|
On November 23 2010 08:14 Chill wrote:
I think they should be close, but I find it interesting when a certain map favours a style and a race - It's arbitrarily forces a change in playstyle from game to game, which I enjoy seeing.
I don't know if it's "right" so to speak, but I enjoy seeing it.
There is a fundamental difference between "favoring" a races style, and favoring a race. What you seem to enjoy is a force of a change of styles rather than directly favoring a race. Take Destination in scbw for example - this map single handily helped the mech "revolution" in TvZ that occurred. It was (well, if you like those kind of games) extremely exciting for us spectators. However, TvZ remains at a 51.9% win ratio - pretty damned balanced.
However, favoring a race that causes the other races to play in an unideal situation and is forced to overly compensate for the imbalanced nature of the map is not the same thing, nor is it ideal.
Lets just take the cliffs at LT as the OP had for example - the cliffs force the zerg to compensate their play for the cliffs dropping possibility. However, terran does not have to use the cliffs at all in their build order, and the map alone forces the zerg to not be able to expand as they normally would like to. Thus, the map allows the terran player to gain an advantage without doing anything, even if they don't thor drop. (this would be so much easier to explain while talking instead of typing).
Anywho, there is a proper way to encourage certain styles, and their is an improper way. Maps such as destination and triathlon are proper ways to doing this. Maps such as Kulas, Lost Temple, Jungle Basin, etc. are not the proper ways of achieving this. Instead, its just imbalanced.
|
I think Blizzard is thinking like "we want maps that differentiate from each other" so the gameplay isnt always the same... wich is good !
But it cant be right that a race is always favoured on a certain map.
|
Although i do believe alot of the blame belongs to maps. For example the lack of feasible Terran FEs due to open Naturals.
Personally i still believe their are imbalances such as Terran Late game being to weak. Zerg Late game being to strong. The fact that Banling busts deters FE builds so easily. The fact that Protoss kill mech so hard. The fact that Stalkers suck and Zealots never reach their target. Or how mass roach only dies to mass Marauder.
SC2 Blizzard maps suck and its balance could use some work. Although they want to see a variety of games, that is still no excuse for crappy maps.
|
I think maps don't have to be balanced as long as the pool is balanced (which isn't always the case).
|
I would say yes & no
Yes, as they shouldn't be like Battle Royale
No, because compeletely balanced maps would be all too alike and boring to be frank.
It's okay if a map favors a race to some extent as it forces different strategies and tactics & that only adds to the entertainment value. If maps are too balanced, all the games play out the same and I for do not enjoy boring when it comes to SCII.
The Blizzard maps now are suprisingly well balanced. The current balance issues don't seem connected to maps although there are few exceptions.
On November 23 2010 08:56 Raiden X wrote:
For example the lack of feasible Terran FEs due to open Naturals.
There is a term called simcity that makes everything possible in the world of RTS.
|
I can't wait till all SC2 maps are as good as metalopolis in terms of balance, the game will be even more fun.
|
On November 23 2010 09:02 Disastorm wrote:
I think maps don't have to be balanced as long as the pool and order is balanced (which isn't always the case).
For example in a BO3 I would prefer that if the first map is heavily one race favored that the second map should be equally heavy the other race favored, and then presumably the third map should be balanced.
Wouldnt make sense to make it equaly on scnd game in a BO3 ...
|
On November 23 2010 09:05 Ksyper wrote:
I can't wait till all SC2 maps are as good as metalopolis in terms of balance, the game will be even more fun.
The problem with this attitude is you can't make a map as balanced as another and still have the maps have different styles.
|
You have completely miscontrued the nature of Artosis' comment, OP.
He meant they are supposed to be balanced in-so-far as to help evolve the metagame and help create entertaining matches for the viewers and players. To keep things fresh. Maps do still have to maintain a strong degree of balance, but not perfect balance.
Are you people really going to be silly enough as to completely over-exaggerate what someone says? Is it really that hard to sit back and think that maybe he meant a slight imbalance and not a large one? If you and Artosis were sitting at the GSL together is that the first thing you'd assume and reply with if he said that? You really wouldn't stop and think that maybe he was implying minor imbalances for the sake of entertainment?
It's eSports. Not eDicksBigger. It's about the entertainment and fresh appeal as much as it is about the competition, if not more. Not everything needs to revolve around proving EXACTLY who #1 is in the world.
|
On November 23 2010 09:16 Spacemanspiff wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 09:05 Ksyper wrote:
I can't wait till all SC2 maps are as good as metalopolis in terms of balance, the game will be even more fun. The problem with this attitude is you can't make a map as balanced as another and still have the maps have different styles.
Why not? look at Xelnaga Caverns its different from Metal but ... still its fairly balanced (at least what it think)
|
I've contemplated a bit on what a "balanced" map would contain. Specifically dealing with Terran and their efficacy perform feats that the other two races can't. A tank in siege mode has far longer range than anything Z or P has. Thus I come to the question of "can a map be balanced while containing a position for siege tanks to attack an important area, like a natural, while not allowing for any other unit to attack from that position?" If it is considered balanced, it seems like that would be a great benefit for Terran to have such a position on a map. Does it follow that, if the map that contained that great benefit for Terran was considered 'balanced", that another map that didn't have anything like that, or even that same map as before but with that sieging position taken out automatically becomes imbalanced?
|
On November 23 2010 09:20 Onioncookie wrote:
Why not? look at Xelnaga Caverns its different from Metal but ... still its fairly balanced (at least what it think)
Well to start with either one of them being balanced or equally balanced is an opinion. That is why I am trying not to mention specifics so much as balance is really nothing more than collective opinion.
My point was that any balance change to races would affect each race differently on different maps.
Take map A, a macro style map which is generally considered 'balanced', equal win %, however you measure balance. A nerf to a race's macro or shift in the metagame might mean they lose more on map A, making it unbalanced, but making others more balanced. You can replace macro with cliffs, rush distance, air distance, open natural, far away 3rd, any aspect of a map and this is true.
It is impossible to have maps that are balanced in all match ups in a changing game. It is also impossible to have a game that is completely balanced across different types of maps. Players having to handle this is why the game is fun.
|
I think maps should be balanced as much as reasonably possible with the expectation/understanding that they will always favor some style/race depending on any number of factors from size, resource lcoations/natural, etc.
I think positional imbalance, such as - spawning at 3 oclock is better than 9 oclock on a 4 player map - , should be weeded out as much as possible and that is what makes good map design.
Player history, race used, styles, will all factor into success on a given map. This is why I think best of 3+ with map rotation or picking is a good thing if logistics allow.
|
The maps don't really have to be balanced... but it really wouldn't hurt if they were a bit larger.
|
On November 23 2010 10:18 Spacemanspiff wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 09:20 Onioncookie wrote:
Why not? look at Xelnaga Caverns its different from Metal but ... still its fairly balanced (at least what it think)
Well to start with either one of them being balanced or equally balanced is an opinion. That is why I am trying not to mention specifics so much as balance is really nothing more than collective opinion. My point was that any balance change to races would affect each race differently on different maps. Take map A, a macro style map which is generally considered 'balanced', equal win %, however you measure balance. A nerf to a race's macro or shift in the metagame might mean they lose more on map A, making it unbalanced, but making others more balanced. You can replace macro with cliffs, rush distance, air distance, open natural, far away 3rd, any aspect of a map and this is true. It is impossible to have maps that are balanced in all match ups in a changing game. It is also impossible to have a game that is completely balanced across different types of maps. Players having to handle this is why the game is fun.
U still can have cliffs and stuff and still make it balanced ... but not something that gives always an advantage to the other races ... and will always favor a certain race ...
But something like "Terran is clearly in an advantage at this map" , thats what i would never want to hear from any tournaments/casters anymore...
I wanna hear ... on this map, X tactic is a good choice (without beeing imbalanced)
|
On November 23 2010 10:26 Onioncookie wrote:
But something like "Terran is clearly in an advantage at this map" , thats what i would never want to hear from any tournaments/casters anymore...
This won't ever happen. Someone will always have an advantage. The map maker should try to make sure its not game breaking, but they can't make it so no one has an advantage ever.
|
i really dont mind maps slightly favouring certain races. like scrap station and zerg just cos of the general layout.
what i DONT like is stupid shit like lost temple cliff drops where you cant tech what u need to before the tank gets up there. imbalances to general playstyle are fine, specific abuses are not imo
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Individual maps aren't mean to be balanced, but MAP POOLS should be balanced.
Just make maps slightly larger and add more wide open spaces and I'll be happy. :p
|
It's basically impossible to make a map 50% across all 3 match-ups, and that's ok. Maps are made in the context of a Map Pool. Throughout the history of RTS games, racial balance has been supplemented by map balance. I do think it is important that maps do not favor some races too much though.
|
Tournament map pools should be balanced... I mean, having Kulas and Steppes in MLG was kinda dumb. Everyone knows how painful Kulas is to play on. But the first map in each series ought to be the most balanced map there is. And that is not Lost Temple, but yet I see LT used a lot as the first map in tournaments...
I like the different maps though, especially for ladder.
I think if you're going to do something that creates an obvious racial disadvantage then you should try to make up for it somewhere else in the map.
For example, you make a map with destructible rocks at the natural which is obviously more disadvantageous to zerg than anyone else. So maybe put wide ramps on all the mains to force the opponent to worry more about zergling run-ins. Or no wide choke to prevent forge FE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
