cliff is a bit stupid. I try not to even use it unless I'm really behind, because it feels kind of like a dick move. I think a good solution is to give Zerg a better way to deal with those cliff drops, rather than making all maps safe and boring. Or maybe increase the dead zone of tanks when they're shooting one cliff level down, so queens+ovies can actually kill the tank. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On October 07 2010 19:33 kojinshugi wrote: What's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious. My opinion: First off it's pretty dull. The first natural is placed good. It's fairly easy to expand but not for free. However, the starting positions are a bit weird. The game develops very differently depending on the starting positions. This results in a randomness playing a part in who wins and who doesn't (because, for example, zerg likes cross positions). I don't like that. Again, the next expansion you take may depend on start positions. It's probably the best map out of the blizzard maps, but it's far inferior to the quality of the maps we were used in BW. And even though I've previously complained about the gimmicky watch towers, rocks and so on I don't think such gimmicks are bad in general. A LOT of pro bw maps had buildings blocking paths and so on. But they were fine! For some reason, blizzard can't make maps like those... The ICCup maps blew me away when I saw them. They _felt_ good. | ||
|
Silu
Finland165 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:55 Sfydjklm wrote: Also i would like the link to the map stats youre talking about. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=149880 I would have made additional runs since then (for multiple regions), always yielding the last 25 games of everyone, but it seemed like people weren't interested in anything else than overall race balance whine (which isn't and can't be seen from stats such as seen there, due to how the matchmaking system works) or simply were more interested in trolling. Granted, those stats don't tell everything (namely, they don't try tell the "absolute win percentages" in a way the TLPD stats could) , but taken with a grain of salt they tell many things about the relative balance ordering/magnitudes of the maps.Also didn't bother with Chi-square tests or similar because everyone who would understand anything about the tests understands enough without. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On October 07 2010 22:12 ParasitJonte wrote: First off it's pretty dull. The first natural is placed good. It's fairly easy to expand but not for free. However, the starting positions are a bit weird. The game develops very differently depending on the starting positions. This results in a randomness playing a part in who wins and who doesn't (because, for example, zerg likes cross positions). I don't think it decides who wins and who doesn't. Of course Zerg likes cross positions, but it's not an automatic loss to spawn in other positions. This "randomness" is pretty much the point of playing 1v1 on a 2v2 map. Of course it's really not so much "random" as it is 3 maps in one. If you have a solid strategy for all positions you're not really doing anything random. For a spectator (looking at SC2 as an esport) it adds very easily understood variables to the game. Things that work cross positions don't work so well close, and vice versa. It's information you have from the start but the players don't until they scout. Tournaments where every now and then you're forced to diverge from norms like "I get to expand away from my opponent" are more interesting. I just don't understand this insistence on safety in what's basically a war game. | ||
| ||
