|
On February 05 2011 07:55 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 07:49 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:30 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
So you're afraid that Terran might be at some sort of disadvantage? I find that somewhat funny considering Zerg players have been playing with map disadvantages since release, and now that there is a possibility that Terran might have some this concerns you? I think people forgot the diversity of the Terran race, and the shear number of unexplored strategies. This is why Terran's continue to succeed despite all the nerfs, they simply have so many options available that the race is still somewhat unexplored compared to Zerg and to a lesser extent Protoss. I'm confident that Terrans WILL find successful strategies on large maps, it will just be completely different from current play styles because there is currently no drive to create them. Necessity is the mother of innovation, and Terran are the masters of Strategic innovation hands down. To be honest, your post is alot of fluff but no real proof that terran would excel in macro games. Unexplored strategies? Masters of strategic innovation? Do these statements really have any weight to them? Terrans are using pretty much the same units and strategies they did at release, even after the nerfs. I mean, I hope you are right, I'm just not convinced. And neither should anyone else be until we actually see alot of meaningful terran macro innovation. Is it really such a problem if Terran do end up disadvantaged? They have been in the map pool advantage seat since release, and if they do end up being disadvantaged, then Blizzard can balance patch from there. I'm just saying its not the end of the world if suddenly Terrans have some map pool disadvantages for a while, and may actually do them some good, as they will be forced to stretch the race to its maximum potential, which I feel like is not happening at the moment as there is really no need or incentive to explore those kinds of playstyles with the strength of rush based all-ins. Taking an antagonistic view to the problem isnt going to help anyone. Terran does not "deserve" to be underpowered just because they've had a good run so far. What matters is getting a balanced end product. People advocate big maps for a more balanced game, but if introducing bigger maps creates more imbalanced than it solves, is it really worth it? I just think its a problem that could be acknowledged before rushing into the pool of big maps.
I agree, the ultimate goal is balance, not to drive the design of the game in favour of zerg just because terrans had the map pool advantage. (not that I'm saying large maps will do that necessarily)
|
On February 05 2011 08:24 WickedBit wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:21 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 08:11 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:55 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:49 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:30 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
So you're afraid that Terran might be at some sort of disadvantage? I find that somewhat funny considering Zerg players have been playing with map disadvantages since release, and now that there is a possibility that Terran might have some this concerns you? I think people forgot the diversity of the Terran race, and the shear number of unexplored strategies. This is why Terran's continue to succeed despite all the nerfs, they simply have so many options available that the race is still somewhat unexplored compared to Zerg and to a lesser extent Protoss. I'm confident that Terrans WILL find successful strategies on large maps, it will just be completely different from current play styles because there is currently no drive to create them. Necessity is the mother of innovation, and Terran are the masters of Strategic innovation hands down. To be honest, your post is alot of fluff but no real proof that terran would excel in macro games. Unexplored strategies? Masters of strategic innovation? Do these statements really have any weight to them? Terrans are using pretty much the same units and strategies they did at release, even after the nerfs. I mean, I hope you are right, I'm just not convinced. And neither should anyone else be until we actually see alot of meaningful terran macro innovation. Is it really such a problem if Terran do end up disadvantaged? They have been in the map pool advantage seat since release, and if they do end up being disadvantaged, then Blizzard can balance patch from there. I'm just saying its not the end of the world if suddenly Terrans have some map pool disadvantages for a while, and may actually do them some good, as they will be forced to stretch the race to its maximum potential, which I feel like is not happening at the moment as there is really no need or incentive to explore those kinds of playstyles with the strength of rush based all-ins. Taking an antagonistic view to the problem isnt going to help anyone. Terran does not "deserve" to be underpowered just because they've had a good run so far. What matters is getting a balanced end product. People advocate big maps for a more balanced game, but if introducing bigger maps creates more imbalanced than it solves, is it really worth it? I just think its a problem that could be acknowledged before rushing into the pool of big maps. The problem right now with the game is small maps, pretty much everybody agrees on that. Fix the maps, then balance the game, in that order. Small maps encourage short cheesy all-in style games, and produce players like BitByBitPrime, and allow him to make it to the round of 16 in the GSL despite being a completely inferior player. Large maps are easier to balance than small ones, as they produce longer games. Longer games allow the more skilled player to make more decisions which are superior to his opponents decisions, and this makes racial imbalance less important in larger maps as the games are not so volatile. Comebacks are more likely, and the outcome of a single battle isn't as likely to determine the outcome of the entire game. Basically, larger maps make it more likely that the superior player will win, which is exactly what the game needs right now. I have heard the marketing speech for bigger maps enough times, and I dont disagree with it. What I think is that the current balance is a result of balancing for small (terran-favored) maps, but it does not mean the game is balanced for bigger maps. You constantly hear zerg players call bigger attack distances and bigger maps "more balanced", but I have been trying to make discussion whether or not this is actually the truth. Terrans are the race that would need to completely change their game to accommodate bigger maps, and at this point and time there is little proof that terrans could even pull off such a paradigm shift, especially after they've been nerfed again and again due to their excellence on smaller maps. Bigger maps willl probably make for more interesting games in the future, but I dont think the game is necessarily ready to embrace them just yet. Terrans are just the most glaring example of this. No the game is not balanced by any means. But I am not sure what you mean by the game is not ready to embrace bigger maps part ? The only way to balance for bigger maps is to include bigger maps as part of ladder, tournies etc, wait a while to see what evolves and then balance around that. So I would say the game is ready for all types of maps and its good to see everyone experimenting around with this.
My edit explained a bit on that, I think the new Blizzard maps are a good start because they are slightly bigger yet not overwhelmingly so.
People call them bad because of short rush distances etc, but I'd say terran kinda needs those, at least for the time being.
|
On February 05 2011 08:14 imbs wrote:
jinro can compete with idra on big maps and idra is alot better than jinro at the macro.
Contradictory statements.
Im pretty amazed at all the terran whine about big maps before even trying/practising on them much at all. you have had a bunch of terrible small maps for ages surely its become boring by now?
BM.
|
Looks like some Terrans will have to learn how to macro instead of just relying on all-ins and cheeses... OH NO!
But in all seriousness, many people have stated this and I will say it as well. There are many amazing macro terrans out there, but most of them *cough* bitbybitprime *cough* tslrain *cough* don't actually know how to macro that well, and thats the simple truth. I predict a big change in metagame when these bigger maps come out (its about time!)
|
...
Macro maps are still good for Terran. There's really nothing to stop you from fast expanding against a zerg.
|
I started SC2 as a Terran to learn the basics, with the full intention of switching over to Zerg full time (lots of people told me Zerg were more difficult to understand for someone new to SC). So I feel like I have some experience playing both races, and can honestly say close position/short rush distance maps are very unbalanced for Z playing Terran, the margin of error on the zerg's part is so small, and a slight mistake cost us the game. Now I'm a mid-level player (gold league) so debating the pro-level balance of races/maps really doesn't apply, and the reality is that 99percent of us aren't pros.
I really believe Blizzard is trying to address this in these maps, I do believe initially Terran are going to feel under-balanced, but they have way many more tools to help adapt then zeros currently do.
|
On February 05 2011 08:25 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote + i hope all the scv+marine bitbybits terrans and i-can-only-4gate protoss players vanish. I'm sorry to say, but larger map distances will never remove the i-can-only-4gate protoss players. Warpgate research makes map distances essentially non-factor.
Not so. Please read Tyler's thought on this
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7713315
Large maps do discourage 4 gates also as explained by the post above.
|
On February 05 2011 08:20 traca wrote:
how bigger maps affect multiple drops?
i mean you can hardly compete with terran mobility so like toss has to sit and defend then multiple drops happen, the map being bigger it advantage even more terran so lik i thought the maps were the bouc emissaire for not stating the obvious advantage one race might have upponanother so like they made it even more important?
actually i think larger maps are a welcome change in TvP. protoss don't have to worry about dying to 2 marauders and 3 marines if they don't open 2 gate and terran will actually have the ability to have some control during battles. larger maps means more flanking room, more room to avoid forcefields, chase down colossus for longer, and attack multiple locations like others have said.
|
On February 05 2011 08:29 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:24 WickedBit wrote:On February 05 2011 08:21 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 08:11 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:55 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:49 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:30 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
So you're afraid that Terran might be at some sort of disadvantage? I find that somewhat funny considering Zerg players have been playing with map disadvantages since release, and now that there is a possibility that Terran might have some this concerns you? I think people forgot the diversity of the Terran race, and the shear number of unexplored strategies. This is why Terran's continue to succeed despite all the nerfs, they simply have so many options available that the race is still somewhat unexplored compared to Zerg and to a lesser extent Protoss. I'm confident that Terrans WILL find successful strategies on large maps, it will just be completely different from current play styles because there is currently no drive to create them. Necessity is the mother of innovation, and Terran are the masters of Strategic innovation hands down. To be honest, your post is alot of fluff but no real proof that terran would excel in macro games. Unexplored strategies? Masters of strategic innovation? Do these statements really have any weight to them? Terrans are using pretty much the same units and strategies they did at release, even after the nerfs. I mean, I hope you are right, I'm just not convinced. And neither should anyone else be until we actually see alot of meaningful terran macro innovation. Is it really such a problem if Terran do end up disadvantaged? They have been in the map pool advantage seat since release, and if they do end up being disadvantaged, then Blizzard can balance patch from there. I'm just saying its not the end of the world if suddenly Terrans have some map pool disadvantages for a while, and may actually do them some good, as they will be forced to stretch the race to its maximum potential, which I feel like is not happening at the moment as there is really no need or incentive to explore those kinds of playstyles with the strength of rush based all-ins. Taking an antagonistic view to the problem isnt going to help anyone. Terran does not "deserve" to be underpowered just because they've had a good run so far. What matters is getting a balanced end product. People advocate big maps for a more balanced game, but if introducing bigger maps creates more imbalanced than it solves, is it really worth it? I just think its a problem that could be acknowledged before rushing into the pool of big maps. The problem right now with the game is small maps, pretty much everybody agrees on that. Fix the maps, then balance the game, in that order. Small maps encourage short cheesy all-in style games, and produce players like BitByBitPrime, and allow him to make it to the round of 16 in the GSL despite being a completely inferior player. Large maps are easier to balance than small ones, as they produce longer games. Longer games allow the more skilled player to make more decisions which are superior to his opponents decisions, and this makes racial imbalance less important in larger maps as the games are not so volatile. Comebacks are more likely, and the outcome of a single battle isn't as likely to determine the outcome of the entire game. Basically, larger maps make it more likely that the superior player will win, which is exactly what the game needs right now. I have heard the marketing speech for bigger maps enough times, and I dont disagree with it. What I think is that the current balance is a result of balancing for small (terran-favored) maps, but it does not mean the game is balanced for bigger maps. You constantly hear zerg players call bigger attack distances and bigger maps "more balanced", but I have been trying to make discussion whether or not this is actually the truth. Terrans are the race that would need to completely change their game to accommodate bigger maps, and at this point and time there is little proof that terrans could even pull off such a paradigm shift, especially after they've been nerfed again and again due to their excellence on smaller maps. Bigger maps willl probably make for more interesting games in the future, but I dont think the game is necessarily ready to embrace them just yet. Terrans are just the most glaring example of this. No the game is not balanced by any means. But I am not sure what you mean by the game is not ready to embrace bigger maps part ? The only way to balance for bigger maps is to include bigger maps as part of ladder, tournies etc, wait a while to see what evolves and then balance around that. So I would say the game is ready for all types of maps and its good to see everyone experimenting around with this. People call them bad because of short rush distances etc, but I'd say terran kinda needs those, at least for the time being.
I'm legimately curiously about what you think terran needs for short rush distances to NOT be necessary.
|
I hate to repeat myself, but seriously, why is everyone ignoring the fact that Kulas IS a big map, and well known for being heavily terran favored?
"Big Maps" in terms of expansions circling a large expanse of space such as python, are different from what is ideal for SC2. In order for big maps to be good for balance in SC2, mapmakers should be much more creative.
|
On February 05 2011 08:35 Mr.Minionman wrote:
I hate to repeat myself, but seriously, why is everyone ignoring the fact that Kulas IS a big map, and well known for being heavily terran favored?
"Big Maps" in terms of expansions circling a large expanse of space such as python, are different from what is ideal for SC2. In order for big maps to be good for balance in SC2, mapmakers should be much more creative.
kulas is no where near a big map, it takes about a 10 second walk to get from natural to natural.
|
with bigger maps and more spread out expansions marine drops are going to become even more effective in tvz
|
On February 05 2011 08:04 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 07:49 Chise wrote:
I kind of feel that Terran lategame only feels weak because of the current metagame.
Terran has a lot more ways to harass than Protoss and Zerg, yet the way most Terrans play is still by going for straight attacks where they mostly use T1/T1,5 units, that are supposed to lose to T3 units. Harassing will become even stronger on larger maps. I can't tell for sure if this kind of playstyle will be good for Terran, but it sounds like a possibility to me. What annoys me a bit when talking about terran is the fact z/p think terran players actually want to use rine/rauder. The problem is, further down the line, there is very little to be thrilled getting. This acts differently between the MUs. TvP: Ghost good Tank sucks Raven good Banshee good, though a bit niche Thor decent but slow BC bad TvZ: Ghost bad(if they fixed shift+snipe it'd be sooo awesome...) Tank good Raven niche good Banshee niche good Thor good for 1 role, controlling surrounding air space/forcing multi box(ugh always forget the term  ) BC bad There's nothing really that we've got that makes me think "ohh if I get this unit, I'm in good shape". Heck I'm by far more turned on by my +attack upgrades than any of those units. Especially TvZ, we don't have anything except t1 to deal with mutas anyway(ok thors guarded by turrets...) so that forces t1 anyway(and on bigger maps = mutas are better, so go figure...). Edit: Btw I'm glad we're getting bigger maps. I just don't think it's very bright balancing the races to small maps and then expecting everything to be fine on huge maps.
i disagree, tanks are good in tvp
|
The only thing that worries me is the lack of "controlling space" options. Particularly the 3 supply Tank and "lack" of mines (BW stile) in combination with the larvae mechanic and "warp in". Maybe the PF can make up for some of this but IDK.
|
On February 05 2011 05:35 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 05:31 Lefthanded wrote:
I think its about time we get new maps (bigger or smaller) just for new strats to emerge. Terran will learn to macro and play really well late game vs zerg+protoss. Just wait for strategies to emerge. @op you see terran cant macro thats the hole point. Oo I agree in every point of your post BUT: Even when its a nice try to give a other opinion, i dont think its worth the time. Most of the poster here are like lefthanded.
Terran can't macro but Protoss and Zerg can right? Read what you are typing and tell me if that makes any sense. The OP is quite accurate in his post if you ask me.. I guess the blanket statement: "Terrans can't macro" is more accurate though.. *sigh*
|
On February 05 2011 08:35 Oceaniax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:29 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 08:24 WickedBit wrote:On February 05 2011 08:21 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 08:11 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:55 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:49 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:30 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
So you're afraid that Terran might be at some sort of disadvantage? I find that somewhat funny considering Zerg players have been playing with map disadvantages since release, and now that there is a possibility that Terran might have some this concerns you? I think people forgot the diversity of the Terran race, and the shear number of unexplored strategies. This is why Terran's continue to succeed despite all the nerfs, they simply have so many options available that the race is still somewhat unexplored compared to Zerg and to a lesser extent Protoss. I'm confident that Terrans WILL find successful strategies on large maps, it will just be completely different from current play styles because there is currently no drive to create them. Necessity is the mother of innovation, and Terran are the masters of Strategic innovation hands down. To be honest, your post is alot of fluff but no real proof that terran would excel in macro games. Unexplored strategies? Masters of strategic innovation? Do these statements really have any weight to them? Terrans are using pretty much the same units and strategies they did at release, even after the nerfs. I mean, I hope you are right, I'm just not convinced. And neither should anyone else be until we actually see alot of meaningful terran macro innovation. Is it really such a problem if Terran do end up disadvantaged? They have been in the map pool advantage seat since release, and if they do end up being disadvantaged, then Blizzard can balance patch from there. I'm just saying its not the end of the world if suddenly Terrans have some map pool disadvantages for a while, and may actually do them some good, as they will be forced to stretch the race to its maximum potential, which I feel like is not happening at the moment as there is really no need or incentive to explore those kinds of playstyles with the strength of rush based all-ins. Taking an antagonistic view to the problem isnt going to help anyone. Terran does not "deserve" to be underpowered just because they've had a good run so far. What matters is getting a balanced end product. People advocate big maps for a more balanced game, but if introducing bigger maps creates more imbalanced than it solves, is it really worth it? I just think its a problem that could be acknowledged before rushing into the pool of big maps. The problem right now with the game is small maps, pretty much everybody agrees on that. Fix the maps, then balance the game, in that order. Small maps encourage short cheesy all-in style games, and produce players like BitByBitPrime, and allow him to make it to the round of 16 in the GSL despite being a completely inferior player. Large maps are easier to balance than small ones, as they produce longer games. Longer games allow the more skilled player to make more decisions which are superior to his opponents decisions, and this makes racial imbalance less important in larger maps as the games are not so volatile. Comebacks are more likely, and the outcome of a single battle isn't as likely to determine the outcome of the entire game. Basically, larger maps make it more likely that the superior player will win, which is exactly what the game needs right now. I have heard the marketing speech for bigger maps enough times, and I dont disagree with it. What I think is that the current balance is a result of balancing for small (terran-favored) maps, but it does not mean the game is balanced for bigger maps. You constantly hear zerg players call bigger attack distances and bigger maps "more balanced", but I have been trying to make discussion whether or not this is actually the truth. Terrans are the race that would need to completely change their game to accommodate bigger maps, and at this point and time there is little proof that terrans could even pull off such a paradigm shift, especially after they've been nerfed again and again due to their excellence on smaller maps. Bigger maps willl probably make for more interesting games in the future, but I dont think the game is necessarily ready to embrace them just yet. Terrans are just the most glaring example of this. No the game is not balanced by any means. But I am not sure what you mean by the game is not ready to embrace bigger maps part ? The only way to balance for bigger maps is to include bigger maps as part of ladder, tournies etc, wait a while to see what evolves and then balance around that. So I would say the game is ready for all types of maps and its good to see everyone experimenting around with this. People call them bad because of short rush distances etc, but I'd say terran kinda needs those, at least for the time being. I'm legimately curiously about what you think terran needs for short rush distances to NOT be necessary.
Is it not obvious? Short rush distances -> ability to pressure -> current strategies are still viable. For them not to be necessary, I think the terran macro game needs to prove that it can convincingly be on the level of the other 2. If that fails, more tools to stay viable in a macro game.
These maps allow current play but also have enough bases to support macro-oriented plays, hence they can be a good place for terran strategies to evolve. If we would add a map pool where every map only supported macro games, terran would feel like a fish out of water, at least for some time. I think the current model is more productive.
|
Terran has been doing well with the current map setup, so obviously there is going to be some apprehension about anything that could change balance. It is really more the fear of the unknown and you can't blame Terran players for being a bit defensive.
With that said, the health of the game with the current map pools isn't really good and that is the core issue. Some people might like those shorter games, and I think Blizzard feels that way so they've kept those maps around for variety, but I actually think in the long run it is frustrating for everyone. The players that don't want to macro/learn the depths of the game end up on fastest money maps anyway. At this point, with the people I hang around with and OBS games/KOTH none like Steps of War. Doesn't matter the race, the map sucks.
I enjoy some of the small maps from time to time but in the end I want the spectrum to be something around the size of Met/Shakuras and a touch bigger for 4 player, and something similar to Xel for 2 player maps.
That setup seems to be a balance that gets enjoyable games. Nobody likes to be "cheesed" and cheesing over and over will get boring. I have to imagine at this point some Terran players are probably getting sick of having to open 2 rax bunker EVERY game vs. zerg. The results are positive so they aren't stopping but a map change would force some new strategies. I just feel like the big maps still allow harass but you can macro too. You get both options. On small maps you are really telling the players, "hey the game is going to be played in this way so deal with it."
And if there is any of the 3 races that would adapt to bigger maps it is Terran. I think it will be much easier for Terran players to figure out how to compete on big maps, then it will in our current pace of watching Zerg players try to compete on small maps.
|
On February 05 2011 08:30 justindab0mb wrote:
Looks like some Terrans will have to learn how to macro instead of just relying on all-ins and cheeses... OH NO!
But in all seriousness, many people have stated this and I will say it as well. There are many amazing macro terrans out there, but most of them *cough* bitbybitprime *cough* tslrain *cough* don't actually know how to macro that well, and that's the simple truth. I predict a big change in metagame when these bigger maps come out (its about time!)
I kinda hate this and I think i used to be one of these types of posters but like people who just sit here and go oh well Terrans will just have to "learn to macro". It's disgusting the generalization from these people. They think they are Pros or something and they call out pros for having bad macro when those guys are way more skilled than they will ever be.
And you think there will be a big change in the meta game but to what, other than Terran's not being able to All-In OR Proxy Rax anymore (basically no more suprise when playing against Terran which is retarded)? Explain.
|
If anything bigger maps will encourage much more drop//multi harass play. Which I think is terrans really good strong point. Big phoenix/muta balls can be very strong, but if you split them up they are a lot less effective, where as terran can do 2-50 drops at once
|
On February 05 2011 08:44 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:35 Oceaniax wrote:On February 05 2011 08:29 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 08:24 WickedBit wrote:On February 05 2011 08:21 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 08:11 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:55 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:49 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:30 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
So you're afraid that Terran might be at some sort of disadvantage? I find that somewhat funny considering Zerg players have been playing with map disadvantages since release, and now that there is a possibility that Terran might have some this concerns you? I think people forgot the diversity of the Terran race, and the shear number of unexplored strategies. This is why Terran's continue to succeed despite all the nerfs, they simply have so many options available that the race is still somewhat unexplored compared to Zerg and to a lesser extent Protoss. I'm confident that Terrans WILL find successful strategies on large maps, it will just be completely different from current play styles because there is currently no drive to create them. Necessity is the mother of innovation, and Terran are the masters of Strategic innovation hands down. To be honest, your post is alot of fluff but no real proof that terran would excel in macro games. Unexplored strategies? Masters of strategic innovation? Do these statements really have any weight to them? Terrans are using pretty much the same units and strategies they did at release, even after the nerfs. I mean, I hope you are right, I'm just not convinced. And neither should anyone else be until we actually see alot of meaningful terran macro innovation. Is it really such a problem if Terran do end up disadvantaged? They have been in the map pool advantage seat since release, and if they do end up being disadvantaged, then Blizzard can balance patch from there. I'm just saying its not the end of the world if suddenly Terrans have some map pool disadvantages for a while, and may actually do them some good, as they will be forced to stretch the race to its maximum potential, which I feel like is not happening at the moment as there is really no need or incentive to explore those kinds of playstyles with the strength of rush based all-ins. Taking an antagonistic view to the problem isnt going to help anyone. Terran does not "deserve" to be underpowered just because they've had a good run so far. What matters is getting a balanced end product. People advocate big maps for a more balanced game, but if introducing bigger maps creates more imbalanced than it solves, is it really worth it? I just think its a problem that could be acknowledged before rushing into the pool of big maps. The problem right now with the game is small maps, pretty much everybody agrees on that. Fix the maps, then balance the game, in that order. Small maps encourage short cheesy all-in style games, and produce players like BitByBitPrime, and allow him to make it to the round of 16 in the GSL despite being a completely inferior player. Large maps are easier to balance than small ones, as they produce longer games. Longer games allow the more skilled player to make more decisions which are superior to his opponents decisions, and this makes racial imbalance less important in larger maps as the games are not so volatile. Comebacks are more likely, and the outcome of a single battle isn't as likely to determine the outcome of the entire game. Basically, larger maps make it more likely that the superior player will win, which is exactly what the game needs right now. I have heard the marketing speech for bigger maps enough times, and I dont disagree with it. What I think is that the current balance is a result of balancing for small (terran-favored) maps, but it does not mean the game is balanced for bigger maps. You constantly hear zerg players call bigger attack distances and bigger maps "more balanced", but I have been trying to make discussion whether or not this is actually the truth. Terrans are the race that would need to completely change their game to accommodate bigger maps, and at this point and time there is little proof that terrans could even pull off such a paradigm shift, especially after they've been nerfed again and again due to their excellence on smaller maps. Bigger maps willl probably make for more interesting games in the future, but I dont think the game is necessarily ready to embrace them just yet. Terrans are just the most glaring example of this. No the game is not balanced by any means. But I am not sure what you mean by the game is not ready to embrace bigger maps part ? The only way to balance for bigger maps is to include bigger maps as part of ladder, tournies etc, wait a while to see what evolves and then balance around that. So I would say the game is ready for all types of maps and its good to see everyone experimenting around with this. People call them bad because of short rush distances etc, but I'd say terran kinda needs those, at least for the time being. I'm legimately curiously about what you think terran needs for short rush distances to NOT be necessary. Is it not obvious? Short rush distances -> ability to pressure -> current strategies are still viable. For them not to be necessary, I think the terran macro game needs to prove that it can convincingly be on the level of the other 2. If that fails, more tools to stay viable in a macro game. These maps allow current play but also have enough bases to support macro-oriented plays, hence they can be a good place for terran strategies to evolve. If we would add a map pool where every map only supported macro games, terran would feel like a fish out of water, at least for some time. I think the current model is more productive.
On the flip side, how can we prove that a macro terran using dashes of harassment isn't viable on large, macro maps, if all you want are maps with short rush distances?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
