Is balance an impossible goal? - Page 10
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Nanic
Germany18 Posts
| ||
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
Realistic balance where the game is so close that it will almost never decide a game is possible, see BW. Is SC2 there? Idk yet | ||
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
They also make the game far less volatile, where the outcome of a single battle is not as likely to determine the outcome of the game, thus giving a superior player a better opportunity to recover from cheeses or all-in rushes. Larger maps also allow for more profound positional and tactical strategies, as there are simply more viable strategic and positional options available. TL;DR Large maps make the game easier to balance, as player skill more heavily influences the outcome of the game. | ||
LDLC.com
France3 Posts
| ||
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
| ||
FuzzyLord
253 Posts
On January 20 2011 11:41 Skyze wrote: balance is pretty damn close right now. Any race can win in almost any situation. Maps play a small part but definitely not as big as some people claim. Without idra there to say "i only lose because that map favors terran" and etc, no one would be talking about maps really. This is probably the best we're gonna get til HotS comes out, then we start all over again with the balance of new units, yay. Not really. Maps are probably the main defining thing in your strategy. Close bases tend to favor Terran a lot more since its more difficult for zerg to take a second expansion, whereas far bases favor zerg because of the long rush distances, making an expo easy to secure. Zerg strategy practically relies entirely on their economy, whereas for Terran and Protoss, they have better low-tier units. | ||
SecondChance
Australia603 Posts
| ||
genius_man16
United States749 Posts
I never really thought about the whole MMR aspect of the "unfair" wins that you get in unbalanced MU, so thought provoking... | ||
Nivoh
Norway259 Posts
| ||
Sockpuppet
119 Posts
| ||
Toxictoast1
United States8 Posts
-ToxicToast | ||
| ||