|
On January 10 2011 15:11 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Doesn't matter if bigger maps imbalance the game, because the game will then become balanced over bigger maps. Bigger maps are good because they allow for more back and forth tempo based games, more harassment opportunities and multi pronged attacks.
Yep. I hope that Blizzard will balance the game based on such maps. This might even lead to reverting some past fixes (for example, if medivacs will be too slow).
If Blizzard really cares about e-sports future of StarCraft 2, then it should start making balance changes for long and epic games, not bronze 2v2 rushfests.
|
I think you guy are over looking some small stuff that will happen with bigger maps. Zerg will have to do better with creep spreading because baneling are really bad off creeps. Tanks will just pick them off easily. I think i saw a game on teremis that was the result of this and the zerg to completely annialated because of this. I think as the game progress if they do keep playing on these big map, zerg will evolve into more infester play because it is hard to deal with marine tank if they are off creep. Fungal will be pretty much key to stoping marine micro. Cant say anything else for other races but i think this is how the meta game will lean toward.
Terran does have plantary fortresses. Zerg will ahve more choices at expo. Toss will continue to have warp in and that is huge considering that it ignores defenders advantages. None the less, new map were indeed needed.
|
OK, I'm a casual RTS player and even though I 3rax-a-moved my way into platinum I clearly suck at this game, so I can't really say anything about unit balance, much less map balance (although MM seems quite strong if a player like myself can go bronze-plat in two weeks :D ).
Anyways, the only other RTS I played semi seriously (as in reading up some strats online and trying to improve my play) was AOE2. This game had randomized maps (randomized based on a few parameters given map type). Obviously these randomized maps will have huge imbalances, and even though on the ladder they should even out over time, in a best-of-x series they can produce very high variance.
Blizzard has chosen in their games to go the custom made maps route, basically mirroring the layout on both ends of their maps. However they are not mirrored exactly, which again leads to imbalances (for good players, mind you. Players of my strength won't be affected by a creep tumor more or less nessecary to connect bases etc).
Doing it this way I think they have chosen the worst of two worlds. They had a clear intention of establishing SC2 as a sport. Imagine a football pitch with the two penalty boxes being of different sizes, or for you americans, the two endzones being of different sizes, so receivers have a harder time maneuvering to make the catch etc.
Yes, a perfectly mirrored map might look a bit boring, and for the casual players like myself the current maps are probably more ecxiting to look at. However in professional competition you absoluteley have to do everything within your power to eliminate any factors outside of the actual players' skills.
In my opinion Blizzard should man up and admit that they made mistakes regarding their current map pool and revamp it entirely at least for professional competition.
|
On January 10 2011 20:06 Somnolence wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 15:11 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Doesn't matter if bigger maps imbalance the game, because the game will then become balanced over bigger maps. Bigger maps are good because they allow for more back and forth tempo based games, more harassment opportunities and multi pronged attacks. Yep. I hope that Blizzard will balance the game based on such maps. This might even lead to reverting some past fixes (for example, if medivacs will be too slow). If Blizzard really cares about e-sports future of StarCraft 2, then it should start making balance changes for long and epic games, not bronze 2v2 rushfests.
Well we all know blizzard is in over their heads on that project. Not even browder would seriously think that would fly. It's cashdivisions doing. I'm putting my hopes and dreams at stake that this is just them not bothering dedicating themselves untill all the expansionunits are out.
|
The balance of these maps, like all other maps, is going to be most directly influenced by expansion patterns and how defendable expansions are for their given races. Things like the distance from main to natural and ramp size will be important to zerg, things like how narrow the chokes are entering the natural will be important for both defending (for terran and protoss especially) and attacking (for all races), and things like how difficult it is to secure a third (all races, but especially terran and zerg).
The above is what will determine how the maps are played entirely, not rush distance. It's so oversimplified to say protoss will have an advantage because of proxy pylon. It will only change the complexion of the games... not necessarily the balance. You realize protoss can proxy now on ANY map and reinforce their army on any map? The difference is obviously that on smaller maps counteraggression is more viable and perhaps you will have some rush options. So for larger maps, bio becomes a little weaker and mech builds become a little more accessible. mech builds with marine support and good spacing is extremely good, but the supporting macro is difficult on some maps.
I think if larger maps will hurt anything at all, it will be by making the game LESS complicated. Everyone seems to want the game to become harder and harder and more complex, but removing the threat of early pressure from 2 of the 3 races while limiting the types of early pressure the other race can do is not more complicated or harder... quite the opposite.
I also feel that the current map pool is a "kiddy pool" for the more complex maps that people may end up playing on. A map like Metalopolis is not particularly tricky, but it teaches players that the different spawning locations can call for completely different strategies. LT is the exact same way, though I feel terran has a fairly substantial advantage on that map in all matchups except close spawn PvT. They have elements of complexity, but its more suitable for the masses and not overly complicated.
Terrain and expansion patterns and ill go as far as saying whether or not there is a really important contested area will determine how good these maps are.
|
having different maps for the divisions is actually a terrific idea, but i doubt it will ever be implemented.
|
Just add new maps, make it clear that they are for GSL, for example GSL_Destination.
Include them into the official ladder pool, but switch them OFF by default if they're too 'technical' for Browder's liking. Then make a huge announcement on the website to let all the interested parties know that you CAN play GSL maps on ladder, you just need to enable them from in game.
problem solved.
|
I believe they're only changing them for Code S. Which means that you only need to practice those maps once you've already been in Code A for a while and don't need to worry about ladder points.
|
On January 10 2011 09:25 Reptilia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 09:04 StephenS wrote:On January 10 2011 07:40 monitor wrote:On January 10 2011 07:38 link0 wrote:
The bigger the map, the more likely Protoss will win because warp-gates ignore the defender's advantage. Protoss has warp gates, but Zerg has the advantage of expanding and rebuilding their army MUCH faster from larvae. Overall, I feel like Terran is at a loss. Uhm.. You have flying dt's with range. Marauders poop on everything that is ground.. Concusive 50+50 = HOLY OP BATMAN Stim packs, lol. Please shut up. 18 posts. so u want no marauders, no stim pack, expensive concussive, no banshees. maybe u forgot no tanks? jesus. Please dont post again in a while. I hope they give us medivac speed buff. At least a research.
Medivac speed buff? What?
You don't need a speed buff on the medivac, are you trying to tay it is underpowered or underused?
I don't get it
|
For good or bad they are changing, dunno the outcome but it´s better than sitting idle ...
|
I'm thinking that if GSL is putting out different maps, they probably got the "nod" from blizzard. Which, I am hoping (fingers crossed) means they will start adding more maps to the ladder. I don't see GSL just deciding to make new maps to use for a tournament that has so much support from Blizzard. I guess it could happen though, I just want to think positive.
|
These maps are much easier right now to get games on, as they are up on the top of the list in popularity for 1v1 so I've been able to play on them, and as a zerg player it is really a lot different, and a lot of fun.
Basically everyone I've played all fast expand and any early pressure has been very easy to stop. This has meant taking a super early 3rd which has been not hard to defend either on these maps. It really opens up a lot more possibilities because of having that 3rd set of gas.
I've felt on problem with this game, and one reason why rushes/all-ins are good is because the game is way to gas heavy right now for the higher tech units. Specifically looking at it from a zerg point of view, on 2 bases it is hard to do say muta/ling/infestor + some upgrades. Or something like hydra/corrupter because you don't have the gas. Since you can take a 3rd much easier on these maps and much sooner you actually have enough gas to do some interesting unit combinations and additional upgrades you couldn't do on the typical maps. I think this is the same for protoss where they will now have the gas to be able to go with more tech options instead of feeling locked into robotech. Honestly, I'd love to see a reduction across the board for all the races in the amount of gas needed for a lot of upgrades/buildings, and an increase in minerals needed.
I think we'll see some pretty cool changes on all the bigger maps where the higher level player skill will start to show more skill and creativity. The higher APM/Micro/Macro skills will start to show a lot more from my limited time playing on these maps. Some things I see high level players pulling off on bigger maps(some of this has been stated)
- More multi prong attacks, more spread positioning and flanking.
- Zerg using OL's for more creep highways to get units around faster. OL speed will be a standard.
- Protoss use of warp prisms to help get units around the map much faster, to save on money from having to build a ton of pylons all over a big map.
- Terran players floating buildings toward their opponents to allow for quicker reinforcements. People have mentioned Terran lack of mobility but they also have mobile buildings so could lead to some cool late game "proxy" terran play.
- Zerg drop play since they'll have the gas to get drop sooner and use it, same w/ nydus.
- More use of the motherships and recall
- More nuke play, harder to find where it is, and multiple nukes could be hard to defend on a big map
- Ultralisks not getting stuck in every friggin choke and dying in 2 seconds will be nice.
Just some things that have popped into my head from playing on these maps already. Not a lot of negatives, and I think the game is more balanced around bigger maps then people realize.
|
whats the point of ladder if ladder and GSL has different map pools
|
On January 11 2011 02:29 b_unnies wrote:
whats the point of ladder if ladder and GSL has different map pools
blizzcon.
oh and before i forget, this is good, infact this is great. GSL <3
|
I don't think that blizzard will stupidly insist on forcing shitty maps down our throats. They are smart enough to know that their maps aren't good (as if it requires too much intelligence anyway). Blizzard created this game as an e-sport since the day 1. Insisting on shitty maps when all big tourneys are played on better maps would just ruin that and they won't do that, at least i think that way.
On January 10 2011 12:58 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 12:55 netherDrake wrote:
IMO they can and should keep the maps for ladder EXCEPT for the master and GM league since those players are the ones who are going to play competitively and are the ones who know how to abuse the small map size or certain positional advantages available on the map.
No... if they are going to do that it should be for Platinum and up Many people have wanted "advanced" maps for a long time, but it's not the top 1% that should get them, it's the top 25%. It would give people more incentive to get better as well, being able to finally play on new maps for a change. This would also allow blizzard to gauge the balance of new maps, since most of the feedback will be from players with at least a slight grasp on the game.
No. Why should BSG players play on different maps from higher level people? I just cease to understand the reason behind it. The fact that lower level players have less knowledge on abusing the maps is far from being enough justification of keeping current shitty maps in the low level ladder map pool imho.
|
I like the idea of being able to "switch" map pools on the ladder. Like, you can change your map preferences to only ladder on "GSL" maps if you so choose. But doing that would essentially split the ladder in two, which is bad for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, it skews stats. If most of the top players choose the "GSL" pool, then won't a top player off the GSL pool quickly rise to the top of the ladder?
Best thing is just to have Blizzard let GOM make the map pool for the GSL and the ladder. It's not like GOM's maps are convoluted (yet).
|
Think i read in this thread some1 had made a SCV first base to first base timers for every current maps and new maps being reviewed by GSL. It was all around 1 minute, is there the same kind of timers available for BW iccup maps?
|
i think blizzard should at least, if possible, put the GSL maps into the ladder pool and update the pool as the GSL implements more maps. i don't really like the idea of gom being the authority on ladder map pool, but it'll be much better than having blizzard do the maps.
and yea, i think if GSL stops using ladder maps, ladder will decline in importance for pros, at least in korea. i can see how it would impact practice, and blizzcon isn't much compared to the year-round GSL. altho, there aren't many tournies in korea eh? dunno about the foreign scene as blizzcon is one of the highest paying (the highest?) tournies for being out of korea.
|
Z will be outmacroed. Because of the supply cap, you can't afford more than 3 saturated bases. T will have best macro, because he can replace scv's by mules. P will be more or less same, however P has stronger units/supply.
The game is not balanced/tested for too large maps. Because of long distance, scouting becomes even harder. we'll get a lot of "build-up--without-agression-and-have-one-large-decisive-battle" game.
Anyway, its a good idea to give it a try.
|
I'm really glad GOMTV finally took the initiative to make changes to their map pool.
Larger and more complex maps will mean larger and more complex games, better players shouldn't have nearly as many games taken off of them by lesser players due to all-ins or cheese.
Blizzard really needs to forget about their whole "Starcraft II is for everybody, not just pros" mentality. The idea that less complex maps are better for worse players is ludicrous. If a player is able to adapt their play style to a map that means that they are simply a better player and deserve a win. Having a map pool that is simplified for "casuals" is a bad idea because better players will have a harder time winning to a slightly worse player because there's no room to actually pull ahead of your opponent.
If SCII is going to be successful as an E-Sport in Korea, it's probably going to need a Bonjwa to gain popularity and in turn gain SCII and the GSL popularity. In the current state of the game, mostly due to the map pool, this might not be possible because good players keep having games taken off of them from lesser players.
Blizzard knows about the map problem, they will do something eventually, it's just a matter of time IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
