[D] Are maps supposed to be balanced? - Page 3

mOnion

United States5653 Posts

November 23 2010 06:10 GMT

#41

maps are the sole reason BW survived as long as it did

its incredibly essential to the life of an esport to keep an ever changing map pool that is as balanced as possible. korean map makers had it down to an art keeping the pool fresh with interesting new maps with new mechanics while keeping everything balanced

occasionally they get it wrong (looking at you tears of the protoss SLASH battle royale) but blizzard isn't really paying attention to the map pool I feel and they are going to have to eventually or SC2 is going to get stale

StuBob

United States373 Posts

November 23 2010 06:35 GMT

#42

I want Iccup maps!

those are interesting and fun to play on

Xerros

United States39 Posts

November 23 2010 06:36 GMT

#43

I think maps that arn't perfectly balanced are part of the beauty of starcraft and RTS' in general; aside from the fact that its nearly impossible to make a perfectly balanced map, a map pool that is universally balanced would be very bland as there would be no outstanding features of each individual map, essencially, the same map with different tile sets. as far as LT goes, the cliff might be a little too imba, but LT isn't in the map pool for its balance, its a legacy map fo' show.~segway into moderately related topic~ that being said i'd like to see SC2 adaptations of python and destination.

KevinIX

United States2472 Posts

November 23 2010 07:14 GMT

#44

Maps are not supposed to be balanced. They're supposed to be what balances the races. It's impossible to 100% balance all 3 matchups perfectly, especially with the metagame constantly evolving. It's up to the maps to tweak the balance and give one race a slight boost if that race is currently down in the metagame.

osten

Sweden316 Posts

November 23 2010 09:05 GMT

#45

Wait aah.. Why are so many people jumping on the bandwagon saying the maps should not be balanced?

Erm what? Yep, every map should be balanced. This has exactly nothing to do with race balance, this has exactly nothing to do with map diversity. Yep, it is also possible to do it and still have a diverse pool.

Gah really? Have you thought this through? You don't want the maps to be balanced? Even if you are just trying to be realistic, just look at BW. The maps got really good and really balanced. I seem to be the only one that wants that to happen again. I hope soon we will move to playing really well done community maps.

Metalwing

Turkey1038 Posts

November 23 2010 09:24 GMT

#46

On November 23 2010 12:00 Subversion wrote:
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

Yes, I just want this to happen. If LT favors Terran mech over Terran bio it's fine. But if LT creates invincible Thor drops with SCVs backing them, it's obnoxious.

On November 23 2010 13:15 lichter wrote:
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

Yes, map pools should be balanced. And this definitely does not mean that 3 out of first 4 maps of GSL season 1 finals should be Terran favored (DQ and Kulas were among them as far as I remember), or Scrap Station shouldn't be the decisive map of GSL prelims. Again, particular example is particular. But you know what I mean.

On November 23 2010 08:16 fabiano wrote:
Positional imbalance is just plain retarded.

Why would one have to pray for God so he is lucky enough to not get a bad position in DQ? Thats the best example of how lame Blizzard maps are in its majority.

Again, exactly.

On November 23 2010 08:36 AlBundy wrote:
Well I like the fact that some maps are not balanced, because for example in a Bo7 setting like the current SPL, you can actually adapt the matchups depending on the maps, and that leads to interesting strategies like Snipes and Aces matches.
Having a map like Central Plains in the map pool is a good thing when it comes down to strategy and "metagame" (I don't know if this is the right word).

In sc2 I like the imbalanced maps from a spectator's point of view, however as a player thats quite painful. From the start of the game you have to elaborate extreme BOs and good defense / pressure in order to stay in the game, and even then the victory is far from guaranteed.

If you have maps like Central Plains in SPL, it will create interesting things. But if you put Central Plains into MSL/OSL map pool, it will cause riot and I'm pretty sure about that. For example if you're in the place of ZerO and you face Stats in the deciding match of MSL groups on Central Plains, this would just suck and you'd rage so hard that the map wouldn't even be played in PC Bangs let alone any prized tournament. But if you're STX coach and 2nd set of let's say STX vs Hite match is played on Central Plains, it's fine for both sides. Because you have the choice of sending a protoss player on Central Plains in that case. But in the first case, ZerO does not have the chance to off-race and even if he has the chance, he just won't be able to play as well as he plays zerg. So, creating map pools for team tournaments is different from creating map pools for individual tournaments and there will be many different things if you place a map that favors a certain race in map pools of both types of tournaments. One causes new coaching strategies, other causes riot.

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

November 23 2010 13:38 GMT

#47

--- Nuked ---

LittLeD

Sweden7973 Posts

November 23 2010 14:03 GMT

#48

I believe there should absolutely be variations in the maps, which unavoiably creates imbalances to some extent, if not to a race than to a particular build that one particular player might be very good at. That is why we play bo3s or bo5s with vetoes, so player can remove the map they dislike the most, or where their playstyle doesnt fit, and choose the map they prefere.

But map imbalances are, as I said, not possible to overcome, unless you just play the same 100 % balanced map (whatever that is) every single time.

And, if any obvious flaw is noticed in a map, it should be renewed or removed. There needs to be a constant flow in the map evolution imo, but not too fast, cuz then players might be confused.

I can draw some examples from my old world, Wc3. The maps meant alot. I might even say, it meant more for Wc3 than it does for SC2. But, the thing is, different maps favoured different races. And not a single map was that heavily favoured for one race that it was impossible to overcome. You just had to work on it, have the ability to adept your playstyle, and in the end, it always was the best player who came out and won despite the maps that were being played.

HollowLord

United States3862 Posts

November 23 2010 14:05 GMT

#49

Maps aren't supposed to be balanced, it encourages different variety in play when there are short maps and long maps. If every map was Metalopolis the game would get stale quick.

FrostOtter

United States537 Posts

November 23 2010 18:07 GMT

#50

Since when can Zerg not win on Jungle Basin?

clickrush

Switzerland3257 Posts

November 23 2010 18:29 GMT

#51

the thing is that map and race balance go hand in hand. you simply cannot divide those two things.

if there was a map where the main entrance had a destructible rock, then terrans would probably win most of the games on that map. now you can change terran OR you can change the map to achieve balance.

In my opinion the question itself should be different. When should blizzard balance over maps and when not?

My answer would be: Blizzard should allways balance over maps, as long as there is a problem with normal timing attacks and rushes. in the other hand the units/techs etc should be balanced if there is a problem with critical masses or if a race doesnt offer enough variety to be competitive.

Lexvink

Canada310 Posts

November 23 2010 18:31 GMT

#52

It is okay if in the map pool, there are slightly imba maps... but there must be a fair number of them... not 5:1(Terran

erg) like our current map pool.

AyJay

1515 Posts

November 23 2010 18:37 GMT

#53

if every blizzard ladder map was Kulas Ravine/steppes of war style I wouldn't ever ladder

Jayson X

Switzerland2431 Posts

November 23 2010 18:54 GMT

#54

I think having a balanced map pool is very important for a tournament environment but for the sake of this game it is so much more important to periodically introduce new maps. There is just nothing better than playing on fresh maps and exploring strats for it. I mean enough with the maps we got now! Mix it up a little! That is exactly why you don't give all the powers to the creator.
They give mapmakers this great & powerful tool to create maps and then they let us play on the same goddamn maps for 4 months(+beta)...

charlie420247

United States692 Posts

November 23 2010 19:24 GMT

#55

On November 23 2010 08:27 Nightfall.589 wrote:

Show nested quote +

That's not true at all.

There's nothing imbalanced about a siege tank. There's something imbalanced about a siege tank on the LT cliff.

You can take a perfectly balanced game, and easily create maps for it which will create imbalances.

100% agreed!

charlie420247

United States692 Posts

November 23 2010 19:26 GMT

#56

On November 24 2010 03:07 FrostOtter wrote:
Since when can Zerg not win on Jungle Basin?

jungel basin is truly a fucking AWFUL map for zerg to be on. its small, the expansions are hard to take safely. the expansions in the middle are a nightmare for zerg. besides all this its boring as fuck i have it vetoed.

zerg CAN win on it. should it be in a tournament pool?? hell fucking NO.

Nightfall.589

Canada766 Posts

November 23 2010 20:21 GMT

#57

On November 24 2010 03:31 Lexvink wrote:
It is okay if in the map pool, there are slightly imba maps... but there must be a fair number of them... not 5:1(Terran

erg) like our current map pool.

LT, Steppes, Jungle, DQ vs Shakuras, Xel'Naga, Scrap Station, Blistering Sands is not 5:1.

SolidusR

United States217 Posts

November 23 2010 20:32 GMT

#58

I think this is a really neat thread! The map imbalances must be intentional, I'd be really surprised if Blizzard asserted that they believed all their maps were balanced for every scenario. I think this imbalance is a good thing because it promotes diversity in gameplay; I'm more likely to go with a pool first over hatch first if I have close starting positions, for example. The problem, however, is when these imbalances are so overwhelming that they can dictate the outcomes before the game even starts. An example of this would be the infamous thor drop on LT, or the all-in tactics you see just about every game on steppes of war. I think that with more time and practice, Blizzard (and ICCUP!) could produce finer maps which allow starcraft players to explore all the different possibilities of their races without forcing them into an obvious EZ tactic every game. Plus, they will continue to implement balance patches which will probably only make these maps look more balanced with time.

Hopefully Blizzard hits the sweet spot on this eventually, it would be really great if they were open to the idea of including ICCUP designs into their map pool so that we could start playing more maps on the ladder as well. I didn't play BW, but it feels like the map pool is really tiny and this may exacerbate perceptions of imbalanced maps seriously affecting gameplay over the long run