|
On January 18 2011 15:15 Ribbon wrote:
In order for Blizzard to accept a map, they'd want something with an interesting twist.
I think they don't care so much if a map has imbalances (unless they're really really egregious), because of the downvote system.
In order for us to get good map that blizzard might look at, we want maps with an interesting gimmick that doesn't mess up the balance.
For instance, there's some discussion about if large maps are bad for T lategame. Let's just assume this is true for a minute, and take it as an axiom.
Short maps are imba for Zerg earlygame, and large maps are imba for Terran lategame. We will assume this is true because it was written in fire by God
What if we made a map with a very long rush distance (~70 seconds), and destructible rocks blocking off a Steppes-sized rush distance (~35 seconds)? Almost like Scrap Station, but bigger. Thus, there's a short push distance for Terran that opens up in the midgame, but Zerg can still 14 hatch and start droning safely.
That's just an example obviously, but I think that's the kind of thinking that leads to good, varied, macro maps, that would interest Blizzard.
Brood War maps were developed over the years to perfectly balance Brood War. And, more to the point, Brood War several years into the metagame. This is Wings of Liberty. Very similar game. Not the same. It'll take us some time and creativity to get maps that lead to the really good WoL games.
I think that a balanced WoL map will end up being more interesting than balanced BW maps. Maybe Blizzard will agree.
The reason why this issue has been raised is because majority of the games have been cheese and allins. People have been ranting about having less rain-like games and more idra-like games. Thats why they are opting for these new big macro maps, not because they wanna copy BW. You only think they are copying BW because it just so happens that BW has big macro-friendly maps.
|
I have faith that blizzard will change the map pool
and I really really hope that at least with gsl since they are so closely tied to it, they keep the ladder maps up with the gsl maps.
I hate the idea that I would watch games on these maps and not be able to use them on ladder.
I know I can custom on them but you never know who you're gonna come up against on custom. on the plus side, people p[laying these GSL maps tend to be good and playing to win (which you don't always find on customs, whther it be someone warming up or trying a brand new strat blind, it's not as guaranteed the person is playing to win as it is on ladder) but I'd still rather be able to have them on ladder.
|
On January 18 2011 16:20 Vari wrote:
I have faith that blizzard will change the map pool
we had faith that blizzard would make any number of reasonable changes during beta that they never did.
except chat channels 6 months later.
maybe we can expect this season's GSL maps on the ladder in 2012?
|
what people aren't really understanding here is that blizzard does not care whether they have extremely balanced maps on the ladder. To them, while the ladder allows people an accessible way of competing, it's not an extension of competitive play, as in tournaments, the way we think of it.
Bliz has an entirely different set of priorities than a player would - we can only guess at the specifics but there's a certain set of gameplay experiences they want from the map pool. Balance is like a third tier consideration beyond a bare minimum.
|
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.
Good job ruining the OP you dumb fuck.
User was banned for this post.
|
I thinks that bigger maps are not as bad as it sounds for terran. I played yesterday against Z (gold) on xel'naga caverns who tried to overrun me with lings/blings with 2 hatch up + 2 suppport hatch
I was expanding after 2 racks... build three bunkers but it wasnt enought to defend my expo. At the end i won because he did't transition fast enough. Maybe larger maps will prevent such garbage play...
|
hopefully blizzard will put these matches in the ladder pool
not only are the blizzard maps bad, they're very stale
also, i want to play on the same maps as pros and watch games on maps that i play on as well
|
The reason why this issue has been raised is because majority of the games have been cheese and allins. People have been ranting about having less rain-like games and more idra-like games. Thats why they are opting for these new big macro maps, not because they wanna copy BW. You only think they are copying BW because it just so happens that BW has big macro-friendly maps.
Bold added.
All-ins are falling out of favor. We've seen a lot fewer of them in GSL 4 than in GSL 3, and much fewer instances of people winning with them. We also saw a big 50-minute long 6-base vs 6-base play...on a Blizzard map. MVP double expanded one game, then triple expanded later. We're starting to see a trend into macro games in the GSL right now, even without custom maps.
I think we may be over-reacting. Just because all-ins were very popular during GSL 3, doesn't mean that the entire Blizzard map pool needs to be chucked. Otherwise we'll just fly wildly between extremes.
Blizzard knows what they're doing, despite accusations to the contrary. Look at all the Marine SCV all-in has gone from every other game in the GSL to exactly one (1) GSL set. What nerf did Blizzard roll out to lead to this great change? Nothing. The metagame changed as people got better at defending it.
None of this is to say that bigger maps aren't a good idea, and definitely not to say we should keep the current map pool forever, but I think Blizzard is being smart with their incrementalist approach. Once it becomes clear, over the many games, what the best kind of maps are, expect to see maps moving in that direction from Blizzard, the way WoL launched with maps much closer to good Brood War maps than Brood War itself did.
|
On January 18 2011 15:15 Ribbon wrote:
I think they don't care so much if a map has imbalances (unless they're really really egregious), because of the downvote system.
The downvote system is actually a crutch which keeps the ladder from collapsing. People will downvote the maps on which they are uncomfortable, BUT that will not make them improve enough to "beat these maps" and improving your game is important. Sadly the really bad maps need a really really good skill to beat a decently skilled player from a race which has an easier time on that map, so to advance far on the ladder (the short term gain) they sacrifice getting really good (the long term gain).
Personally I would think that Blizzard should change the downvote system into a "I like map X and hate map Y" system and then get rid of the maps which people dont like every one to three months.
People should not be allowed to "skip the hard part" for their own good, because that creates "entitled casuals (bad gamers)" as we saw in WoW. It also hides the fact that certain maps suck for certain races and that the maps must be changed.
|
I feel quite sure that at some point Blizzard will incorporate trendy maps into the map pool for ladder.
|
Well laddering will never be extinct, people will always play. however I do think Blizzard should do something about the hugely imbalanced maps such as Delta Quadrant, steppes and jungle basin. I think blizzard will eventually listen to the community and look into changing some of their maps for ladder. Metalopolis and Xel Naga blizzard hit right on the head and hopefully they can bring in more awesome maps like those.
|
On January 18 2011 17:11 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +The reason why this issue has been raised is because majority of the games have been cheese and allins. People have been ranting about having less rain-like games and more idra-like games. Thats why they are opting for these new big macro maps, not because they wanna copy BW. You only think they are copying BW because it just so happens that BW has big macro-friendly maps. Bold added. All-ins are falling out of favor. We've seen a lot fewer of them in GSL 4 than in GSL 3, and much fewer instances of people winning with them. We also saw a big 50-minute long 6-base vs 6-base play...on a Blizzard map. MVP double expanded one game, then triple expanded later. We're starting to see a trend into macro games in the GSL right now, even without custom maps. I think we may be over-reacting. Just because all-ins were very popular during GSL 3, doesn't mean that the entire Blizzard map pool needs to be chucked. Otherwise we'll just fly wildly between extremes. Blizzard knows what they're doing, despite accusations to the contrary. Look at all the Marine SCV all-in has gone from every other game in the GSL to exactly one (1) GSL set. What nerf did Blizzard roll out to lead to this great change? Nothing. The metagame changed as people got better at defending it. None of this is to say that bigger maps aren't a good idea, and definitely not to say we should keep the current map pool forever, but I think Blizzard is being smart with their incrementalist approach. Once it becomes clear, over the many games, what the best kind of maps are, expect to see maps moving in that direction from Blizzard, the way WoL launched with maps much closer to good Brood War maps than Brood War itself did.
Allins fell out of favour in gsl 4 than gsl 3 because there were hardly any zergs to begin with. Just so you know, the issue of most of these allins stem from TvZ (aka 2 rax allin vs 15 hatch)
|
I can see Blizzard implementing the current GSL season's map pool for their new Grand Master League, as that pretty much includes all the pros.
|
this thread is like the movie Unstoppable sept the train actually derailed and everyone died.
|
Really great discussion once it got back on topic! I think that Blizzard just needs to come out and acknowledge that the community isn't 100% happy with their map pool.
Ever since WoW Blizzard's been tight-lipped about issues that genuinely affect them, instead preferring to in my opinion let the patch notes do the talking for them.
It's not like us as a community are purposely trying to boycott Blizzard, we want to help by creating great maps! Blizzard just needs to open up a lot more. But I guess that's just wishful thinking at the end of the day.
Time will tell is my stance on things right now.
|
On January 20 2011 12:50 ace246 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 17:11 Ribbon wrote:The reason why this issue has been raised is because majority of the games have been cheese and allins. People have been ranting about having less rain-like games and more idra-like games. Thats why they are opting for these new big macro maps, not because they wanna copy BW. You only think they are copying BW because it just so happens that BW has big macro-friendly maps. Bold added. All-ins are falling out of favor. We've seen a lot fewer of them in GSL 4 than in GSL 3, and much fewer instances of people winning with them. We also saw a big 50-minute long 6-base vs 6-base play...on a Blizzard map. MVP double expanded one game, then triple expanded later. We're starting to see a trend into macro games in the GSL right now, even without custom maps. I think we may be over-reacting. Just because all-ins were very popular during GSL 3, doesn't mean that the entire Blizzard map pool needs to be chucked. Otherwise we'll just fly wildly between extremes. Blizzard knows what they're doing, despite accusations to the contrary. Look at all the Marine SCV all-in has gone from every other game in the GSL to exactly one (1) GSL set. What nerf did Blizzard roll out to lead to this great change? Nothing. The metagame changed as people got better at defending it. None of this is to say that bigger maps aren't a good idea, and definitely not to say we should keep the current map pool forever, but I think Blizzard is being smart with their incrementalist approach. Once it becomes clear, over the many games, what the best kind of maps are, expect to see maps moving in that direction from Blizzard, the way WoL launched with maps much closer to good Brood War maps than Brood War itself did. Allins fell out of favour in gsl 4 than gsl 3 because there were hardly any zergs to begin with. Just so you know, the issue of most of these allins stem from TvZ (aka 2 rax allin vs 15 hatch)
Meh, bringing Steppes out of my veto list won't help my skill much ;'x
Blizzard really has a soft spot for their casual players, which is why I couldn't see them adding a plethora of large maps into the ladder pool.
|
Just fyi, some of these new GSL maps are not and may not be balanced. We don't know for sure yet. It would be kind of stupid for blizzard to just outright take their maps as ladder map replacements (even though basically anything is better than SoW, DQ, LT, etc). I played some ZvTs on most of the maps and only one of them seemed terran favored with the rest being Z favored.
Pretty sure blizzard will wait and see how a season goes or how top players are responding to the maps when they read threads and things (assuming pros will complain etc).
|
This is what I want. A large map with no gimmicks, fuck xel naga towers, and fuck destructible rocks. Fuck back doors, and fuck gold expansions. I want a map that is purely macro and strategy. I want real multiple pronged attacks, and the effectiveness of allins to go down.
I want 1 gas in the main and 3 gases in the nat. I want less mineral patches but more minerals in each patch.
Most of all, I want the entire game to be balanced around this map, and more maps made like it. That means lowering the supply of every unit, and nerfing AoE spells.
|
I don't quite understand all the complaining about the ladder map pool. As far as a map pool for laddering goes, it makes for fun, somewhat balanced, and varied matches.
I would go so far as to say that map balance really doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game. Sure sometimes you roll zerg on SoW, but tbh that's really never bothered me too much. In fact some of my favorite ZvTs have been on SoW.
I think the problem is people take individual wins or losses too hard. Its really not a big deal if you got beaten by a lesser player once in a while. Its all apart of the laddering process, and in the end it does even out usually.
The way the ladder is set up to me signifies that blizzard is really not super interested in providing a very competitive experience with ladder. The way divisions and points are set up signify to me that blizzard is more focused on the casual experience of the ladder. I really don't have any problem whatsoever with that. Its a good strategy on blizzard's part, and I personally enjoy the setup as I don't have to be competitive minded to enjoy ladder.
While its great to cater to casual gamers, it wouldn't hurt to throw in a couple new maps once in a while to spice things up. I really miss playing on DO, simply because it was a very unique map in several regards. I really like a variety of maps, so I never down vote (partially because I play random).
Of course for a very competitive environment, like the GSL, a lot of the maps aren't appropriate for a BoX series, where getting a couple bad maps can be a serious problem. GSL is right to address this, but I doubt this will have any effect on ladder, even master's and grandmaster's league map pools.
There are several reasons I believe this. First, we have no clue if the maps are fun or balanced. Hopefully the next season of GSL will at least prove that they are balanced, but who knows? Second, Blizzard's design and balance teams are probably busy with a lot of projects. In order for the map pool to gain some new additions it is probably going to be necessary for the map and balance teams to at least take a look. This is probably why there has only been a trickle of Blizzard maps. Map makers are busy designing new maps not just for 1v1, but also team games and possibly HotS campaign. Balance team is busy balancing the races on the maps as is, and also have to begin thinking about some of the ideas the design team is giving them for HotS. Third, it really won't affect too many players. Most active players couldn't care one way or another about whether a map is tightly balanced. Obvious things like abusable bugs or glaring imbalances may be a problem, but I doubt it affects the vast majority of starcraft players too much. Finally, as far as I can tell Blizzard and Gom don't have any sort of special agreement beyond licensing. Though blizzard is likely aware that Gom is using custom maps, Gom adopting new maps isn't enough reason for blizzard to toss them in the map pool. Maybe if the maps have been proven to be well built, well respected, and frequently played over a period of time Blizzard might be inclined to take a look.
Of course this is all speculation about what Blizzard will do, though I don't really know how else to answer the OP's question. We don't actually know too much about the process behind map development and approval that Blizzard maps go through, or what map making projects they are currently working on. tbh I wish they would be a little more transparent about development on this. I know bungie likes to update their website about every little thing they do, teasing major projects, releasing podcasts, introducing development team members to the community, etc.. Why can't more developers do this?
My only real gripe against blizzard related to matchmaking is how difficult they make it to find games without match making. The crappy popularity system used for custom maps, combined with the fact that there doesn't seem to be a support for a third party ladder system like iccup does really pigeonhole a lot of competitive players into having to play ladder to get practice much of the time. Honestly the best thing blizzard could do imo is to clean up their custom game system and/or open up some way to support for a third party ladder system.
|
Allins fell out of favour in gsl 4 than gsl 3 because there were hardly any zergs to begin with. Just so you know, the issue of most of these allins stem from TvZ (aka 2 rax allin vs 15 hatch)
So why haven't we seen the few Zergs left get knocked out due to all-ins?
Because they're playing safer. This wasn't an "auto-loss", it was a build order loss. Idra and Ret determined that Zerg had to 14 hatch. Then it turned out they didn't. BitByBit tried to SCV all-in Fruitdealer, and Fruitdealer basically said "No", and that was the game.
It wasn't nerfed. We weren't given new maps. The metagame just changed, and Zerg realized that gas, pool, hatch wasn't that bad.
Idra and Ret spend a lot of time playing Zerg. They're among the best Zergs in the world.
They were still wrong on how Zerg had to defend that.
No one, not Idra or Fruitdealer or Blizzard, really truly understands how the balance of this game works. We make assumptions based on theorycrafting and Brood War. Maybe Zerg doesn't need to be a base ahead of Terran as desperately as they did in BW.
Maybe "Upgraded Vikings with banshees" will be the new standard TvZ in a few months Upgraded vikings are cost-effected against equal upgrade Muta, and kill overseers so the Zerg can't move out for fear of Banshees. That's a kind of sensible idea, right? Can we really say it's impossible for someone to find the timings and the right build to make it work? Of course not! Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We'll know in a few years.
We keep making these statements about balance like they're written in stone. People used to complain that banelings were OP. What changed that idea? Foxer. Look at the Jinro vs MC game back in the ro16
+ Show Spoiler +We had a Terran going mass mech against Protoss, and the Protoss responding by trying to mass Carrier. Who would've predicted that the day before?
TvT is about positional advantage and tanks, like in BW. Or it's about a really mobile marine force finding holes in the opponent's defense, like MarineKing plays. Or it's Viking/Battlecruiser, like Jinro played vs Ensnare. Who knows?
How will these new maps affect balance? Nobody really knows. We can make kind of educated guesses, but the only way to know for sure is to try it. I want a macro map, an island map, a map with rock placement factoring heavily. I want really creative and exciting maps.
And then we'll throw out the ideas that are imbalanced. Everyone's acting like the game should have 100% perfect balance at launch. It's pretty damn close.
Make some good custom maps, and see how things work. This is a game. Let's have fun with it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
