EPTtl;dr - Stop fetishizing macro games. SotG podcast people talk about playing the game to win as it currently exists, and I think that's the right attitude to adopt here.
[D] Maps, too small? [replays, long] - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
tl;dr - Stop fetishizing macro games. SotG podcast people talk about playing the game to win as it currently exists, and I think that's the right attitude to adopt here. | ||
|
PredY
Czech Republic1731 Posts
On December 27 2010 01:25 IgnE wrote: The degree to which everyone on TL fetishizes "big macro" games is kind of repulsive. I don't know what game you guys are playing, but terran do not have "incredibly strong defensive potential." Once a zerg gets a critical mass of mutas, no amount of turrets will hold them off, and you essentially have to stay in your base or try to march out right then with mutas in your base to try and kill the zerg. With bigger maps, this problem will only be exacerbated as the mobility of mutas and the relative immobility of anything but pure bio can easily be abused. It seems like mostly zerg players on here whining about how people are "bullshitting" their way to wins instead of going for the 5 base vs 5 base games that these zergs want. For shame that those zergs' opponents are trying to get "easy wins" by pulling scvs. We should definitely let the zergs do whatever they want until they are at 5 bases and can collect their "easy" macro win. tl;dr - Stop fetishizing macro games. SotG podcast people talk about playing the game to win as it currently exists, and I think that's the right attitude to adopt here. 1st of all, if a zerg is on 5base vs 5base he is probably in a very bad shape 2nd of all, i guess you haven't seen many broodwar games (guessing from your post count) but i can assure you that long macro games are much better for entertaining value than short allin games (sure, in a boX series all styles are welcomed) and in longer games usually the better player wins and the whole skillset of a player is shown. i don't think we'd be watching BW for 10 years if there weren't such good and fun macro games. and 3rd, terran has indeed have a strong defensive potential with PF, siege tanks and sensor towers. and no mass muta is not imba, on 5base you can probably even afford seeker missiles to counter them | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
As for the OP, you're asking for the ability to win every game, regardless of the opponent's strat. When your race has the distinct ability to create a 40 food army in less than 40 seconds, a larger map gives you a huge advantage. For T and P to take the same advantage, they'd have to run off 2-3x more production structures than they do now. I agree that macro games are a BLAST to watch and play, but I honestly don't think the game is fleshed out enough, both game design and player skill, to allow that to happen as much as we would all like. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On December 26 2010 01:28 ParasitJonte wrote: well, there is a map-related forum thread on the US battle.net forum posted by iccup people. No blue responses... I wish a similar thread was posted in the european forums as well. And why didn't people bring this up in Q&A at blizzcon? I believe the official Blizz response was that large BW style maps weren't noob-friendly enough and were too "skill-demanding" for their ladder map pool. They also threw out some bs about "implementing community maps" if they're good and once they've been "conformed to Blizzard's standards." In other words, they're stubborn as **** and probably won't do anything about it. EDIT @ Igne: Go watch some BW games first and then tell me we have no reason to "fetishize long macro games." Yes, winning is winning no matter how you do it. The occasional cheese and quick rush build and short 15-20 minute games are fun to watch and play. However, the longer, much more strategic and skill-demanding macro games are not only more entertaining, but they also are better measures of skill and talent. Trust me, BW would not have survived half as long as it did if all its games were short games the duration and complexity of current SC2 games. Also, just because there are bigger, macro-oriented maps does NOT in ANY way mean that ALL games will be long macro games. Not at all. There will still be plenty of opportunities to do some quick timing push to end games quickly or to even just cheese. Want proof? Go search Jaedong's 4pool against Flash. Cheesiest of cheesy plays on a big fat macro map. It can still work. | ||
|
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
Watch NesTea vs MakaPrime on Xel Naga Caverns, taht was such a great game from Maka (NesTea won though (he's the better player..)) he even prepared for the broodlords to come out and the ultra transition that's gonna come. You can plan that out, you don't h ave to QQ about Zergs imbaness while watching him taking the whole map. Big maps favor no races at all, they just don't harm the Zerg players, who really die to inferior players all the time. | ||
|
BuzzJuice
United States97 Posts
If the community wants to check out ICCUP maps, why don't you make an official 1v1 playlist besides the Blizzard map playlist? If you are so scared of saying the ICCUP maps and other community voted maps will kill all our newer players, why not create another playlist? Saying its in the custom games is not enough because of just the way the custom works. You can't find that many people on the custom ladder, where you would find people on official ladders. Having another official playlist, legitimizes the worth of the community maps. Even then, couldn't you just rotate and put in new maps as in a special weekend map pool only for the weekends, or even on just one day? You could even create like a double ratings event, where if you play in this playlist for a day and check out the new maps, you get more points for winning or something. What is really frustrating is that Blizzard seems to want to protect their maps like their business model depended on it. It doesn't. And Blizzard really didn't care about their maps in BW (or as it seems to me), so why do they care so much about THEIR maps now, at the expense of the community? The point of this is for community maps to get MASS EXPOSURE. Ladder rankings be damned. I want better games, and better maps. Right now, people still are not familiar with IC CUP maps and other great map pools out there. I whole heartedly agree with the OP. It is way too easy to create early pushes because maps are just too small. The expansion locations are just too much favored towards more aggression. So people become better and better at these sorts of cheeses, but then lack the ability to play in the long game. | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
artosis said in one of his new videos that zerg has been losing like before their recent big patch. if that is actually true, maybe that's a good thing? p.s. if we had bigger maps we might see less two and one basing and with 6+ gas and a reasonable distance between your stuff and your opponent's stuff we might see some more carriers, which I think would be awesome. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
I'm sitting at about 2700 points on the NA ladder. | ||
|
FrOsTyy
United States125 Posts
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/801781456?page=37 | ||
|
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
On December 27 2010 03:56 IgnE wrote: The only late game, multi base matches I have seen that feature a terran winning involve a protoss or zerg player who has fallen seriously behind in macro. When I watch replays where my tvz games go into 3-4 bases and I actually come out on top, I am always disappointed to see that the real reason I won is that my zerg opponent was sitting on 3k minerals with no gas and didn't take more bases/make more lings/roaches to stop me. tvz and tvp right now are incredibly difficult to win late game unless the opponent simply doesn't know how to spend his lategame resources effectively. Losing all your supply depots/production structures to a pack of 24 mutalisks and then pushing out only to lose 80% of your army to mutas/blings/slings/infestors means that you have lost the game since you can't rebuild your army in order to stop the next wave of units. A zerg on 5 bases can rebuild from anywhere, but Terrans are stuck rebuilding armies wherever they invested money in supply depots/production buildings. No amount of turrets is cost effective against a muta ball in the late game. If you want to give terrans an upgrade that give some thor-size splash for turrets in the engineering bay that would go a long way towards making macro games more viable. But as it is, terran on 3-4 bases are at a distinct defender's disadvantage against zerg. I'm sitting at about 2700 points on the NA ladder. Zerg always wants to stay ahead at least one mining base, so you gotta deny that: You could either expand yourself faster or kill his expansions. Multi-pronged drops with a (fake-)push coming in are a pain in the ass to deal with. Turrets are almost always cost effective agianst mutas, since they don't even cost any gas. You can also leave one thor in your mineral line, which will drive those muta balls away. If he still decides to engage autorepair will do the rest for you. Your turret splash idea is utterly retarted.. You said that rebuilding depots is consuming a lot of minerals. To me it seems like you didn't understand what the MULE does. It only harvests minerals faster and not more! MULEs are bad late game, they will make you mined out a lot faster, whereas supply calldowns actually give you money. Late game you should be getting up to no MULEs at all in my opinion. | ||
|
zDUST
Finland165 Posts
now... On December 26 2010 18:42 the p00n wrote: Zerg's macro strength is only visibly in early-midgame to midgame, in lategame a bigger map would be more advantageous towards T and especially P. How is a larger map going to help the SLOWEST t3 armies? Zerg's mobility is what makes them so powerful mid to late game, T and P would NOT become more powerful having their army half way across the map when zerg harasses. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 27 2010 08:21 decaf wrote: Zerg always wants to stay ahead at least one mining base, so you gotta deny that: You could either expand yourself faster or kill his expansions. Multi-pronged drops with a (fake-)push coming in are a pain in the ass to deal with. Turrets are almost always cost effective agianst mutas, since they don't even cost any gas. You can also leave one thor in your mineral line, which will drive those muta balls away. If he still decides to engage autorepair will do the rest for you. Your turret splash idea is utterly retarted.. You said that rebuilding depots is consuming a lot of minerals. To me it seems like you didn't understand what the MULE does. It only harvests minerals faster and not more! MULEs are bad late game, they will make you mined out a lot faster, whereas supply calldowns actually give you money. Late game you should be getting up to no MULEs at all in my opinion. Turrets are not cost effective against mutas late game when mutas can just snipe them in 1-2 shots. Critical masses of mutas kill thors and any repairing scvs laughably easily. No one is complaining about midgame when the zerg is running around with 8-10 mutas. I am talking about late game when the zerg has 30 mutas. The only way to stop the harrass is to hit the zerg's base with whatever army you have up, or to prevent the zerg from getting there in the first place with early all-innish attacks. Try leaving 1 thor (which will still die to the mutas quite easily) in each of your 3-4 bases. You are now down 18-24 supply that is not with your army. | ||
|
metalsonic
Netherlands95 Posts
Big maps are unbalanced for a numer of reasons : 1 The Zerg become way to mobile when creep has spreaded and as manny of the toss / terran players allready know it is really difficult to beat a 200/200 zerg army on creep since in open spaces like shakuras it could get such perfect roach / hydra surrounds on ur army which was roughly 140/200 at the time u hit . I don't play terran but I imagine the same problem ( terran also can't warp in units at all places where energy is , unlike protoss ) 2 Protoss all ins will still remain strong , it will only really nerf immortal pushes ( maybe with warp prism as well , but currently warp prism is to weak to actually use besides collosus / immortal drops and dropship play , unload and load trick ) . Void Ray rushes won't be nerfed since if u see suddenly 3 void rays in ur base with a 4th coming in and u only have 2-3 queens with a hydralisk den allmost done, u allready lost . 3 Overall I think micro was 1 of the major keys involved in the balancing process of starcraft BW and also in war 3 . Micro is allmost non existant in Starcraft 2 , here I am talking mostly about the big battles with 200 food army vs 200 food army . You can only let ur units attack the other units which they are good against doing anything else will result most likely in a massive overkill and thus putting u at a disadventage to the person who just clicked attack . | ||
|
WarSong
Canada126 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10292 Posts
The biggest map/balance issue I see is that zerg have no way to use ledges. Toss have blink and colossi, terrans have tank and thors, zerg don't really have any unit that can take advantage of an opponent's natural having a ledge behind it. Um, Zerg can drop any kind of ranged unit just like Terran. Especially Infestors. and i feel that changing map sizes will kill terran.... or at least will change play style to super defensive however knowing late game terran power it's still feel like a bad choice. P obviously dont really care that much about that as they can reinforce instantly to the battle. while zerg have creep which is like stimmed units without additional attack rate. Its just mean that zerg will get that creep bonus will be a HUGE factor on bigger maps + safer expos and queens will create and imbalance here.... people really forget about queens then they make a comparison to broodwar. This makes no sense. Bigger maps will lessen the effect of the Queens+Creep because each creep tumor and each creep spreading Overlord will cover less of the entire map. So you would need to spend more time spreading creep. Hence, smaller maps help Zerg mobility, not bigger maps. Also, why another thread like this? And sorry OP but your OP is very disorganized, sounds like a rant, and... unclear. | ||
|
Comprissent
United States314 Posts
If you want to raise a legitimate argument about map size, please make sure you explore every matchup and possibility of all-ins, not just Zerg trying to defend and drone themselves up. Your overall point; On December 26 2010 00:44 the p00n wrote: I think the issue is mostly the maps - the distances are too close, allowing for less reaction time. You claim "less" reaction time, less than what? Some other maps? Small maps are a part of the game, players need to learn to deal with it. The only map issue i really agree with is playing on 4person maps with skewed spawns (LT, metal), where the distance between bases depends on spawns. If anyone can really make an argument that doesn't complain about Zerg getting rushed or losing due to missed units in favor of maps, then i'm all for it. You can't simply increase size, why don't you just give them even more of a lategame advantage? | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On December 27 2010 09:21 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Um, Zerg can drop any kind of ranged unit just like Terran. Especially Infestors. That guy has obviously never used a nydus worm with hydras. I thoroughly hate that shit. Nydus on ledge on LT vs P is dumb. | ||
|
annYeong(o11)
Canada784 Posts
I got a new mouse for christmas (Razer Deathadder) and to break it in as well as introduce a friend to SC2 (he got a better computer) we decided to play some custom games and ended up playing about 3 on LT, and 10 more on iccups maps, mostly Europa, Vahalla and Enigma. The games we played on the iccup maps were among my favourite experiences with SC2 to date, even when the games were a touch one sided, and my hands were getting used to my mouse, the games were more fun. Concerned that I just thought the games were more fun because I smashed a guy who until recently used me as a BW punching bag, I replayed the maps with a practice partner closer to my skill level. In both of our opinions the games were more competive, closer, and more fun than we'd ever had before. Fact: the iccup maps are simply better, encourage stronger machanics, a better understanding of strategy and unit positioning, and are a more enjoyable experiance than what Blizzard currently offers on their ladder. Other possible explanations, opposed to "the iccup maps are better": Since it was my first time playing on new maps, I might have felt a feeling of novelty. Also possible, but less likely was I enjoyed the feeling of my new mouse, although since we played a couple agmes on LT, I don't think this is the case. New Questions: Why can't Blizzard design maps for their own game? You would think they would be the best at it, or at least have the resources to hire the iccup map designers. Conclusion: Sadly, in the latest SotG episode, Kennigit was asked (or rather, Kennigit intercepted) a question regarding Blizzard maps, and he said he was told by Blizzard that "it's not a concern for us right now". | ||
|
shynee
Canada180 Posts
And this isnt SC1. We cannot have very large maps for 1v1 in SC2. Imagine the immobility issues for Terran. | ||
|
Cofo
United States1388 Posts
On December 27 2010 14:05 shynee wrote: Why cant people understand that during late game, the problem isnt that the terran 200/200 army is weaker than the zerg army. Hell, the terran army might be stronger. The problem is that Zerg and replenish that 200/200 army in 30 seconds while Terran cannot... make it a 200/200 vs 300~400 army. Get it? And this isnt SC1. We cannot have very large maps for 1v1 in SC2. Imagine the immobility issues for Terran. Zerg units are less cost-effective; it balances out. Also, have you ever tried moving a maxed terran mech army across the map in SC1? You really think the mobility issues are WORSE in SC2? | ||
| ||
