|
On January 19 2011 16:48 Frugalicious wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 14:22 jamesmax wrote:
LOL, anyone that says they are too big is just scared to actually have to control multiple armies ya'll are probably just trying to deathball the whole map every-time, played a few games on these maps watched a few games on these maps and they were by far the most entertaining games I've seen action everywhere on the map controlling multiple forces harassing looked like a bw game even, tldr its not like they'll end up in the ladder anyways so what do you all care. You seem to leave out that GSL matches and possible other tournament matches will include those maps. If games become overly passive macro oriented, which is unappealing to the masses, then SC2 would lose viewer-ship if they become too prevalent (again, similar to all the close-position, early game all-ins as seen in GSL3). NR20 minute games are not fun to watch and are encouraged by excessively large maps that reward passive macro games. Versatile maps for all races such as Xel Naga and Shakuras have often produced the most popular matches to watch. stop being wrong =/
LOL, who says they have to be a turtle fest and passive your information is subjective to bad players sitting on 2 base and max armying like what they do now with more bases more spread out there is more harrasment and action, more little things leading up to a greater lead along with epic battles all over the map instead of just deathball vs deathball. your wrong l2p
|
People seem to think that because a map isn't awful for zerg to play on because it's big then it's a "zerg favoured map." A large map with lots of expansions means that other races can expand a lot too. Just because you're not 10 seconds away from ending the game whenever you want for ez ladder points doesn't mean that it's in favour of zerg, that's only if you're bad at taking more than just your expansion and cry "imba lategame zerg" whenever zerg outexpands and outmacros you after killing your all in off of 1/2 base.
Basically, give the maps a chance, don't hate on a map because it's bigger than steppes and you can't siege up in your natural and kill their natural at the same time
|
On January 19 2011 11:49 AlphaIIOmega wrote:
You are correct in your speculation but INCORRECT in your logic that big maps aren't good. Of course zerg are favored on the big maps. Zerg are overpowered. Now, I'm not just going to blindly comment that zerg are OP; I will explain exactly why this is so and how to fix it:
On small maps where zerg have to 14 gas 14 pool first, they are held in check. But on maps where zerg can go 14-15 hatch safely because of long rush distances, zerg are absolutely overpowered. This is because on an infinitely large map, zerg can grow their economy faster than the other 2 races if left to build JUST workers/expansions/macro units.
What you fail to acknowledge is that zerg need a nerf AFTER the maps get bigger. Easy balance process:
-make all maps as large or larger than LT
-make MINIMUM rush distance on all competitive maps equal to LT cross positions rush distance
-nerf zerg opening: Hatchery costs 350 and queen costs 200.
Bam, you have balance.
Another problem with map making is that Blizz made protos incredibly OP in certain positions. I think morrow mentioned that a good map needs a balance of open space and narrower passages. Too many choke points will cause protoss to dominate.
i really feel like a hatchery should just cost 400 minerals. i mean come on, it can produce any unit and doubles as base lol. other race's home cost 400. zerg should cost the same.
|
i really feel like a hatchery should just cost 400 minerals. i mean come on, it can produce any unit and doubles as base lol. other race's home cost 400. zerg should cost the same.
[/QUOTE]
Hatch 350 with drone price gives 2 stock = needs more ovie
CC 400 gives 10 supply
Nexus gives 10 supply
really you think hatch is cheap i should pay 450 plus ovie for my expan?
|
On January 19 2011 16:58 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 11:49 AlphaIIOmega wrote:
You are correct in your speculation but INCORRECT in your logic that big maps aren't good. Of course zerg are favored on the big maps. Zerg are overpowered. Now, I'm not just going to blindly comment that zerg are OP; I will explain exactly why this is so and how to fix it:
On small maps where zerg have to 14 gas 14 pool first, they are held in check. But on maps where zerg can go 14-15 hatch safely because of long rush distances, zerg are absolutely overpowered. This is because on an infinitely large map, zerg can grow their economy faster than the other 2 races if left to build JUST workers/expansions/macro units.
What you fail to acknowledge is that zerg need a nerf AFTER the maps get bigger. Easy balance process:
-make all maps as large or larger than LT
-make MINIMUM rush distance on all competitive maps equal to LT cross positions rush distance
-nerf zerg opening: Hatchery costs 350 and queen costs 200.
Bam, you have balance.
Another problem with map making is that Blizz made protos incredibly OP in certain positions. I think morrow mentioned that a good map needs a balance of open space and narrower passages. Too many choke points will cause protoss to dominate. i really feel like a hatchery should just cost 400 minerals. i mean come on, it can produce any unit and doubles as base lol. other race's home cost 400. zerg should cost the same.
It does cost 400
50 - minerals for the drone
300 - for the hatchery building
50 - minerals to remake the drone that was just lost
=
400 minerals total
|
On January 19 2011 16:53 jamesmax wrote:
LOL, who says they have to be a turtle fest and passive your information is subjective to bad players sitting on 2 base and max armying like what they do now with more bases more spread out there is more harrasment and action, more little things leading up to a greater lead along with epic battles all over the map instead of just deathball vs deathball. your wrong l2p
Wow, way to edit my post. I never mentioned you were wrong, but if you wish to interpret it that way, sure. i simply stated your opinion was subjective but you were treating it as objective. I clearly directed my second statement to Turgid, not you. Honestly, do you not understand how big the new maps are? Passive macro is significantly stronger on larger maps due to the greater leeway in reacting and defending. Any early aggression is significantly weaker, but to a lesser extent with Protoss WG rushes. Passive macro games are already increasing as seen in the GSL when they are in cross positions on some of the larger maps of the current pool.
Also, your example is horrid along with your grammar and comprehension skills. The example you had given is arbitrary. You really lack a basic understanding of the game. Why would anyone sit on 2 bases on any of these new GSL maps? No one in the GSL of course. A lot of these macro games end up in a "deathball vs deathball" situation more so than not. That has been the trend as it becomes the deciding moments in many of these GSL macro games. Harassment would also become more limited, due to the vast amount of space that they would have to traverse. Harassment would not increase as compared to now.
|
The thing regarding Zerg is that if u push him as Terran or Protoss and lose your whole army while u only kill the Zerg army and Economy, you are miles behind... Sometimes there are games where you push the Zerg and in the same time he pumps out 25 drones at once (late game obviously). You have to kill tech structures or hatcheries to stay in the game. Thats why bigger maps are favouring Zerg.
But it has been stated many times... The game is in early stages and we'll have to see what type of strategical development bigger maps are going to create.
|
On January 19 2011 17:05 Frugalicious wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 16:53 jamesmax wrote:
LOL, who says they have to be a turtle fest and passive your information is subjective to bad players sitting on 2 base and max armying like what they do now with more bases more spread out there is more harrasment and action, more little things leading up to a greater lead along with epic battles all over the map instead of just deathball vs deathball. your wrong l2p Wow, way to edit my post. I never mentioned you were wrong, but if you wish to interpret it that way, sure. i simply stated your opinion was subjective but you were treating it as objective. I clearly directed my second statement to Turgid, not you. Honestly, do you not understand how big the new maps are? Passive macro is significantly stronger on larger maps due to the greater leeway in reacting and defending. Any early aggression is significantly weaker, but to a lesser extent with Protoss WG rushes. Passive macro games are already increasing as seen in the GSL when they are in cross positions on some of the larger maps of the current pool. Also, your example is horrid along with your grammar and comprehension skills. The example you had given is arbitrary. You really lack a basic understanding of the game. Why would anyone sit on 2 bases on any of these new GSL maps? No one in the GSL of course. A lot of these macro games end up in a "deathball vs deathball" situation more so than not. That has been the trend as it becomes the deciding moments in many of these GSL macro games. Harassment would also become more limited, due to the vast amount of space that they would have to traverse. Harassment would not increase as compared to now.
Everyone in the gsl 1 base all in it's garbage to watch I usually find myself turning on proleague at that time because they have big maps with real games. Play on them I've played on them with high quality players we have quality games full of harassment and expansion =| In no game did we find being a turtle to be effective if you have any idea how to displace and army and harrass.
|
It all comes down to smart mapmaking.
I think the future, or at least a future trend, of maps will be huge maps where Terran/Protoss can "open up" shorter routes by taking down rocks, thus preventing rushes while allowing Terrans to leave their base at some point.
We need to experiment more. Island maps were considered hella bad in BW because they were so hard for Zerg. Is that true in WoL? Dunno. What about a map where players each had their own little continent with no land route to the other player's continent. Would that lead to more air battles? Would it be imbalanced? Who can say for sure until we've tried it.
For all the qq, this game is pretty close to balanced. I think we can kick it into long balanced macro games if we do smart things with the maps, instead of simply theorycrafting.
Sure, we'll have some comically imba maps, but that's what testing is for. Just have fun with it, and we'll figure it out.
|
I've played a lot of GSL maps in practice games and most of them are absurdly Z-favored. I don't know any way an equally skilled terran is going to win on Gardens of Aiur.
The Gardens of Aiur map, for example:
1) A free natural expo
2) No back rocks or entrance of any kind
3) Huge
4) One narrow ramp up to the main instead of a fat ramp, so a couple spines kills any pressure, including reaper pressure, because you can't even jump around the back, only straight up into death
I was losing to way less-skilled zerg players just because by time I got across the map, my army was a full 1-2 minutes older, their creep had a lot more time to spread so I had to leapfrog tanks from like two screens away, and they had a huge economic advantage because I can't apply any pressure at all.
Don't get me wrong, I love macro games, and the maps are well-made, but this game is not balanced to be played on maps like that. Larva inject is just too powerful when it can be used almost entirely for economy, and when coupled with creep mechanics and the most mobile army in the game, there may be problems.
Edit: as a sidenote, anyone who says "well you can expand and macro too" doesn't understand the way Starcraft 2 works. Namely, zerg can produce workers 3-5 times faster than you and that is impossible to compete with if you cannot apply sufficient pressure.
|
On January 19 2011 17:08 jamesmax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 17:05 Frugalicious wrote:On January 19 2011 16:53 jamesmax wrote:
LOL, who says they have to be a turtle fest and passive your information is subjective to bad players sitting on 2 base and max armying like what they do now with more bases more spread out there is more harrasment and action, more little things leading up to a greater lead along with epic battles all over the map instead of just deathball vs deathball. your wrong l2p Wow, way to edit my post. I never mentioned you were wrong, but if you wish to interpret it that way, sure. i simply stated your opinion was subjective but you were treating it as objective. I clearly directed my second statement to Turgid, not you. Honestly, do you not understand how big the new maps are? Passive macro is significantly stronger on larger maps due to the greater leeway in reacting and defending. Any early aggression is significantly weaker, but to a lesser extent with Protoss WG rushes. Passive macro games are already increasing as seen in the GSL when they are in cross positions on some of the larger maps of the current pool. Also, your example is horrid along with your grammar and comprehension skills. The example you had given is arbitrary. You really lack a basic understanding of the game. Why would anyone sit on 2 bases on any of these new GSL maps? No one in the GSL of course. A lot of these macro games end up in a "deathball vs deathball" situation more so than not. That has been the trend as it becomes the deciding moments in many of these GSL macro games. Harassment would also become more limited, due to the vast amount of space that they would have to traverse. Harassment would not increase as compared to now. Everyone in the gsl 1 base all in it's garbage to watch I usually find myself turning on proleague at that time because they have big maps with real games. Play on them I've played on them with high quality players we have quality games full of harassment and expansion =| In no game did we find being a turtle to be effective if you have any idea how to displace and army and harrass.
Tbh 1 base all ins happen reasonably frequently in Code A, but are fairly rare in Code S. Often the players do opt for a macro game, however there are times that they do all in pushes when their opponent is expanding early, which is usually the correct way to respond.
A number of slightly larger maps (as OP said not too large as it will affect balance) would help this situation more. That said some smaller maps (though nothing smaller than current maps) are good because if EVERY game was a macro game I imagine it would be equally as boring as frequent 1 base all ins. It's about seeing something unexpected, being surprised, knowing anything can happen that helps make matches great.
|
Larger maps do favor Zerg, and it would take some racial balancing before they could implement something like larger maps.
Right now:
-Zerg macro openings put them way ahead of the other 2 races. Without the risk of being rolled by a 1base all in (which can still be defended in close positions) Zerg would need to be changed to make macro openings more difficult and 1basing more viable (or remove all short distance maps).
-Zerg armies are extremely mobile (not hydras). Terran and Protoss would need static defense before moving out, or leave half their army behind (mutas). Terran mech wouldn't exist because on large maps you can't cover enough ground with siege tanks, zerg can walk right by you or snipe tanks.
-It's usually up to the Protoss or Terran to finish the game before the Zerg gets too strong. The defending player already has an advantage, on larger maps it favors the defender exponentially. Zerg's ability to replenish an army is already extremely good, giving them more time would favor them too much.
Larger maps would require a whole new rebalancing of the game, or extremely well designed maps that favor Terran and Protoss in some ways so the size doesn't affect balancing as much.
Good topic btw, I've been hearing a lot of QQ topics about the map pool, but none I thought of posting in.
|
They should have experimented with removing close spawns on LT and Meta, much like you can't close spawn on Shakuras, I think that would satisfy a lot of zergs.
|
I feel like blizzard can easily balance the game, they just need to alter map spawns
For instance, Metalopolis, LT and Delta could work in a way, that you never spawn in close positions like shakuras plateau. Delta could be possible, but would only have 1 variation where you spawn, your opponent is cross position. These maps are the perfect size, just needs adjustment with the spawns.
I feel like there are some really good ICCup maps out there that GSL needs to look at, some are the perfect proportions while others are too large. I don't think we should really variate from map sizes too much, the melee mapping community should try and agree on a couple of the best sizes and work within those ranges.
|
Zerg being powerful is definitely a consequence of a larger map. But do you know why it's that way to begin with? Because they've been balancing the game around maps like Steppes of War since release.
There's a lot of steps that need to be taken to make a better game and fix the balance patches that have already been implemented. The first step is to make bigger, better maps. The second step is to then balance BASED ON THOSE MAPS. Of course it's not going to be 100% balanced on large maps at first when Blizzard has been balancing the game by using Delta Quadrant and Jungle Basin as a basis for balance.
However, just because Zerg is probably going to be more powerful on larger maps at first, does NOT mean that we shouldn't include larger maps. It just means that SC2 is going to have to bring in more balance changes to get the game working based on larger maps.
|
yeah with the actual balance I think that larger maps will favor too much Zergs... it's already very hard to beat them when they can safely hatch first on maps like Shakuras, on bigger maps it will be even worse... well I think this game it's just too young to develop perfect maps, with the overall balance that could change every month...
|
Everyone in the gsl 1 base all in it's garbage to watch I usually find myself turning on proleague at that time because they have big maps with real games. Play on them I've played on them with high quality players we have quality games full of harassment and expansion =| In no game did we find being a turtle to be effective if you have any idea how to displace and army and harrass.
Your post is sufficient to discredit yourself. You obviously have not been watching the GSL if you think everyone is "1 base, all-in garbage". There is more FE'ing in all match-ups than early game/1 base all-ins in GSL4. You have no clue what is going on in the SC2 world. Also, displacing an army in SC2 is significantly more difficult than in SC. Every race has a method to handle multiple harassment efficiently once they obtain their spellcasters/defensive structures/unit composition.
Another thing, at least put minimal effort into your grammar. It is atrocious. Doesn't have to be perfect, but at least make it comprehensible to the masses.
|
On January 19 2011 18:00 Frugalicious wrote:Show nested quote +Everyone in the gsl 1 base all in it's garbage to watch I usually find myself turning on proleague at that time because they have big maps with real games. Play on them I've played on them with high quality players we have quality games full of harassment and expansion =| In no game did we find being a turtle to be effective if you have any idea how to displace and army and harrass. Your post is sufficient to discredit yourself. You obviously have not been watching the GSL if you think everyone is "1 base, all-in garbage". There is more FE'ing in all match-ups than early game/1 base all-ins in GSL4. You have no clue what is going on in the SC2 world. Also, displacing an army in SC2 is significantly more difficult than in SC. Every race has a method to handle multiple harassment efficiently once they obtain their spellcasters/defensive structures/unit composition.
If your sc name is the same as this your stats are enough to discredit yourself, please move on before commenting anymore.
|
[B]On January 19 2011 18:02 jamesmax wrote:
If your sc name is the same as this your stats are enough to discredit yourself, please move on before commenting anymore.
You have posted nothing but your subjective opinion and false information along with poorly articulated arguments. Why do you even bother to post? Also, you are derailing the topic due to your pettiness and ignorance.
On Topic:
Zerg have the insane mobility to take advantage of the vast spaces in these new maps and the limited early harassment options affected by the new maps will only further push it into a passive macro game. Though it seems Zerg favored, perhaps the GSL is trying to balance the overall results? If there exist T favored maps and P favored maps, perhaps there should be a balance of more Z favored maps? A compilation of neutral maps and race favored maps is perhaps their aim? Though without a counter-pick system, it doesn't seem as strategic and more luck based when it comes to the map selections for the GSL.
If I recall correctly, didn't some of the BW leagues create race favored maps to balance the results of the match-ups?
|
On January 19 2011 11:12 neobowman wrote:Tl;Dr: Yes, larger maps are needed, but not by much. If you go overboard like some of the GSL maps (cough, Tal'darim thingy and Aiur thingy), then it's just overwhelmingly Zerg favoured. I know this from experience of having played both these GSL maps, and some maps I made myself back around the beta when I had no idea of this concept in SC2.
Even though i read the whole thing, im only going to quote this.
Also, to quote Dr. Cox "Your wrong your wrong your WRong your wrong your wrong!"
Your thinking of things in terms of current balance. But just because zergs like the larger maps, doesn't make the map imbalanced, or in favor of zerg. This is similar to BW in terms of builds, because originally zerg was favored, but soon people built strategies to exploit the distance. Lets say we play on a larger map. I can safely 2 gate expand on the larger maps, and macro a 200 food army (as toss) off of 1 robo 3-4 gate in 14 min game time. All the while, pressuring with my army, but never engaging.
Larger maps reduce the chance for zerg early aggression, meaning macro is even more possible, along with faster expo builds as the other races as well. These builds don't see the light of day vs zerg (or in general) because early rushes can dominate pretty hard core.
The bigger the maps are better over all, because they all the creation of more fast expand builds, which open up strategical depth to play. This is what we saw in the evolution of BW, and, what we will see in SC2 if these maps become standardized.
Also, as far as 1 base is concerned, and the shorter games leading to less viewers, are you serious? Longer games tend to be more epic games. Look at the games vs Kiwi and Morrow in the SC2 Reddit invitational. These are pretty much the most talked about and the most viewed, because 1, the maps were long enough distance for these strategies to become viable, and 2, because they wern't 1 base all ins. I mean, the game on metal was 1 hour in length, and garnerd like 15k viewers on a stream, more then i've ever seen!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
