|
Question is obvious: Are maps supposed to be balanced?
There are some opinions on this:
1- "Maps are not balanced, and in fact, they shouldn't be. Some maps should favor some race or some strategy.". This opinion is stated one more time by Artosis on GSL S3 Ro64 Day 1.
My view on this: Yes, this is true to some extent: Maps with all that funky stuff is not that bad. I mean destructible rocks on nat, 300 degree wide open nats, cliffs on nats, 20 meters of air distance etc. make the game funnier. But definitely this sure isn't true if we're talking about an individual tournament. Does anyone think about why Central Plains is not in the map pool of OSL/MSL (btw Central Plains is a map that favors protoss so hard that that more than %50 of the games on this map are PvPs)? Yes, if there was a Proleague type of tournament where teams compete, not individual players, some imbalanced maps wouldn't hurt. Because when you have a team, you have the option of not sending a zerg player on LT against a possible Terran opponent but in an individual tournament (with a ridiculous amount of prize pool) you don't have the option to off-race on LT instead of playing Zerg which is your main race.
2- "Problem is about races, not maps"
My view on this: I don't know about racial imbalances. I'm a silver zerg player and I did beat a protoss with mass infestors without NP upgrade on the ladder. But this does not mean that Protoss is UP (especially if toss had no colossi, HT or Archon). I don't give a fuck to QQers like Genius or the ones on PlayXP JingJing poll. QQers just QQ about anything. But yeah, races are not as balanced as BW. In BW, all races had equal chances on macro games. Zerg wasn't auto-win on lategame, Terran infantry wasn't this ridiculous even though Firebats (yes, firebats were the closest unit to that level) and they didn't have this many ezpz builds that could end the game before 7th minute mark, Protoss had more effective gateway units. But Thors with a range of 9 are just too good to be true when you have a cliff right next to the mineral patches at your natural expansion even though they are not that effective (still effective, but not that kind of joke) in other situations. In other words: Maps don't create imbalances, they boost it.
3- "Maps are too stupid to be true, and too not funny to be a joke, they are the awful truth"
My view on this: Not every single map actually, but yeah. Some maps are just a joke and they are not even funny. I don't want to see DQ cliffs or nats or Desert Oasis or Scrap Station techsnipes any more (even though those maps "favor" zerg with huge distance and nothing else) or Jungle Basin (I laugh at every single time I even imagine that map, is Zerg supposed to win games on it?!). And there are maps like Metalopolis and Shakuras Plateu, where you still can drop, techsnipe, early-rush with marines or roaches, baneling bust, be greedy, play macro, use back entrance etc. But the map doesn't favor one strategy to another. So you just don't need to prepare for techsnipes, take precautions for your backdoor, finish the game in less than 15 minutes (because macro games is not even an option on certain maps) regardless of your strategy or play style. But for example, when you play on LT as a Zerg, you're just too uncomfortable against Terran because he can Thordrop your nat and abuse the stupidest cliff ever whereas you neither have units to abuse that particular cliff nor take down 2 thors on a cliff with 6 SCVs repairing them and surrendering is the best option for you if you somehow built your lair at your nat. Sure you can veto that map on ladder but at an individual tournament with ridiculous amount of prize pool where vetoing a map is out of the question, maps like LT or Steppes can be a stage of skilled players being roflstomped by noobz (even though there are none once the prelims are over, so I use it in the place of inferior players) but when you go to a map like Metalopolis, a skilled player will mostly win.
And there is a poll for you:
Poll: What's your opinionMaps are the awful truth (125) 62% Maps are not balanced and they are not supposed to be (60) 30% Races are the problem, not maps (18) 9% 203 total votes Your vote: What's your opinion (Vote): Maps are not balanced and they are not supposed to be
(Vote): Races are the problem, not maps
(Vote): Maps are the awful truth
So, what do you think?
|
.. I don't see the logic in having imbalanced maps? There is no reason for them not to balance maps, it doesn't make sense. obviously is 4 expansions are beside a main base on the map it's zerg favored.
|
Maps should attempt to be perfectly balanced race v. race, but they do not HAVE to be perfectly balanced race v. race, because the maps are organized for ladder or tournament as a pool, and as long as the pool is balanced as a whole, the individual maps do not necessarily have to be.
IMO, it is okay to have a slight imbalance on a map if that will create more interesting and entertaining play, as long as the imbalance is not insurmountable.
The map pool as a whole however, must be perfectly balanced racially.
|
Calgary25970 Posts
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.
|
Well, in my eyes the only reason there was a large portion of maps that favored races in Broodwar was because the game wasn't balanced, therefore with the high level of play maps became a place where you could tamper with the balance of the game without blizzard actually doing anything since they had lets face it, given up on the game after the 10++years that it had been out.
But, with sc2 I think the maps should all be balanced.. gives a better feedback on how the races are balanced against each other. Hopefully the actual game will be balanced more in SC2 and there will be less focus on favoring races in maps as there was in BW(not to say that BW was not close to being balanced)
|
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.
|
Anybody who is interested on fixing the positional imbalances with Blizzards maps should totally support my thread here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1083320648
It needs to be bumped, the B.net crowd is too scared of all the pictures to reply on it.
|
Always had the opinion that maps were never supposed to be balanced. Every race should have a map that they do well on. Though it brings the question, what exactly is a Protoss favored map in PvT?
|
On November 23 2010 08:21 Dommk wrote:
Always had the opinion that maps were never supposed to be balanced. Every race should have a map that they do well on. Though it brings the question, what exactly is a Protoss favored map in PvT?
One with really good warp in spots and the ability to expand away from your opponent. It's a little tricky because good warp in spots are also usually good tank spots.
I'd call Blistering Sands Protoss favored in PvT.
|
I do think that some positioning if you spawn on the upper or lower side on scrap station.. that it is wrong, because the map is intentionally made imbalanced. So that a guy on the lower spawn, can block his expands destructible rocks with just a pylon when it takes 2 on the upper side and so on...
But if they map "just are imbalanced" for example jungle basin. That is maybe a more protoss oriented map, I think it is ok..
|
Maps don't create imbalances, they boost it.
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.
|
On November 23 2010 08:08 Metalwing wrote:
Question is obvious: Are maps supposed to be balanced?
There are some opinions on this:
1- "Maps are not balanced, and in fact, they shouldn't be. Some maps should favor some race or some strategy.". This opinion is stated one more time by Artosis on GSL S3 Ro64 Day 1.
My view on this: Yes, this is true to some extent: Maps with all that funky stuff is not that bad. I mean destructible rocks on nat, 300 degree wide open nats, cliffs on nats, 20 meters of air distance etc. make the game funnier. But definitely this sure isn't true if we're talking about an individual tournament. Does anyone think about why Central Plains is not in the map pool of OSL/MSL (btw Central Plains is a map that favors protoss so hard that that more than %50 of the games on this map are PvPs)? Yes, if there was a Proleague type of tournament where teams compete, not individual players, some imbalanced maps wouldn't hurt. Because when you have a team, you have the option of not sending a zerg player on LT against a possible Terran opponent but in an individual tournament (with a ridiculous amount of prize pool) you don't have the option to off-race on LT instead of playing Zerg which is your main race.
Harshly imbalanced maps shouldn't be allowed. In BW, the races are balanced through maps. I think maps should be balanced as much as possible while having an interesting feature or concept. Sometimes we get failures like Demon's Forest, but...moderation, lol.
2- "Problem is about races, not maps"
My view on this: I don't know about racial imbalances. I'm a silver zerg player and I did beat a protoss with mass infestors without NP upgrade on the ladder. But this does not mean that Protoss is UP (especially if toss had no colossi, HT or Archon). I don't give a fuck to QQers like Genius or the ones on PlayXP JingJing poll. QQers just QQ about anything. But yeah, races are not as balanced as BW. In BW, all races had equal chances on macro games. Zerg wasn't auto-win on lategame, Terran infantry wasn't this ridiculous even though Firebats (yes, firebats were the closest unit to that level) and they didn't have this many ezpz builds that could end the game before 7th minute mark, Protoss had more effective gateway units. But Thors with a range of 9 are just too good to be true when you have a cliff right next to the mineral patches at your natural expansion even though they are not that effective (still effective, but not that kind of joke) in other situations. In other words: Maps don't create imbalances, they boost it.
In BW, late game is actually where imbalances are most apparent. It is so horrendously difficult for P to penetrate a well-upgraded 200/200 T mech army. In addition, there's nearly nothing Z can do against mass archon in the late game. The imbalances are ultimately there, but usually factors in the midgame can be seen that lead to such situations.
SC2 isn't mature enough a game yet for purely macro games to take over. For one, I think that's a good thing. Macro SC2 games are boring as hell to watch. Additionally, this may be by design. SC2's pace is much faster than BW's. Also, BW was a bit more forgiving in army trading and losses. Even if a P wiped out your first push, T generally had a chance to crawl back into the game with some careful defense. You don't see that in SC2 as much. Games start up more quickly and games end more quickly in SC2.
Given time, we'll see if SC2 starts heading towards a macro direction. It'll be a while, though. Even early BW had one-base cheeses abound.
3- "Maps are too stupid to be true, and too not funny to be a joke, they are the awful truth"
My view on this: Not every single map actually, but yeah. Some maps are just a joke and they are not even funny. I don't want to see DQ cliffs or nats or Desert Oasis or Scrap Station techsnipes any more (even though those maps "favor" zerg with huge distance and nothing else) or Jungle Basin (I laugh at every single time I even imagine that map, is Zerg supposed to win games on it?!). And there are maps like Metalopolis and Shakuras Plateu, where you still can drop, techsnipe, early-rush with marines or roaches, baneling bust, be greedy, play macro, use back entrance etc. But the map doesn't favor one strategy to another. So you just don't need to prepare for techsnipes, take precautions for your backdoor, finish the game in less than 15 minutes (because macro games is not even an option on certain maps) regardless of your strategy or play style. But for example, when you play on LT as a Zerg, you're just too uncomfortable against Terran because he can Thordrop your nat and abuse the stupidest cliff ever whereas you neither have units to abuse that particular cliff nor take down 2 thors on a cliff with 6 SCVs repairing them and surrendering is the best option for you if you somehow built your lair at your nat. Sure you can veto that map on ladder but at an individual tournament with ridiculous amount of prize pool where vetoing a map is out of the question, maps like LT or Steppes can be a stage of skilled players being roflstomped by noobz (even though there are none once the prelims are over, so I use it in the place of inferior players) but when you go to a map like Metalopolis, a skilled player will mostly win.
I think there are better maps, but I still think they're all bad. They're all too small and too tight. I have to agree with Artosis there.
|
It is practically impossible to balance a map for all match ups so that each race has the same win percentage all the time. Things that make one match up balanced throw other match ups off. Even if you did make such a map balance changes over time as people learn new things. What was OP one week because of a cliff is balanced the next.
People just need to realize that map balance and game balance are separate things but still affect each other.
|
Maps should encourage a certain playstyle but they obviously shouldn't give one race a sizable advantage over another. I personally love maps that encourage creative play, like Outsider from BW. That map led to so many awesome games but it really wasn't imbalanced. I think there should be some funky maps like Outsider, and some super standard maps like Metalopolis or Python from BW, but no really imbalanced maps.
|
positional imbalance is bad (aka, spawn A has a more accessable ramp then Spawn B, or say the minerals are siegeable on one side and not the other
strategical differences imo, should be varied. aka, having a more open map vs one with cliffs, or multiple attack paths vs some with single attack paths. These types of differences which may or may not cause "imbalances" racially, imo are good to a map pool provided that there are no positional differences.
|
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.
|
South Africa35471 Posts
Maps themselves don't have to be perfectly balanced. What's important is that in a set there is enough maps to have a balanced BoX. Although maps shouldn't be too imbalanced, merely have features that might favour races and spice things up
|
The problem exists even in mirror matches, where there are imbalances in creep spread/drone spawn in ZvZ, add-on placement in TvT and pylon wall-ins in PvP.
It would be hard to find or make a perfectly balanced map for mirror matches alone, so I can't imagine what it would take to balance a map around the other three potential match-ups.
|
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.
I'd agree with this and even go so far as to say it's right. If you have the exact same game on every map, then there's no way that the game can survive at a competitive level because it would be too damn boring. Imagine BW if it were played on Python every single game. Despite Python being an excellent map that allows a large variety of playstyles, before long people would get sick of it and long for the good old days of playing on Blood Bath and The Small Divide. There needs to be some variance in the map pool, or the game just won't be worth playing.
I don't necessarily think maps should be build with the intent of being race-favored, though, only strategy-favored. Say, allowing a really easy fast expansion: that happens to be heavily weighted against Zerg, but other features can be put in to compensate like a really open center. I also think that quirks are being a little underrated. Sure, they can be horrible if they favor one race but none of the others (LT cliffs being the classic example), but if done right they add new depth to gameplay. Blistering Sands, for example, is a promising map that was badly executed by making it tougher to move units into defensive positions by the two entrances to your base than for your opponent to move into threatening positions. If it were changed to be harder to attack and easier to defend, things would be much, much better and the map might (just might!) get past the midgame push.
|
Well blizzard is releasing new versions of maps quite often, for example Shakuras now you can use reapers on the back door to go down and then up, before they could not do that and that was rather annoying ( was really confused why not considering that i was a normal ramp ). Now i can finally scout without wasting my precious scans
|
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.
|
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
|
I want Iccup maps!
those are interesting and fun to play on
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
Since when can Zerg not win on Jungle Basin?
|
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.
|
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.
|
if every blizzard ladder map was Kulas Ravine/steppes of war style I wouldn't ever ladder
|
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)...
|
On November 23 2010 08:27 Nightfall.589 wrote: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!
|
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.
|
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.
|
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 
|
On November 24 2010 05:21 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Uhm...
Care to say exactly what makes Shakuras and Blistering a Zerg map?
|
I think the important thing is that any given MAP POOL is balanced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
