|
So we all know that some ladder maps have terrible imbalances, that's just a fact. GSL decided to do something about this and implement new custom maps they created( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182734 )
I think all of us are wondering "what will Blizzard do?" These maps are publicly available for anyone to play on, but for players to continue to ladder, we will have to keep playing on all the blizzard ladder maps until Blizzard changes them. If they don't, it could be pretty terrible for blizzard hosted tournaments, since how people are invited is based off of their laddering points, which might force pros to play on outdated and poorly made maps.
I had checked the blizzard site to see if there was an appropriate way to ask about this in the contact section, but there was only places to send mail for policy questions and bugs. So, my dear gamers, is what do you think blizz will do about the ladder maps, and do you think that playing on the ladder may be completely extinct among pros in the future?
*edit* accidentally put this in strategy... can a mod move it?
|
Blizzard shows a lot of support towards the GSL as its always in their news on the forums. This is a great thing because it may make blizzard change their maps also. Since such an influential organization has stated this and chosen new maps.
|
The bigger the map, the more likely Protoss will win because warp-gates ignore the defender's advantage.
|
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.
|
On January 10 2011 07:40 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Of course Zerg > Terran in larger maps. But Protoss benefits even more than zerg from map size.
|
Of course, Terran already have the most positional advantages with tanks and drops...
|
How in the hell you changed this thread to be about balance. The OP made a legitamate concern that has nothing to do with balance but somehow people just managed to derail this quickly.
I think this should be talked about and I really hope blizzard is rethinking their maps. Best thing that could happen is that these GSL maps would be included into the ladder map pool and the removed maps removed.
|
On January 10 2011 07:40 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
User was warned for this post
|
It's really simple really. Protoss has the most to benefit from large map size. Zerg second. Terran is most disadvantaged. It's just obvious fact. It's the same reason why Terran > Zerg on steppes of war.
We'll see how it plays out though.
|
On January 10 2011 09:04 StephenS wrote:Show nested quote +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.
haha, pretty sure the guy you're lashing out against is a zerg player but w/e.
|
On January 10 2011 09:04 StephenS wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If we're gonna talk about balance, I would say that how wide all the areas you pass thru are matters more, since collosi and tanks can rip anything to shreds in narrow areas. Wide open spaces let zerg get much better surrounds on any enemy units and protoss needs more sentries to FF things away and terran is more vulnerable in general.
|
On January 10 2011 09:04 StephenS wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
well if blizzard is also listening to us (the players) then they will add these maps as well
I hope this will influence blizzard and replace the current map pool
|
Australia8532 Posts
On January 10 2011 09:04 StephenS wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Your balance whine is offensive.. go back to the bnet forums please.
I would imagine any GSL initiative would be Blizzard supported since it is a GomTV event which is affiliated with Blizzard. This is a positive sign that GSL are testing custom maps as they would do very little without Blizzard's go ahead..
All in all - things take time, and new maps are no differentl; they will come 
|
On January 10 2011 09:07 link0 wrote:
It's really simple really. Protoss has the most to benefit from large map size. Zerg second. Terran is most disadvantaged. It's just obvious fact. It's the same reason why Terran > Zerg on steppes of war.
We'll see how it plays out though.
hmm, im inclined to agree with you, but on the other hand larger maps maybe allow terrans to get away with inbase OCs. like that 4 OC build....
it takes some time until an inbase OC pays for itself, but after that it makes the terran eco much much stronger. but that 4OC build clearly shows that the terran eco can very well be booming and getting out of hand... in the end zergs and protoss have to invest more supply into workers to be economically on par with terrans. thats an advantage terrans shouldnt disregard on large macro maps...
also hellions and drops are typically suited to macro games with multiple bases and so on. the more area the opponent controls, the more options u have for harass. and terran has the best harassment arsenal.
i think the terran race has it in it to be successful on larger maps aswell. but it will undoubtedly require a change of playstyle. to sum it up: bitbybit is completely fucked with these new maps. jinro will probably love them. which in my eyes is a good thing.
what will be the deciding aspect of the new maps for terran imho is not the size of the maps, its the openness and the cliffyness.
|
I'm afraid I don't have a link to support it but big'ol Dustin Bowder has said a few times, and on the record, that he expects turnys and pros will use a dif map pool than the ladder. It actually what he wants. I recall his words being that they don't want overly techincal maps in ladder...
IMO I'd be shocked to see blizzard put anything but inhouse maps up on b.net. But we'll see what we see.
edit
Really only blizcon was based on ladder points and only for usa I think ,at least not all regions for sure.
|
On January 10 2011 09:59 Galleon.frigate wrote:
I'm afraid I don't have a link to support it but big'ol Dustin Bowder has said a few times, and on the record, that he expects turnys and pros will use a dif map pool than the ladder. It actually what he wants. I recall his words being that they don't want overly techincal maps in ladder...
IMO I'd be shocked to see blizzard put anything but inhouse maps up on b.net. But we'll see what we see.
well, why not use different mappools for different leagues? like.... bronze to gold/platinum use the old, simple maps to appease the noobs, diamond gets to play the larger macro maps from the gsl, and also has more frequent map switches.
this way the good players can play more technical, interesting macro maps and get to stay intouch with the mapchanges of the gsl to keep things interesting while the bad or new players can play on a stable and simple mappool.
|
Wow such a terrible thread de-railment that this is as bad as the bnet forums.
You can say anything you want about balance on large maps but whatever you say is pure theorycrafting since we don't have any large maps to begin with.
So, my dear gamers, is what do you think blizz will do about the ladder maps, and do you think that playing on the ladder may be completely extinct among pros in the future?
Here's the OP's actual question, the rest of you talking about balance should STFU, there's hundreds of other threads to whine about balance.
TBH I think the only thing the ladder has going for itself for a pro is that you can fight a random player any time, and it's a best of one, so there wouldn't be the mind games going on that you can see with practice partners and team games. With Blizzard using ladder points for blizcon invitations it will be a complete mess as it will force pros to grind on the ladder instead of more productive methods of practice. Basically if Blizzard keeps this up SC2 will be FUBAR. I'm pretty sure one of the latest SotG touches on this issue really well.
|
On January 10 2011 09:04 StephenS wrote:Show nested quote +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.
None of those things you mentioned are OP, or related to the OP.
@OP: I was thinking this same thing today. I just massed games with a bunch of friends on these new maps and I'm loving them. I really think this is going to make a huge influence on how SC2 will turn out. These much better and more macro style BW like maps will in turn make SC2 a much better game and force less of all these all ins that are appearing on the super small blizzard maps.
Since the GSL is so closely looked at by Blizzard I think we will shortly see some map changes.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On January 10 2011 10:04 Geovu wrote:Wow such a terrible thread de-railment that this is as bad as the bnet forums. You can say anything you want about balance on large maps but whatever you say is pure theorycrafting since we don't have any large maps to begin with. Show nested quote + So, my dear gamers, is what do you think blizz will do about the ladder maps, and do you think that playing on the ladder may be completely extinct among pros in the future? Here's the OP's actual question, the rest of you talking about balance should STFU, there's hundreds of other threads to whine about balance. TBH I think the only thing the ladder has going for itself for a pro is that you can fight a random player any time, and it's a best of one, so there wouldn't be the mind games going on that you can see with practice partners and team games. With Blizzard using ladder points for blizcon invitations it will be a complete mess as it will force pros to grind on the ladder instead of more productive methods of practice. Basically if Blizzard keeps this up SC2 will be FUBAR. I'm pretty sure one of the latest SotG touches on this issue really well.
Your refocus is appreciated.
I doubt the ladder would become extinct for pros; i would imagine Blizzard would do a lot to prevent this if it thought this was a reality.
|
I don't think pros will stop laddering. This is my prediction:
1) The community riots to end Blizzard's small/bad maps [already happening]
2) Large tournaments switch entirely to custom maps [starting]
3) Pros decide they like the custom maps, and start playing on them regularly
4) Blizzard puts them on Diamond+ ladder
This is just general, but I'd imagine this is what happens eventually (1+ years). Its kind of embarrassing for Blizzard to have to do this, but if they don't update ladder according community feedback, Starcraft II will die out after billions of games on the same maps. Custom games just don't work right now because they rely on the Popularity system or chat channels (which in PTR weren't very functional).
|
Any chance some of the GSL maps will get added to the ladder? Or is it Blizzard policy to always make their own ladder maps?
|
Um, as far as I know GSL didn't make them. They're from the community, and they just picked them out. Is this wrong? I wouldn't think that GSL actually had a mapmaking team.
|
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.
You nailed it.
|
Regarding map size and race balance... Actually think it goes 1) zerg 2) terran 3) protoss
Big maps favor macro games that go late...this favors zerg the most because they can spread more creep, they can expand/saturate so easily, their indirect production costs are the lowest and big maps favor air units which is great news for the zerg because they have the best air unit in the mutalisk.
2nd best goes to the terran. Again large maps = more macro and more late game play and more expansions. Terran can expand very easily because of mules and because PF's are so strong. That and terran through their use of mules gets more resources on average than protoss late game while their units are cheaper which leaves protoss scrambling for AOE units because they inevitable get outnumbered and outgunned by a terrain economy.
Other reason late game favors terrain is because gas is the big constrictor in late game and terrain units are cheaper in this regard. Marauder costs only 25g while the stalker costs 50g, the immortal 100g, colossi costs 200g, etc... Toss units are very gas expensive!
Lastly...again big maps favor air units and terran has better air units than protoss. Medivac/Viking/Banshee/Raven/BC trumps Phoenix/Void/Carrier/Mothership/Warp Prism.
Proxy warpins are somewhat overrated as it takes a LOT of warpgates to warp in a killing blow. For the most part as toss, you still have to rally to a ball and move attack that ball to the enemies base.
|
Yeah, people need to stop thinking SC2 is SC: BW. Entirely big maps will not make the game better or more balanced.
With a few exceptions, I think the ladder pool is fine. As long as they keep adding/removing maps I'm fine.
Edit: And yes, the bigger the map, the safer it is for the Protoss, while the map size will NEVER leave XvP safe, as warpgates will mean early aggression is always a threat.
|
Here is what will happen if blizzard does not endorse these maps.
We will have to rely on a separate ladder where there is a website you go to to find matches. I don't really think this is a problem, if this is what we need to ensure we play good maps and have proper ranking for tourney invites. Sure it's slower than normal laddering, but it's certainly doable, this has been how people have been ranked in the past without official in-game ranking.
Also, patch 1.2 will allow players to organize in channels and find customs much easier. Also the use of threads to find practice partners will become more relevant than ever.
I don't forsee GSL changing map pool being a problem, what I do forsee is that other tournaments don't follow suit. We really need every tourney to step up and realize we don't need blizzard for e-sports, we can do it ourselves. Blizzard is going to help a bit with chat channels, but as far as maps go, if blizzard doesn't get it soon, then we can definitely do it ourselves.
|
On January 10 2011 10:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Um, as far as I know GSL didn't make them. They're from the community, and they just picked them out. Is this wrong? I wouldn't think that GSL actually had a mapmaking team.
You're correct, these maps are chosen from the community. The GSL did not make them.
|
They're removing 3 ladder maps from their map pool, right?
Well, every player is allowed to down vote three maps on the ladder. Down voting the GSL-removed maps is a good place to start, at the least. Practicing on the non-ladder maps will be difficult without a team, of course.
|
On January 10 2011 09:07 link0 wrote:
It's really simple really. Protoss has the most to benefit from large map size. Zerg second. Terran is most disadvantaged. It's just obvious fact. It's the same reason why Terran > Zerg on steppes of war.
We'll see how it plays out though.
Amen, I'm gonna go ahead and call this here with linko too.
The bigger the map, the more proxy pylon locations, which means that protoss can always safely decide between 4 gate all-in or mega fast expand. Either way, they are completely and utterly safe, while if the T does not build defense, they automatically lose. If P sees defense, they just expand.
These maps will definitely be insanely difficult for TvP, and TvZ as well. We may see that the medivac speed nerf affects the game a lot more than blizzard thought it would.
But if you look at the maps too, there are some insane locations for planetary fortress expands that would be nigh invincible lmao. xD so we'll see...
I hope they put the maps as ladder maps.
|
On January 10 2011 11:37 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 09:07 link0 wrote:
It's really simple really. Protoss has the most to benefit from large map size. Zerg second. Terran is most disadvantaged. It's just obvious fact. It's the same reason why Terran > Zerg on steppes of war.
We'll see how it plays out though. Amen, I'm gonna go ahead and call this here with linko too. The bigger the map, the more proxy pylon locations, which means that protoss can always safely decide between 4 gate all-in or mega fast expand. Either way, they are completely and utterly safe, while if the T does not build defense, they automatically lose. If P sees defense, they just expand. These maps will definitely be insanely difficult for TvP, and TvZ as well. We may see that the medivac speed nerf affects the game a lot more than blizzard thought it would. But if you look at the maps too, there are some insane locations for planetary fortress expands that would be nigh invincible lmao. xD so we'll see... I hope they put the maps as ladder maps.
Maybe these imbalances will balance out, like in Brood War...One can only hope. Blizzard seems to stay firm that they don't want complicated maps in ladder, but maybe that will change with the GSL.
|
I'm afraid I don't have a link to support it but big'ol Dustin Bowder has said a few times, and on the record, that he expects turnys and pros will use a dif map pool than the ladder. It actually what he wants. I recall his words being that they don't want overly techincal maps in ladder...
This is what I was afraid of... I sincerely hope that an iccup server or something similar comes up in this case.
It's not ideal, but its better than a pros playing on bad maps. Plus no more "mid to high diamond" for incontrol, lol.
PS a link to this would be good
|
United States17042 Posts
|
On January 10 2011 11:26 TheHumanSensation wrote:
They're removing 3 ladder maps from their map pool, right?
Well, every player is allowed to down vote three maps on the ladder. Down voting the GSL-removed maps is a good place to start, at the least. Practicing on the non-ladder maps will be difficult without a team, of course.
It's four. SoW, DQ, BS, and an "unknown" map. My guess is Jungle Basin, but I have no clue. Those four maps will be removed.
Honestly, I think this change can only be good for SC2. Blizzard will probably (hopefully) change the ladder mappool in response partially because they have what seems to be a pretty tight partnership with GOM in terms of SC2. Also, it'd be completely fucking retarded for them to ignore all the community feedback and pigheadedly continue to ignore everything.
|
I just hope that blizzard adds these maps to the pool
|
On January 10 2011 12:47 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 11:26 TheHumanSensation wrote:
They're removing 3 ladder maps from their map pool, right?
Well, every player is allowed to down vote three maps on the ladder. Down voting the GSL-removed maps is a good place to start, at the least. Practicing on the non-ladder maps will be difficult without a team, of course. It's four. SoW, DQ, BS, and an "unknown" map. My guess is Jungle Basin, but I have no clue. Those four maps will be removed. Honestly, I think this change can only be good for SC2. Blizzard will probably (hopefully) change the ladder mappool in response partially because they have what seems to be a pretty tight partnership with GOM in terms of SC2. Also, it'd be completely fucking retarded for them to ignore all the community feedback and pigheadedly continue to ignore everything.
It should be either Jungle Basin or Lost Temple I'd imagine. I can't imagine removing any of the other maps before those 2.
I also agree it'd be fucking retarded. Leaving a 'wide variety' of maps in the pool is one thing, leaving maps that are incredibly imbalanced in the pool is just stupid though. Dealing with the current map pool is incredibly frustrating right now.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
This only applies if the Protoss plans on building his entire army through a proxy pylon.
|
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... they just shouldn't do anything like that at all. Better players get to play on more balanced maps? What kind of message would that send?
EDIT: oops i didnt realize i just posted in this thread
|
If I was Blizzard...(cheesy video transition)
Id implent the same maps GSL uses into my ladder pool and get rid of my terrible maps. And then balance the game surely but slowly to the maps through tons of small changes. Itl be apparent soon enough to see if the top tier terrans have a good chance on a big map or not.
|
Why are people saying that the new maps, if put into the ladder pool, should only be reserved for the higher level players? Everyone of all levels would enjoy playing on different maps on the ladder.
|
This is just my thoughts but, isn't the whole purpose of "Grandmaster" and "Master" to cater to the pros. With that in mind it would seem silly for blizzard to not change the map pool to incorporate the maps that the biggest SC2 tournament is using for their map pool.
|
LOL! I almost shit a brick at how fast toopic changed
|
Really it shouldn't matter, if Blizz decides to put the maps into the ladder, woot good for us, if they don't, oh well, we'll adapt like in BW. I'd perfer them to atleast stick them in the higher leagues, maybe Diamond+, however, it'd make practicing mucho easier.
|
On January 10 2011 13:09 DonKey_ wrote:
This is just my thoughts but, isn't the whole purpose of "Grandmaster" and "Master" to cater to the pros. With that in mind it would seem silly for blizzard to not change the map pool to incorporate the maps that the biggest SC2 tournament is using for their map pool.
What's the purpose in having leagues in the first place rather than just a point-based ranking? The skill difference between 3000 points and 2000 points Diamond players is far greater than the skill difference between a Platinum leaguer and a Gold leaguer. Thus, Blizzard feels that there needs to be an easy way of showing this difference in ranking.
|
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.
Thats complete bull and i see no evidence for this. Why is protoss so much better off with a huge map?
Does that mean that their attacks will be impossible to stop because they can warp in units right outside your ramp in a big map? NO, because protoss already does this in small maps too. Does this mean that a push from Terran wont stand a chance in a big map because toss has warp in? NO, because when protoss warps in to defend, he might as well not use warp in at all since the units will spawn in his own base. Please explain why warp in, ignoring defenders advantage, would be any different on a big map than on a small map?
These arguments dont make any sense without some good amount of games played on it. I could just say that Terran will have the advantage because now they can drop harrass with their always available medivacs in a huge map where the opponents army will have to move way far to defend it, and then T can just load up and fly away, or drop somewhere else. Is this true? NO because I have nothing to back that up with so please don't spread that around as fact because people might actually believe you.
|
On January 10 2011 07:47 link0 wrote:Show nested quote +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. Of course Zerg > Terran in larger maps. But Protoss benefits even more than zerg from map size.
No, they don't. Stop being a blind zerg QQing idiot.
User was warned for this post
|
I open up this thread thinking there might be some interesting discussion...
...and I see the same balance bickering that trashes nearly every other thread on TL. Oh joy.
I'm actually worried if this big map change is going to discourage use of the ladder in Korea, which will make it very hard for the little guy not on a team. I think the new maps are great (even the Blizz one) and I hope this is one step closer to Blizzard implementing non-Blizz maps into the map pool.
|
well as far as the OP goes, i have no clue what blizzard thinks or wants or intends because at this point they've done both exactly what i assumed at times, and others completely the opposite. however, they have a vested interest in keeping the esports scene alive, and maps are a notoriously big part of that, so if someone can do the work of making a balanced map pool for them, i'm sure they'll be happy. whether they care to update the ladder with the pool or not is up to them, i'm sure they will in time, but who knows whether they will consistently update it with the current pro maps as fast as they are rotated in and out.
to the opinions being stated in the thread, i personally don't care at all that terran is supposedly disadvantageous on large maps and that protoss has an imbalanced advantage on large ones. for one, i disagree with the notion entirely, and two, if i happen to be wrong then unless something is done with the map pool like this, terran will continue to be a gimp race who only has any use on small maps which hide the imbalance by having heavily favored terran maps.
when it comes to protoss' advantage, they negate the walking distance disadvantage whether the map is big or small, so i don't see why the size of the map comes into play. yes, of course, the larger the map, the more distance they are shortening, but if you haven't already adjusted to the fact that protoss can reinforce without moving across the map then frankly you are just not good at your XvP because that's the reality of the match ups that involve a protoss.
to me it's just silly to cling to these bad maps because they might expose imbalance (which again i don't believe), i'd reason that it's better to just improve the maps and correct the balance of the races which have issues on long maps in retrospect once people actually play on good maps, instead of preemptively saying 'no, i would rather have imbalanced maps because they hide the imbalance of my race and other races.' if you're so concerned about balance, it seems highly counter-intuitive from my POV. maybe someone could open my mind if i'm not thinking straight.
i also think it's silly that these maps should be restricted only to a certain caliber of players. there will probably still be short maps, but they will be the exception, not the norm like they are now on the ladder. newer players will have a much easier time learning to play if they don't have to have precise defense timing vs over 9000 rushes on a macro-friendly map. there will be room for error, which a sloppy player needs, because they will make those errors.
from what i've seen, lower level players have the most varied opinions on virtually everything because, no offense, but they have less understanding, so there will be both agreement and disagreement between them no matter what maps they play on. it's borderline random as to what they enjoy, so i think everyone should just get the same maps so nobody complains about how they wish they had X map but their league doesn't have it.
|
I hope that a partnership develops so at least diamond and up get the latest GSL maps.
|
On January 10 2011 13:27 Herculix wrote:
when it comes to protoss' advantage, they negate the walking distance disadvantage whether the map is big or small, so i don't see why the size of the map comes into play. yes, of course, the larger the map, the more distance they are shortening, but if you haven't already adjusted to the fact that protoss can reinforce without moving across the map then frankly you are just not good at your XvP because that's the reality of the match ups that involve a protoss.
P can reinforce quickly, but his entire army still has to move from one side of the map to the other. If Z scouts this and has a shitton of larvae (and free supply), that means Z is able to set up a much stronger economy before making army units than would be possible on a smaller map.
|
That is some awful thread derailment. This community actually has standards, people need to realize that spewing balance bullshit in a custom map discussion isn't acceptable. It feels like it's getting worse every day.
On topic, Blizzard will be forced to rotate maps, or ladder will become irrelevant. Starcraft is Korea's game, and it's clear that the scene is suffering over there because of Blizzard's poor decision making. Eventually GSL will switch to using custom maps exclusively, and if Blizzard stubbornly decides not to follow, then pros will stop laddering.
All it takes is a single map that they don't have access to on ladder, then suddenly finding a practice partner and doing games on that map becomes a necessity. After that, it's quite convenient to simply play all of your games in customs, and ignore ladder where you're forced to play on maps that don't matter to you.
If GSL actually adopts these new maps, the ball is in Blizzard's court. Whether they follow along will determine if they remain relevant to the SC2 scene at all.
|
The big map doesn't change early game very much except for lessening rushes.
Yes, there are more places to proxy the pylon, but at the same time, a 4gate relies on the ability to reinforce the push non-stop. On a map that big, if you are keeping up with scouting and manage to snipe the pylon or the probe that is sent out to build the pylon, the 4gate rush is essentially done. Missing a warpgate cycle of reinforcement means that the other player has a full cycle less to deal with or else you have +rush distance time to prepare. Either way it gives you a better shot at seeing the rush coming and stopping it. If you see a probe leave the base with a few stalkers and zealots, and when you left protoss base he had >40 chrono, you already know what build is most likely to come. You are already stopping 4gates on everything from close pos. steppes to x pos shakuras so I don't see where the problem is.
PvP is the one exception to this, bigger maps can potentially fix the danger of (proxy) 2gate, but now on maps this big, the goto build is very likely to be a blink stalker centric with emphasis on never letting an enemy probe put up a pylon near the home base. With bigger maps, and stalkers esp. with blink being the fastest protoss ground units, sniping units all the way home can potentially save this matchup, or break it.
|
Hopefully they'll playtest the GSL maps and put them in the pool if they're good. What I heard from people who asked blizzard at events and such was that maps weren't really their focus, HotS and balance were, so if all they have to do is play on the maps I'm sure that takes a lot of the time/effort out of the process.
|
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.
Everyone paid the same price for the game, everyone deserves the same balance of game, every league should run the same maps, no exceptions. Stop trying to babysit, it's both insulting and annoying. Also aimed at the guy in the spoiler too, Elitism doesn't help anyone.
|
well, besides 4-gate pushes and a 3 gate VR with proxy starport, the crucial units of the toss army, the colossi, immortals or VRs will still have to move across the map.
the mobility provided by warpgates just means that terrans or zergs have to be prepared for 4gate attacks of almost the same strength as on smaller maps, but at the same time the large map size means that any early troops have a harder time paying for themselves in case there is no 4gate coming.
but tbh a 4gate can easily be scouted long before its coming simply by the amount of structures, gas and chrono in his base. zergs can simply save up some more larvae and produce just in time if a 4gate is in indeed coming, terrans can throw up some bunkers which shouldnt set them back too far when opening with a quick expansion anyway.
so yes, large maps have a good synergy with warpgate mechanics, but on the other hand protoss have the least mobile armies in the game. terran troops have tons of harassment potential and generally fight quite well in smaller numbers. zergs have creep and lings plus mutas for easy mapcontrol. by contrast, toss armies need to stay in one big blob to be effective and they always involve either colossi or templars, which both are slow. therefore i expect toss to have quite some trouble controlling large amounts of area (e.g. expos far from each other) on large maps.
terran main armies arent that much more mobile either, if not even less mobile, but we got PFs, hero turrets and tanks.
|
I wish people would get that blizzard's rankings for blizzcon and the top200 dont have jack to do with points but MMR. You can be 10th in you division and have the highest MMR. You can be 1st in your division with 4k points and have a lower MMR than a pro who barely plays ladder but wins 75% of the time.
|
I would think if Blizzard are going to change the map pool they would do it through the PTR first to gather data, and then tweak balance where required (if at all).
I am hoping they will, as if they continue to support the GSL as much as they have been, I would expect the vast majority of gamers would also want the opportunity to play on the maps they see broadcast on a blizzard sponsored event.
|
it was in the SC2 strategy forums for no less than 30 minutes, and it quickly got derailed from:
what do you think blizz will do about the ladder maps, and do you think that playing on the ladder may be completely extinct among pros in the future?
to:
are these new, larger maps, balanced?
+ Show Spoiler +
Not even referring to the second question that the thread began addressing, I'll actually try and get this thread back on track, again, and answer the OP's question.
I feel that the map pool on ladder will definitely change to promote more macro play. As they showed in the past they don't hold any sacred cows, in terms of map pool, and what they are willing to take out and put in (except for maybe LT). So in terms of that I feel that the map pool will change, but not to the extent that pros would like. This leads to your second question, and I feel that as the game progresses pros, inside and outside of Korea, will begin to rely mostly on customs, and maybe some sort of other ladder made by a 3rd party.
|
The only thing I don't like about this is something my friend mentioned when I told him. "we don't get to see games on maps we play on." It's a good point, many people that watch the GSL aren't gonna be playing custom maps for practice.
|
I may have posted this in another thread, but I'm still confused as to why Blizzard believes larger maps would detract from the Starcraft II experience for newer players. I thought the newbie player's impression of real-time strategy was "FUCK YEAH MOTHERSHIPS"? Wouldn't larger maps lend themselves to that?
|
I hope Blizzard eventually implements this games on the Ladder(to everybody, no need for elitism)
As many have said part of the magic of laddering is playing on the same maps Pros do. Anyways, someone with credentials should start a thread on Battlenet about the possibility of the new GSL Maps being implemented in the Ladder tbqh
|
On January 10 2011 14:14 MichaelJLowell wrote:
I may have posted this in another thread, but I'm still confused as to why Blizzard believes larger maps would detract from the Starcraft II experience for newer players. I thought the newbie player's impression of real-time strategy was "FUCK YEAH MOTHERSHIPS"? Wouldn't larger maps lend themselves to that?
Well, half that and half "FUCK YEAH CANNON RUSH!"
|
I can't help but feel that this whole thing is a problem because of blizzard and that if blizzard cares, they'll follow GSL's lead on this subject and rotate GSL maps in the ladder... But we all know that won't happen. I'm waiting to see what Blizzard does, I may have to stop laddering just to pub customs... would be sad.
|
They couldn't use custom maps before, because it was an open tournament, and the only way to give everyone the ability to train was to use the ladder maps.
Now there is an established base of Code S and Code A players, who all are in teams basically who will train with them. To enter that club you need to qualify.
So I don't see any problem with using better and larger pro maps in the Code S and Code A games, as long as the qualifiers for Code A keep using ladder maps.
If anyone manages Code A without a team, he will immediately have a number of teams chasing him. Not the least reason of that being, that having Code A and Code S players on your roster makes you eligible for the GSL team tournament.
So the situation where a Code A or Code S can't practice on a custom map used in tournament shouldn't occur. And the situation where someone can't enter Code A, because he can't train on the maps shouldn't occur either.
So even if those maps don't become ladder maps, there shouldn't really be a problem.
|
I hope they give us medivac speed buff. At least a research.
I'd agree with this. Though, they'd speed past your marines and thors and become annoying bastards
|
I can't see Bliz putting non-Bliz maps in their map pool, even if it was originally Gom's idea. I can, however, see them responding by replacing the pulled maps with more of their own. Hopefully whatever they come up with will at least be better than what we have now.
|
On January 10 2011 07:40 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I agree
|
On January 10 2011 14:41 Mindflow wrote:Show nested quote +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. I agree
well terran argueably has the best drop's.
with more bases/larger ground to cover. defending drops becomes increasingly difficult.
thus there is terrans advantage in larger maps
|
I like the fact that the maps are big and all, but some of them don't look that balanced.
Overall I think it's a step in the right direction though.
|
On January 10 2011 14:50 TyrantPotato wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 14:41 Mindflow 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. I agree well terran argueably has the best drop's. with more bases/larger ground to cover. defending drops becomes increasingly difficult. thus there is terrans advantage in larger maps
This has gotten really off-topic, lets move to the OP's question.
|
While new maps would be nice, I think there will be some casuals who will not like the removal of the small maps like Blistering Sands and Steppes of War. Not everyone plays to have a macro game, and I think Blizzard is slightly catering to these players with small maps to add "variety" to their current map pool.
While I think the small Blizzard maps are inferior to larger maps that allow proper macro play, I think they can compromise by increasing the number of map downvotes in exchange for keeping some small maps in addition to adding bigger maps. That way, players who enjoy small maps can continue to play on small maps while more macro-oriented players can avoid them in favor of macro maps.
Also, I think large maps have the potential to encourage more BW-esque harassment and discourage single control group syndrome, which should result in BW-esque games.
|
I think it will be interesting to see how it plays out... Maybe if it goes over well enough on GSL blizzard will try putting in new maps for the next ladder season? I guess we will have to watch and see...
I think the biggest thing will be getting more people playing on these maps, maybe that will also help catch blizzard's eye and other big tournaments playing non-blizzard maps too.
|
The only reason bigger maps favor zerg cause they're so many fucking terrible players who fall apart if the game goes on for more than 9 min.
|
If these maps are picked up by the GSL and then by other tournaments then people will have to practice them. If you're thinking it'll be hard to practice them if you're not on a team then yes, that's true, but a lot of that will be hugely helped by the introduction of chat channels. There will be channels for custom maps and players of every level and it'll be much much easier to get practice games in. In fact, it'll be so much easier that I'm absolutely astonished they actually considered not having chat channels in the game.
|
With blizzard involved with the GSL, there is a high chance that the majority of these maps will be included in their ladder rotation at some point in the future (most likely in the next patch)
|
Protoss may have warpgate! and Zerg may have insta new army via larvae! but Terran has the best of all with +60 supply over every other race by using mass mule instead of SCV! - to all the imbalance whiner.
|
The obvious problem is the game has been balanced on really small, gimmicky maps so large maps might present a balance issue. Zerg should have a fun time next season, and I think ZvT is going to be especially one sided (you really can't 2 rax marine scv with these distances). Cross position metalopolis Zerg is already at a huge advantage vs T, this is pretty much going to be that and a little more for side positions.
We'll have to wait though, predictions are, after all, just predictions.
|
On January 10 2011 14:24 Motiva wrote:
I can't help but feel that this whole thing is a problem because of blizzard and that if blizzard cares, they'll follow GSL's lead on this subject and rotate GSL maps in the ladder... But we all know that won't happen. I'm waiting to see what Blizzard does, I may have to stop laddering just to pub customs... would be sad.
Well honestly Blizzard has some pretty embarrasing map makers and I'm sure their company has a lot of other stuff to be on top of. I think its really good map making is moving to a community specifically designed for it. Brood War the same thing happened and we've gotten consistently awesome map pools for years now.
|
Either way: I dont give a shit anymore about blizzard and their shit ladder. I want good maps, im never going to care who wins at a blizzcon, if good maps are introduced to GSL, and blizzard doesnt implement them into the map pool, than I will play on said good maps, and never ladder.
Im sorry if this seems like a rage post, but im done. I paid alot of money to make a comp to be able to play this game, I bought "collectors edition" and am now being told by blizzard when and how i should eat/breathe/sleep/shit.
Im in full support of GSL.
|
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.
|
this thread really did go off subject but to all the terran whiners, haveto remember in broodwar terran was the least mobile and the maps were way bigger. They won by slow pushing with tanks, turrets, drop harrass. Sc2 terran probably is the most mobile race. I dont see why they wont be able to adapt. Might change to mass mech tvp like broodwar with bigger maps.
Anyways i hope they add it to ladder too since steppes and delta sucks.
|
The majority of posts in this thread reminded me why I never touch the strategy forums... OP makes a point about the current map pool on bnet ladder becoming redundant. Suddenly you get 3 pages of pure garbage about balance because people saw "GSL map" in the title and didn't even read the OP...
As for the maps, I'm hoping that Blizzard comes out with something when they roll out patch 1.2. If they don't I'm just going to be stunned and completely confused as to what direction Blizzard wants SC2 to take. I really wish there was some kind of feature that allowed groups such as Gretech or iCCup to run their own ladder inside bnet with their own map pools so people can choose which ladder they want to compete on.
I suppose it would be similiar to how there is an "MLG" version of maps/rules for Halo. It's very surprising this feature doesn't already exist considering the guy who made XBL/Halo multiplayer made the new bnet...
|
On January 10 2011 15:12 Looky wrote:
this thread really did go off subject but to all the terran whiners, haveto remember in broodwar terran was the least mobile and the maps were way bigger. They won by slow pushing with tanks, turrets, drop harrass. Sc2 terran probably is the most mobile race. I dont see why they wont be able to adapt. Might change to mass mech tvp like broodwar with bigger maps.
Anyways i hope they add it to ladder too since steppes and delta sucks.
Im a terran, and I fully support larger maps. The terrans whining are the ones who popularized the 5 rax reaper, 2 rax all in, and have reached their "mid to high diamond" status that way and dont want to lose it.
|
On January 10 2011 15:07 SubtleArt wrote:
The obvious problem is the game has been balanced on really small, gimmicky maps so large maps might present a balance issue. Zerg should have a fun time next season, and I think ZvT is going to be especially one sided (you really can't 2 rax marine scv with these distances). Cross position metalopolis Zerg is already at a huge advantage vs T, this is pretty much going to be that and a little more for side positions.
We'll have to wait though, predictions are, after all, just predictions.
Haha yeah, predictions are just predictions.
I think eventually bigger maps will work there way into SC2. Pros will decide they're more fun, and call for them in ladder. Then Blizzard will have to oblige and put them in. After that, the game will become balanced for large maps after feedback is collected. Everyone is happy!
Well, almost everyone. The casuals who like shorter games won't be satisfied. One way to deal with them, which Blizzard might do, is to put in two map pools to choose from before you search. Whichever pool you pick, you are guaranteed to play your game on a map in it. One could be map pool "A" with maps like these: Steppes of War, Blistering Sands, Jungle Basin, Scrap Station, Xel'Naga Caverns, Lost Temple, Metalopolis
The other map pool could be pool "B" with maps like these: Auir Garden, iCCup Testbug, Tal'Darim Altar, iCCup Pawn, Biohazard, iCCup Starlight Breaker
edit: Somehow a spoiler worked itself in there haha.
|
On January 10 2011 15:12 Looky wrote:
this thread really did go off subject but to all the terran whiners, haveto remember in broodwar terran was the least mobile and the maps were way bigger. They won by slow pushing with tanks, turrets, drop harrass. Sc2 terran probably is the most mobile race. I dont see why they wont be able to adapt. Might change to mass mech tvp like broodwar with bigger maps.
Anyways i hope they add it to ladder too since steppes and delta sucks.
mech's immobility inherently lends it self to make it better the shorter it is to your opponent, if you're ever going to see mech tvp again it's not going to be thanks to maps getting bigger that much is certain.
TvP was played mech (aside from the odd timing build) because mech was a lot stronger and bio wasn't viable. Now blizzard added the marauder which can for some extent survive the toss aoe and boned mech pretty much instead.
|
I believe what should (and probably will) happen is Blizzard's "Grand Master" and "Master" leagues will feature the maps that are being played in the GSL (such as the new replacement maps) and everyone else not in those leagues (i.e. the n00bs) will be stuck with Blizzard's maps. Because in all honesty, you can only take advantage of the map situation once you have mastered the game. Until then, the Blizzard maps will do just fine.
|
On January 10 2011 13:12 pzea469 wrote:Show nested quote +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. Thats complete bull and i see no evidence for this. Why is protoss so much better off with a huge map? Does that mean that their attacks will be impossible to stop because they can warp in units right outside your ramp in a big map? NO, because protoss already does this in small maps too. Does this mean that a push from Terran wont stand a chance in a big map because toss has warp in? NO, because when protoss warps in to defend, he might as well not use warp in at all since the units will spawn in his own base. Please explain why warp in, ignoring defenders advantage, would be any different on a big map than on a small map? These arguments dont make any sense without some good amount of games played on it. I could just say that Terran will have the advantage because now they can drop harrass with their always available medivacs in a huge map where the opponents army will have to move way far to defend it, and then T can just load up and fly away, or drop somewhere else. Is this true? NO because I have nothing to back that up with so please don't spread that around as fact because people might actually believe you.
The defenders advantage is the ability to get reinforcements much quicker than the attacker, since the attacker has to rally them cross map etc.
In other words it is the attacker disadvantage.
The point here is that with warpgatetech you can reinforce your army anywhere you have a pylon or a prism. It´s not an advantage per se, it is actually removing the disadvantage attackers usually have.
Removing the disadvantage others have while attacking is in turn an advantage while you are attacking.
Relating this to harass with drops quite a jump since harass gets easier the more bases the enemy has. Straight up attacking while reinforcing with a proxy pylon is pretty much indifferent to the number of bases of the enemy.
Just my thoughts, though.
|
To all the terran whiners in the thread- did you not read the part where they said they were going to test the maps for balance first? Even if a bigger size does benefit zerg and protoss more there are other ways to compensate for that with siege tank-favorable cliffs and chokes. It is way too early to be whining about them yet.
|
On January 10 2011 15:26 hoby2000 wrote:
I believe what should (and probably will) happen is Blizzard's "Grand Master" and "Master" leagues will feature the maps that are being played in the GSL (such as the new replacement maps) and everyone else not in those leagues (i.e. the n00bs) will be stuck with Blizzard's maps. Because in all honesty, you can only take advantage of the map situation once you have mastered the game. Until then, the Blizzard maps will do just fine.
I think that will retire my SC2 "career"... lol
|
On January 10 2011 15:26 Grebliv wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 15:12 Looky wrote:
this thread really did go off subject but to all the terran whiners, haveto remember in broodwar terran was the least mobile and the maps were way bigger. They won by slow pushing with tanks, turrets, drop harrass. Sc2 terran probably is the most mobile race. I dont see why they wont be able to adapt. Might change to mass mech tvp like broodwar with bigger maps.
Anyways i hope they add it to ladder too since steppes and delta sucks. mech's immobility inherently lends it self to make it better the shorter it is to your opponent, if you're ever going to see mech tvp again it's not going to be thanks to maps getting bigger that much is certain. TvP was played mech (aside from the odd timing build) because mech was a lot stronger and bio wasn't viable. Now blizzard added the marauder which can for some extent survive the toss aoe and boned mech pretty much instead.
Wrong.
Mech needs 3 base to be truly efffective.
Mech has a very slow start, short maps let your oppenant get a decisive advantage or just downright kill you before you get your ball rolling.
Back to the thread. I think a big thing people are overlooking espcially Terrans is that big maps make a safe third OC rather than being forced almost everygame (current map pool) with a 3rd PF. That 3rd OC is so nice. I was doing some iccup the other day and a 3 base T with 3 OC's and 6 facts going is just awesome and runs so much smoother since A) You can take your third faster and B) As said earlier the map is big enough to let you take an OC instead of a PF.
I used to be all for the Terran big mape hate. But honestly with our aresenal and tactics im sure the top tier terrans will pave the way and show us how to adapt.
|
The absolute best thing about larger maps is that they generally favor the superior player, and give the superior player better chances of winning, as the games are generally longer, and provide more opportunities for the superior play to make superior choices.
Small maps are so volatile and produce such short games, that the chances of an inferior player defeating a superior one are much higher than they should be.
|
On January 10 2011 15:26 hoby2000 wrote:
I believe what should (and probably will) happen is Blizzard's "Grand Master" and "Master" leagues will feature the maps that are being played in the GSL (such as the new replacement maps) and everyone else not in those leagues (i.e. the n00bs) will be stuck with Blizzard's maps. Because in all honesty, you can only take advantage of the map situation once you have mastered the game. Until then, the Blizzard maps will do just fine.
Really bad logic there... How on earth are you supposed to master the game with maps that lead to avg 7 minute games? I really think the problem here will not be whether Blizzard wants to give bigger maps to regular ladder-newbs or not, but rather the situation that taking maps in to the ladder pool this way would look like "ok, we know our map design sucks, and we're ready to admit that in public as the biggest tournament out there pointed it out for us".
Instead of taking these maps in to the ladder I think we will see bigger, more macro oriented maps by Blizzard, with the excuse of "smaller maps were there to give newbs time to learn the game" or something similar. Obviously Blizzard cares deeply about the state of their games, Diablo2 still getting patched and ladder resets prove that in my eyes. But I still think they do not want to take maps from 'outsiders' this way - who knows, maybe if the GSL people would have negotiated with Blizzard before announcing the map pool change, the change might have happened in the ladder as well. Obviously they respect GSL and support/sponsor it, but there are other companies involved and they will be extra careful so that there won't be any chance for legal difficulties similar to BW/Kespa situation.
I do HOPE that these maps get in the ladder pool - which by the way sucks at the moment, 3 downvotes is not NEARLY enough for this bs - but sadly I think it will still take some time before the ladder pool will get much better. And hey, like someone stated, they like LT to be in the pool, and there has to be at least 3 suckier maps there so that it will still get played (steppes, dq and jungle basin are filling my downvotes atm).
And to the issue at hand; it would really _really_ suck if the pros start playing only these new, better maps at all tournaments and customs, and us regular folk would be left with bullshitty all-in favoring maps at ladder. Would probably drive me even more away from actually playing the game and just watching the streams. I often get very frustrated laddering as it is with all the 7 minute games (does not really even help if I manage to win most of them) and I really suck at finding customs, just a bit too much effort for me I guess.
|
Canada13379 Posts
... I am wary to post here due to the derailment but here it goes
My opinion is that if ever the map pool is going to change and include larger more balanced custom maps then someone is going to have to take the first step and say "we hate ladder maps". And I mean that someone who is partnered with blizz (ie GomTV) will need to show that custom maps will lead to more interesting and more balanced maps. Hopefully, blizz will get the picture and decide to include these maps into the ladder rotation and even if its dictated by the Korean scene, new maps are great and will make this game run for a very long time to come.
|
What people need to remember about ladder is that: it is suppose to offer all kinds of matches in SC, both short ones and longer ones.
The ladder is not some extension of the GSL or any other tournament out there. Blizzard is not going to cater to the 1% of the "pro" scene and put large maps in there that scares most new players, your average Joe Modern Warfare who picks up SC2 at Gamestop.
What could be the answer is if Blizzard allows different map sets in different divisions, so that Diamond and Master League (or was it Grand Master?) has a more hardcore, larger map pool and the newcomers have their Stepps of War in Bronze-Silver-Gold
You satisfy everyone, and in essence you also make the divisions much different by the different map pool.
|
I hope that Blizzard will use a pool with around 20 community maps in it. Then every Monday 8 are randomly selected out of these 20 and will be the official Bnet map-pool for that day. Tuesday-Sunday 2 maps will be removed from the map pool and switched with other maps.
I can hope...
|
imo, blizzard gave us (the community) the tools (map editors) to play the game as we please and or customize the bits we dont like. So all the fuzz about blizzard not agreeing about us not playing on their selected ladder maps is overrated.
|
how will they be testing that these map are indeed "balance." Also, how are player not in a groupy going to practice adequently on these maps? These are the big concern. Although new map was defintely needed.
|
maps that discourage 1-base allins? count me in.
if blizz fails at updating their maps, its about damn time someone took the mantle. thanks gom, I hope this gets implemented with time for players to practice on these maps.
|
They need to implement unbuildable terrain like in the old brood war map Luna.
would help alot with proxy pylons.
|
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.
What are these statements even doing on teamliquid? Seriously? You can find advantages for every fucking race in great maps. For example, mutas are great because they are fast and can harrass before the enemy can get to your base. Also, you have more time to set up your economy as a zerg. Also, having faster ground army like speedlings or roaches is really useful on big maps.
Terran drops or banshee harrass are great for the same reasons. For protoss, phoenixes can harrass, as well as warp prisms.
Posts like this are going to kill SC2. If you want to post trash, SC2 forums are around the corner...
|
PatouPower has the point. With bigger maps we the gametype will change. I hope terrans will get more into the makro mode and we will have longer and better games.
|
On January 10 2011 08:57 Piski wrote:
How in the hell you changed this thread to be about balance. The OP made a legitamate concern that has nothing to do with balance but somehow people just managed to derail this quickly.
I think this should be talked about and I really hope blizzard is rethinking their maps. Best thing that could happen is that these GSL maps would be included into the ladder map pool and the removed maps removed.
lol that is so true, most of the talk is about balance nowadays :p
|
While I can totally understand why blizz need simple maps in the pool for new players, they also need to support those *looking* to step up, which will be really hard if tournament maps aren't in the ladder.
Solution: diamond and master league games get these maps on the ladder, but they get auto-downvoted for lower leagues.
|
On January 10 2011 07:10 uberdeluxe wrote:So we all know that some ladder maps have terrible imbalances, that's just a fact. GSL decided to do something about this and implement new custom maps they created( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182734 ) I think all of us are wondering "what will Blizzard do?" These maps are publicly available for anyone to play on, but for players to continue to ladder, we will have to keep playing on all the blizzard ladder maps until Blizzard changes them. If they don't, it could be pretty terrible for blizzard hosted tournaments, since how people are invited is based off of their laddering points, which might force pros to play on outdated and poorly made maps. I had checked the blizzard site to see if there was an appropriate way to ask about this in the contact section, but there was only places to send mail for policy questions and bugs. So, my dear gamers, is what do you think blizz will do about the ladder maps, and do you think that playing on the ladder may be completely extinct among pros in the future? *edit* accidentally put this in strategy... can a mod move it?
GSL possibly (or will) use new maps. You are concerned that another tournament will use different maps which the majority here will not even be able to qualify for / attend.
But to answer your question. Blizzard has used non blizzard made maps for their tournaments before (blizzcon 08? Match point or FS I think just out of my head). I don't see a reason not to use GSL maps for them.
But even if they don't use GSL maps pro gamers can still practice on them on ladder or in customs.
Although they wouldn't been able to optimally play on it because of time or lack of competition or something in comparison to GSL.
So in summary I don't see the problem when Blizzard decides not to use GSL maps.
|
I think we're completely overestimating the difficulty of these maps.
A rough analysis of the start location to start location distance (cross positions if more than one):
Clocked my SCV with the in game clock at about
Tal'Darim Altar ~1:10
Terminus ~1:05
Aiur Garden ~1:03
Biohazard ~0:58
Crossfire ~0:55
as opposed to
Shakuras ~1:05
Scrap Station ~1:00
Steppes ~0:45
My timings aren't done with an exact method but the idea is that the times are still similar. Early game play that you may see in lower leagues should stay similar. It is not as if the rush distances were doubled or something significant.
The maps do not hinder early game play, what they do is stop hindering mid/late game play. Their more accessible expansions and greater area allow for taking and keeping bases easier. A map being good for pro players does not mean it has to be bad for average players.
Conclusion: I feel I'm having trouble conveying my point with this mess but what I'm trying to say is that it is not that these maps discourage one base play, it is that they no longer discourage macro oriented (which the current ladder map pool does). So because of this, lower league should so no real negative effect or change from using these maps, while pro level will see positive effects. Therefore I believe it is completely realistic for Blizzard to implement these maps into the map pool of all leagues without there being any harm to any league.
|
Blizzard should have map makers , and change the ladder maps every 1 or 2 months. Just like Kespa does with proleague and every GSL should have a set of old maps plus some new ones.
|
On January 10 2011 16:46 YoiChiBow wrote:
They need to implement unbuildable terrain like in the old brood war map Luna.
would help alot with proxy pylons.
this is super easy to do. im actually suprised they havn't already.
|
as been said before simple solution will be bigger map pool .
with some big macro maps catered to pros.
combine this with more down veto options and a default setup for n00bs to downrate the bigger macro games , and you will have enough varity to support all users and i think enhance the fun of everyone.
|
well the ladder is focused on quick games for casual gamers. Dont think we will see some ultra macro maps in it soon
As someone already mention. Best solution would be diffrent map pool for difrent ranks...
Small fast maps for bronze... and good tournaments maps for diamond
|
On January 10 2011 07:47 link0 wrote:Show nested quote +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. Of course Zerg > Terran in larger maps. But Protoss benefits even more than zerg from map size.
Medivacs? banshees? hellions harass? terrans can get around just fine aswell as being able to take safer 3rd,4th, and 5th bases.
|
Personally I think Blizzard would and should not have any problems implementing user made maps into the ladder. If we can learn anything from the past it is that the community knows what the community needs to most. BW and the various custom maps on BW and wc3 have shown this. I would even attribute the success of iPhone to this.
|
greater maps work for terran when there are cluster expansions and not really alot of ways to pass their armys. Atleast this is what shakuras showed me. The problem for terrans is that they cannot harass a zerg anymore. Creep gives vision and mutas are faster then any of their units and can easily intercept anything except of a marine group hehe. But unless this one broodlord infestor thingie i saw terran can do pretty well without harassment and mutas won't survive the whole game.
And i think terrans will probably get a speed upgrade for either hellion or the reaper one will be buffed so i won't worry or mutas slower. (am allowed to hope)
just a random throw in you can put up rocks at the third to prevent the zerg from taking it fast without any army, to balance out larger maps, and if the map unfavors a zerg you can simply remove the rocks to make it more even.
|
On January 10 2011 14:19 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 14:14 MichaelJLowell wrote:
I may have posted this in another thread, but I'm still confused as to why Blizzard believes larger maps would detract from the Starcraft II experience for newer players. I thought the newbie player's impression of real-time strategy was "FUCK YEAH MOTHERSHIPS"? Wouldn't larger maps lend themselves to that? Well, half that and half "FUCK YEAH CANNON RUSH!"
I disagree, I think the majority of newbies hate cheeses and cannon rushes, they only do it because thats the best way for them to win BECAUSE the maps are small. If Blizzard believes larger maps would detract from newbies, they are completely wrong.
|
On January 10 2011 18:49 Disastorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 14:19 synapse wrote:On January 10 2011 14:14 MichaelJLowell wrote:
I may have posted this in another thread, but I'm still confused as to why Blizzard believes larger maps would detract from the Starcraft II experience for newer players. I thought the newbie player's impression of real-time strategy was "FUCK YEAH MOTHERSHIPS"? Wouldn't larger maps lend themselves to that? Well, half that and half "FUCK YEAH CANNON RUSH!" I disagree, I think the majority of newbies hate cheeses and cannon rushes, they only do it because thats the best way for them to win BECAUSE the maps are small. If Blizzard believes larger maps would detract from newbies, they are completely wrong.
I agree that newbes cheese less. I just got into Plat today and encountered my very first cannon rusher!
|
On January 10 2011 17:35 Befree wrote:
I think we're completely overestimating the difficulty of these maps.
A rough analysis of the start location to start location distance (cross positions if more than one):
Clocked my SCV with the in game clock at about
Tal'Darim Altar ~1:10
Terminus ~1:05
Aiur Garden ~1:03
Biohazard ~0:58
Crossfire ~0:55
as opposed to
Shakuras ~1:05
Scrap Station ~1:00
Steppes ~0:45
My timings aren't done with an exact method but the idea is that the times are still similar. Early game play that you may see in lower leagues should stay similar. It is not as if the rush distances were doubled or something significant.
The maps do not hinder early game play, what they do is stop hindering mid/late game play. Their more accessible expansions and greater area allow for taking and keeping bases easier. A map being good for pro players does not mean it has to be bad for average players.
Conclusion: I feel I'm having trouble conveying my point with this mess but what I'm trying to say is that it is not that these maps discourage one base play, it is that they no longer discourage macro oriented (which the current ladder map pool does). So because of this, lower league should so no real negative effect or change from using these maps, while pro level will see positive effects. Therefore I believe it is completely realistic for Blizzard to implement these maps into the map pool of all leagues without there being any harm to any league.
Thank you for the research on travel time, havent had the time to do it myself. much appreciated.
|
Personally I can't wait to see them switch the maps and see officially which they will be.
|
everybody is saying that only the higher leagues should get new maps. i dont like this idea, not only does it discriminate against some of the lower league players but if someone gets good enough to go to lets say platinum and suddenly has a totally different map pool he will surrely be punshed back in to gold in no time.
|
It will just end up to be like bw, so clam down. People will have to learn alot of different maps, not just the blizzards ladder map pool.
|
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.
|
Canada285 Posts
I hope they give us medivac speed buff. At least a research.
Their speed just got reduced in an earlier patch... just so you know since you were not around at the time I suppose.
|
These look good to give a try, but some more beta testing should be done for these maps before subbing in. Also the original ladder maps should be looked at for modification to make it more balanced in pro terms. Most obviously Scrap Station, but some other map designs as well.
With that said, BitByBitPrime maybe the biggest loser bar none from this change.
|
I really hope some of these maps get added to the ladder. I am totally in favor of larger maps encouraging macro play which allow for greater multitasking or harassment and decrease the effectiveness of all in rushes. This is what made BW so enjoyable for me, and I hope SC2 moves in the same direction. It is the best way to separate the great players from people who consistently rely on cheese.
|
I want these maps, and I'm some scrubby low diamond player, can I have them please? I already veto Steppes, Delta and I forgot the other one...but I veto it too! I hate maps where it's frustrating to get my third, or my natural feels really exposed.
To sound less whiny, one thing I always hated about War3 was the diversity, or lack thereof, of the map pool. After so many games you just get sick and tired of playing the same map over and over. I'm no pro, I never will be a pro, but I think FAIRLY regular rotation of NEW maps (Like, every 2-3 months, maybe 4, move x amount of maps out, and x amount of maps in) will maintain interest in the game.
And this isn't a shot at any lower players (I worked my way up from silver), but fuck the idea of lower league players disliking "more technical maps." Your average silver player probably doesn't understand what would make a map more or less technical, and they'll just have fun on the map regardless. Alternatively, institute rotating map pools in each league, and see which maps are vetoed! Do bronze players tend to hate huge maps? Then don't include MANY huge maps (Keep some in of course). Do plat players like mid-sized maps or bigger? 3 player maps? Then include more of those. The best part is, if blizzard doesn't want to take up the mantle of map-making, the community is willing to provide blizzard with these maps! Hold more map making contests, ask for different things. We need more SMALL maps! We need a 3 player map. We want a huge 2 player map with a hard to get fourth and fifth base, things like that. Then select 3-4 and rotate them in, see what happens. There needs to be some degree of risk taking on blizzard's part if they want this game to maintain it's appeal, and implementing new maps every so often is a good risk to take.
|
I think it's feasible that Terran will have difficulties on bigger maps - it just means they need a little work design-wise. If they really are dependant on winning early, that doesn't mean you keep maps in the pool where games tend to end early, it means you freaking make them less dependant on early pushes. Having a race whose optimal play is to win in the first 12 minutes or whatever is not a legitimate design for a Starcraft race even if they are "balanced", the people who want to see those kinds of games are probably in the minority, and not likely to stick around that long anyway because there's just not that many permutations of how a game like that can go. It's going to get boring quick, even for the easily amused.
|
blizzard needs to think of the common folk, a heavy rotation on maps would not be good for casual players. maybe a change in the pool with every ladder reset.
bottom line is eveyon has the tools to play on alternative maps, stop trying to pin everything on blizzard, they already gave u a map editor.
|
On January 11 2011 04:02 Faze. wrote:Their speed just got reduced in an earlier patch... just so you know since you were not around at the time I suppose.
Perhaps something that made them able to switch into flight mode where they can't heal. But having them remain as they are, with a speed upgrade, would be downright nuts.
|
On January 11 2011 04:46 latan wrote:
blizzard needs to think of the common folk, a heavy rotation on maps would not be good for casual players. maybe a change in the pool with every ladder reset.
bottom line is eveyon has the tools to play on alternative maps, stop trying to pin everything on blizzard, they already gave u a map editor.
Problem is that Blizzard also wants people to play on the ladder more than customs. Ladder is much easier to use than custom games and will pair you with someone of closer skill than a custom will. The bottom line is that most custom games are better because the maps are just funner to play on than what Blizz has in the map pool right now. Blizz wants to have it's cake and eat it too.
On January 11 2011 04:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 04:02 Faze. wrote:I hope they give us medivac speed buff. At least a research. Their speed just got reduced in an earlier patch... just so you know since you were not around at the time I suppose. Perhaps something that made them able to switch into flight mode where they can't heal. But having them remain as they are, with a speed upgrade, would be downright nuts.
I think they tried something like that in the beta and it didn't go so well.
|
All I can hope for is Blizzard take off delta, step, Bling, Jungle
make some change in LT, scrap, sharkuas, meto.
|
On January 10 2011 16:35 Tiazi wrote:
imo, blizzard gave us (the community) the tools (map editors) to play the game as we please and or customize the bits we dont like. So all the fuzz about blizzard not agreeing about us not playing on their selected ladder maps is overrated.
Its justified until they give us our own servers to host or LAN.
|
It is with these maps Protoss can finally utilize the full strength of mass warp gates and pylon every where.
Its so easy to get to 3 bases in these maps that you can produce from like 12~14 gates non-stop. Its pretty scary in late game.
|
IMO, I think the changes were mainly so that each race couldn't abuse a certain map advantage. (eg. Terran using cliff over lost temple = instant zerg GG).
|
On January 11 2011 11:28 DarkwindHK wrote:
It is with these maps Protoss can finally utilize the full strength of mass warp gates and pylon every where.
Its so easy to get to 3 bases in these maps that you can produce from like 12~14 gates non-stop. Its pretty scary in late game.
Not only that, but warp Prisms. Protoss is gonna get so scary.
|
Blizzard is afraid of big maps, they have problems with small maps already since beta. I'd be shocked to see them in ladder map pool. As much as i love sc2, i dont see how big maps would fit at current state of the game.
|
On January 11 2011 12:27 bgx wrote:
Blizzard is afraid of big maps, they have problems with small maps already since beta. I'd be shocked to see them in ladder map pool. As much as i love sc2, i dont see how big maps would fit at current state of the game.
Armies are gonna look small for one. But that Blizzard's fault for doubling supply costs.
|
Canada11295 Posts
On January 11 2011 04:46 latan wrote:
blizzard needs to think of the common folk, a heavy rotation on maps would not be good for casual players. maybe a change in the pool with every ladder reset.
bottom line is eveyon has the tools to play on alternative maps, stop trying to pin everything on blizzard, they already gave u a map editor.
Actually, I think even the casual players would get sick of the same maps. And if we have the stagnant ladder maps of War 3 to judge by....
I asked one of my cousins who' pretty out of the pro-league loop, though Diamond. Even he was starting to get sick of some of the maps and wouldn't mind ladder switches as some maps hadn't gotten far too predictable. It need not be an entire map swap, but swapping out a few every month or so would be very healthy even for the casual player.
|
I understand that these GSL maps are mainly focused on macro while Blizzard's do not. They force entirely different games. GSL maps are trying to turn SCII into Brood War, and in my honest opinion, that's not going to work well. The best maps are maps that do not favor macro or rushes, but allow both to happen. If you look at the ladder maps, not all of them do a good job, but XC for example is a step in the right direction. By HotS, Blizzard will have good maps in their map pool. And if you look at these GSL maps, they favor macro games.
|
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.
|
On January 18 2011 13:46 Antares777 wrote:
I understand that these GSL maps are mainly focused on macro while Blizzard's do not. They force entirely different games. GSL maps are trying to turn SCII into Brood War, and in my honest opinion, that's not going to work well. The best maps are maps that do not favor macro or rushes, but allow both to happen. If you look at the ladder maps, not all of them do a good job, but XC for example is a step in the right direction. By HotS, Blizzard will have good maps in their map pool. And if you look at these GSL maps, they favor macro games.
rushes can still happen. the player would just have to proxy buildings closer to the opposing player's base.
bigger maps alter the risk/reward ratio of cheese toward more risk less reward
|
I don't think Blizzard is opposed to macro maps. I just think they're not the best at making them.
Look at the original map pool:
Micro Maps
- Steppes
- Blistering Sands
Macro Maps
- Kulas
- Oasis
- Metalopolis
- Xel'Naga Caverns
- Scrap Station
- Lost Temple
WTF Maps
- Delta. I have no idea what the concept behind this map was.
Kulas and Desert were replaced with Shakuras (Macro map, probably the best map in the pool) and Jungle Basin (Micro/2base map).
2/3rds of the map pool was macro. Now, you can (and likely will) argue that these maps aren't good macro maps, but Blizzard is clearly trying to do it. Give them time, it's a new game.
I expect we'll see more Blizzard attempts at macro maps, that get progressively better. Shakuras is a really good map. So's Xel'naga Caverns, and kind of Metalopolis. Remember when Metal was considered the "good" Blizzard map?
And hey, if you ever think WoL maps are bad, look at the official maps Starcraft 1 launched with.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Ashrigo
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/River_Styx
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Solar_Station
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Green_Valleys
We've come a long way. All the maps have naturals, now!
|
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. 
|
And hey, if you ever think WoL maps are bad, look at the official maps Starcraft 1 launched with.
Ashrigo
River Styx
Solar Station
Green Valleys
We've come a long way. All the maps have naturals, now!
QFT. Blizzard's official maps have never really been that great, especially compared to community created ones. They have gotten better at mapmaking over the years, though their maps are only decent for the official ladder and early tournaments.
I don't mind most of the maps on the current ladder, especially considering the huge number of casual non-diamond players that Blizzard has to cater to. There isn't really anything that will cause Blizzard to adopt community-created maps onto their ladder. The most we can hope for is the possibility for them to add support for custom ladders, a la iCCup or PGTour.
It's really up to tournament organizers to push the envelope to adopt new maps. I suspect that the majority of people complaining about the lack of macro in games probably reside on TL and are regular spectators of tournaments. It would be great for more tournaments to start adopting more custom maps, thus giving a nice sampling of the types of games that could be played out on these new maps. Once these lights are thrust into the public spotlight, the new chat channels should make it much easier for us to try them out in custom games.
As much as we want Blizzard to officially adopt custom maps, it has historically been the community itself that has caused the adoption of custom maps throughout BW's lifetime. I don't expect the next Destination or Match Point to come from Blizzard. I do expect the community to create and adopt such quality maps for public use.
Anyways, I think the new GSL maps are definitely a step in the right direction. Even if some of them turn out to be terrible for any reason, at least they will be filtered out in favor of other better maps, thus priming the pump for the flow of community-made maps for major tournaments.
|
I feel matches on these maps may become somewhat dull with no sides attacking until maxed, though Koreans like to attack so we will see.
|
On January 20 2011 16:31 Ulfsark wrote:
I feel matches on these maps may become somewhat dull with no sides attacking until maxed, though Koreans like to attack so we will see.
This is a logical fallacy. If it's advantageous for someone to attack they are likely going to attack.
SC2 is a pretty fast paced game and there will still be ways to keep people "honest" I assure you.
|
if blizzard is smart they will let the community evolve the game.
|
On January 20 2011 17:58 Phanekim wrote:
if blizzard is smart they will let the community evolve the game.
^After legacy of the void is out.
|
Can we stop catering to the casual crowd please, Blizzard?
The game has been out for a sufficiently long time that the people who play a game for a month or two and quit have, the people who just want to play hero arena can, and those of us who want to play a game on destination or fighting spirit would prefer to do it on ladder than a custom game where who you get is a crapshot.
|
Trying to give an honest and concise opinion here...as far as balance goes more maps of the nature of xel'naga caverns is really the way blizzard would need to go to fix their current issues.
I don't think it's the size of the maps alone that is leading the GSL to drop paticular maps. Delta for instance is not really a tiny map, it however has positional imbalance regardless of race...so it's basically just a terrible map and why it's in blizzards current pool is beyond me.
Steppes is really the only map that's just flat to small, there is barely any expansions and the rush distance is just ridiculous.
Blistering sands oddly enough is overly difficult for the defender and leads to a lot of cheese tactics which is probably why they are getting rid of it....aditionally much like jungle basin taking a 3rd on the board is way to hard, which just lends even more to cheese.
I can only imagine the fourth mystery map would most likely be jungle basin or lost temple, more likely the former then the later. JB because once again 3rds are incredibly difficult for both protoss and zerg to take, which once again leads to a lot of cheesy strats.
From all apperances GSL wants to elimante extremly cheesy uninteresting games, so they want to play on maps that lend to more games like you see on xel'naga caverns/metal/shakuras which is only a good thing as the best games have come off those boards.
|
On January 10 2011 09:04 StephenS wrote:Show nested quote +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. User was warned for this post
Pathetic.
About the maps, I don't think it's a good idea to make them so big at current state of the game.We will see quite big imbalances after few weeks of playing on them.
|
I don't see how Warp Gate tech would change anything on a new map pool with bigger maps. I mean, some of you guys seem to imply you can warp in anything other gateway units with it.
In the early game it's going to be the same as ever: either they 4gate or they don't. Distance barely matters in this case.
If anything, bigger maps forces a 4gating player to either: send their probe earlier or have a smaller timing window for it to be effective. If the player doesn't go 4gate (which more or less means they go for a mid/late game), robo tech still has to walk to reinforce.
To me, it just seems as if Protoss will simply suffer the least changes in gameplay when talking about map sizes. Unless they begin to use more warp prisms. But then that means that your robo isn't pumping: a) collosus , b) immortals.
EDIT:
To expend on the last point: protoss' scary units are more or less robo units + templars.
If you want to use warp prisms, you lose some of the robo units. If you want the same ammount of these units, you need to go something like 2robo. If you do that, you have less warpgates, which in turn makes the whole Warp Gate Tech thing not matter as much.
|
IMO there are a lot of T players who either don't know how or choose not to play the "right" way. I think if the maps are all the size of Shakuras T players will need to adapt their play style but once they do, I think the game will be balanced fine. I see T winning all kinds of games on Shakuras in the GSL so... if you try to play a macro game instead of SCV all-inning on huge maps I think T will end up fine.
But back to the OP's point, I pray Blizzard does something... but I'm not sure this GSL thing is going to be the deciding thing. Blizz knows that "we" (the elitist TL community) hate their map pool and they haven't done anything yet so I'm not too optimistic.
|
If Blizzard doesn't update the Ladder map pool after the GSL switches maps, I'm afraid that SC2 might lose a lot of players, or at the very least, the Ladder will become deserted. Part of the appeal of the ladder for me, is that I have a chance to play against the pros. If the pros stop playing ladder, I'll be sad.
|
On January 10 2011 07:40 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Terran has Dropships and a very strong maxed out Army... Ppl just need to play more Macro-oriented with Terran I guess... And even if it turns out Terran is going to be weaker, sth. could be done about that with balance-patches - that's way better than playing on horrible Maps IMHO.
On January 20 2011 23:00 Huragius 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. User was warned for this post Pathetic. About the maps, I don't think it's a good idea to make them so big at current state of the game.We will see quite big imbalances after few weeks of playing on them.
But isn't that a good thing? Seeing imbalances that occur on bigger Maps? I mean - sooner or later the Game has to be more or less balanced on bigger Maps anyways, so why not now(ish)?
|
On January 10 2011 09:07 link0 wrote:
It's really simple really. Protoss has the most to benefit from large map size. Zerg second. Terran is most disadvantaged. It's just obvious fact. It's the same reason why Terran > Zerg on steppes of war.
We'll see how it plays out though.
You're oversimplifying it. Warpgates ignore distance if a probe can place a pylon ahead of time. It's tough for Terran to prevent that, but speedlings shut down probes moving around the map pretty effectively.
Currently, longer distances are considered to favor Zerg against Terran, Zerg against Protoss, and Protoss against Terran. Chokes favor Protoss against Zerg, Protoss against Terran and Terran against Zerg.
|
I think Blizzard should start hosting tournaments a la Wc3 with different map pools to find out how those maps fare in the balance. Battlenet tournaments, in-game, could be an awesome way to get new data, feedback, and test out maps without affecting 1v1 ladder ranks. Prizes wouldn't even have to be monetary; it could be icons or different ranks or mousepads or something. ICCup / other map makers could sponsor the tournaments and include their maps, maybe even free for the sponsor (just community hosted but in-game) that way the community gets exposure to the maps and there is incentive for all players to participate, not just the people that are aware/willing to do come to TL and signup for a specific time/date map contest. Blizzard can get the data from tournaments and implement the maps they feel are the most balanced into the ladder.
I doubt blizzard will add the GSL maps to the ladder pool without sufficient testing or any time soon, but it is a possibility given how strongly they support the GSL.
Should they add the maps to the ladder pool? Personally, I think the Aiur Garden and Tal'Darim Altar are massively Zerg favored (long rush distances by land and air, way farther than Shakuras at the farthest spawning positions, even with the closest positions on these two GSL maps). I would like to see Blizzard add new maps, though. Some of the ICCUp maps are brilliant, others are just WTF (Attack Canyon comes to mind).
I think map making is difficult, because even if we want every map to be as balanced as Xel'Naga and Shakuras, it's difficult to emulate that balance without making every map exactly the same. Map makers (and Blizzard) should be looking at the aspects that cater to balance:
- Land rush distance
- Air rush distance
- Use of destructible rocks
- Number of expansions
- Accessibility of expansions
- Number of chokes
- Position of chokes
- Ability to defend naturals
- Natural-to-natural distance
- position of cliffs
- dynamic of spawn locations
- layout of the main base
- fog / watchtowers
I'm probably missing a lot, but as you can see, there is much more that goes into a map than it's size, and every aspect of a map CAN be exploited, and so probably will, therefore it is very difficult to come up with new maps that reflect balance for every MU but aren't all exactly the same.
I DO believe that Blizzard should be more advantageous in probing the community with new maps and cycling out the established bad ones. Hell, they can look at which maps people most often downvote and get rid of those. The more liberal map-pool of battle.net tournaments and / or custom ladders are the most promising options Blizzard has for getting new maps into ladder.
Edit: Clarity
|
I was watching gisado's stream the other day where he tested the new maps, and saw quite a few things that are both expected and unexpected:
1) zerg won alot more games than you would expect on blizzard maps, which is not suprising
2) Protoss, dispite everyone saying warp will be OP, they didnt get that much wins (didnt count, but im sure they won less than zerg)
3) Terran did alright, not UP as people were claiming. 1 base play was made completely useless in one of the maps (some terran player did 1 base and it failed badly, some of the other terran players that played went for a FE which proved to be stable, also saw a flash build
(cc b4 rax) but a mistake in the wall-in cost him the game).
Can't be certain about how balanced it is, but even if the new maps prove to be abit imba, it seems that the problem would be better than the one we have right now (steppes of war, DQ, etc)
|
It's really up to the community to make maps from this point on imo. It's false hope that Blizzard will add in some new maps(good maps at that) because their history in this field is so damn bad. WC3, they basically kept the same set of maps for the entirety of the game. Imagine having to play on xel naga for your 2000th time in three years. In WoW, as far as I recall, they've kept the same arena stages for the past four or so years.
ActiBlizzard is LAZY and money hungry, it's not the same Blizzard that gave us BW. We will probably get a new set of maps per expansion and then have to stick with that until the protoss expansion. For Esports, that's basically a death sentence unless the community takes over. It's amazing to see GSL taking action. SC2 is incredibly lucky to have GSL driving the Esports scene as much as they have.
As far as race balance goes, who cares? The metagame will shift and new strategies will evolve on these bigger maps. It's better to see the game evolve under these conditions than a crapshoot based on random positioning presented by the current Blizzard maps. Weak races will be forced to change. It's basically a survival of the fittest SC2 style on these bigger maps, which is possible because the game still hasn't been fully explored!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
