|
Osaka27118 Posts
On March 02 2011 11:29 Chicane wrote:
I really dislike biased posts like this. You drew each individual player as their own color for the first one to look like there was even more action, and you drew across water all the time, which I suppose would be drops, but didn't draw all the drop locations on the second one. Instead you drew it as one big blob and still didn't even draw out the 2 locations to go to.
While I agree there aren't many options for the second map, you should at least be fair to both sides if you want your argument to seem valid. Saying "WOW Look at all these different paths!!!!!!" for the first one and then saying "meh... there is only like 1 spot... I *guess* you could do a small drop over here if you wanted..." clearly shows the side you are taking. Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts).
The point of an essay is to argue a point.
|
Totally agree. Blizzard doesn't realize how much more fun it is when bases are seperate
They're really not, unless if all you love is cheesing and T1 aggression every single time.
There's a reason I have almost every split base map possible veto'd from my map selection, especially since 80% of my team games played are random team: It's just way too simple to cheese and outright kill one player before your allies can even react. Surely you've run into PZ teams that do 8-10 pool to force your team to block off, only to find that they used a spotter overlord to warp in zealots at the back of your base, killing off your workers while keeping you occupied in the front. Surely you've run into pre-patch reaperling BS. That stuff really only works because no way in hell can one stop two.
And SC1, 1vx defense was possible because terrans didn't have marauders and zerg didn't have roaches. Also, hydras with no upgrades were terrible. And the old high ground advantage really does scare away any early attacks.
|
On March 02 2011 12:47 Lunchador wrote:Show nested quote +Totally agree. Blizzard doesn't realize how much more fun it is when bases are seperate They're really not, unless if all you love is cheesing and T1 aggression every single time. There's a reason I have almost every split base map possible veto'd from my map selection, especially since 80% of my team games played are random team: It's just way too simple to cheese and outright kill one player before your allies can even react. Surely you've run into PZ teams that do 8-10 pool to force your team to block off, only to find that they used a spotter overlord to warp in zealots at the back of your base, killing off your workers while keeping you occupied in the front. Surely you've run into pre-patch reaperling BS. That stuff really only works because no way in hell can one stop two. And SC1, 1vx defense was possible because terrans didn't have marauders and zerg didn't have roaches. Also, hydras with no upgrades were terrible. And the old high ground advantage really does scare away any early attacks.
I love split bases. I like T1.5 aggression every single game.
|
On March 02 2011 12:50 Rotodyne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 12:47 Lunchador wrote:Totally agree. Blizzard doesn't realize how much more fun it is when bases are seperate They're really not, unless if all you love is cheesing and T1 aggression every single time. There's a reason I have almost every split base map possible veto'd from my map selection, especially since 80% of my team games played are random team: It's just way too simple to cheese and outright kill one player before your allies can even react. Surely you've run into PZ teams that do 8-10 pool to force your team to block off, only to find that they used a spotter overlord to warp in zealots at the back of your base, killing off your workers while keeping you occupied in the front. Surely you've run into pre-patch reaperling BS. That stuff really only works because no way in hell can one stop two. And SC1, 1vx defense was possible because terrans didn't have marauders and zerg didn't have roaches. Also, hydras with no upgrades were terrible. And the old high ground advantage really does scare away any early attacks. I love split bases. I like T1.5 aggression every single game.
Have you played any non-split base maps? I'm talking about rotational symmetry maps with forced TvB spawns in particular.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
On March 02 2011 12:47 Lunchador wrote:
And SC1, 1vx defense was possible because terrans didn't have marauders and zerg didn't have roaches. Also, hydras with no upgrades were terrible. And the old high ground advantage really does scare away any early attacks.
i do not agree at all with the rest of your post, but this is a very good point and a major concern of mine. there might be TOO little defender's advantage when marauders, roaches, and banelings come into the picture.
|
On March 02 2011 12:39 intrigue wrote:
i don't think it's as bad as you say, certainly not at the casual gamer level. the # of zergs per team determining the entire early game dynamic is a bit different in sc2, too, because spine crawlers and banelings both offer a much earlier defense to mass ling. how viable this is has yet to be determined, but i dare say it is definitely easier on the lone z in sc2 than in brood war.
even if this were not the case, i think shared bases are still too drastic of a "solution". i strongly doubt these were blizzard's considerations in the current map pool.
Banelings are nice, but they still don't help a single Zerg defend against 2 Zergs who pooled at around 8 to 10, because even if he matches that timing, there are still twice as many lings in his base, give or take, as he has. Furthermore, spine crawlers are worse against this sort of early aggression, because they can't be half produced before the pool finishes like sunken colonies could. Also, it was harder to fight drones with Zerglings in BW than it is in SC2, because drones had enough range to shoot over each other, and Zerglings would ignore them if there was any real combat unit attacking them.
You're right, though. At the casual level, players don't know how to take advantage of the holes maps like Hunters provide. Anyone who plays 2v2 competitively, though, quickly learns them and becomes frustrated at being forced into one of the few strategies that work. I don't know about you, but I'd put the cutoff for casual player between gold and platinum, give or take. Of course, shared base maps are also more casual friendly, because no one likes getting 2v1ed while their ally refuses to move from behind his wall-in.
On the other hand, I can't count how many games I've lost on BGH because I was fighting a player who was aggressively fighting me, and one of his allies joined in against me, while too many players on my team were passively teching. They may not understand the principle, but they apply it just fine.
Also, to directly contradict the original post, I play 4s with some friends on and off, and our games on outpost are absolutely nothing like what he described. Proper use of terrain and defensive advantages such as forcefields and/or siege tanks will easily allow 2 or 3 players to hold off all 4 of the other team's players, while the ones not involved in that battle can go wreck stuff on the other side of the map. If his games turn into "turtle to giant joint army and a-move" it's because he lets them. Shared base maps tend to follow the same principles as 1v1 games, but they're more complex.
|
On March 02 2011 12:47 Lunchador wrote:Show nested quote +Totally agree. Blizzard doesn't realize how much more fun it is when bases are seperate They're really not, unless if all you love is cheesing and T1 aggression every single time. There's a reason I have almost every split base map possible veto'd from my map selection, especially since 80% of my team games played are random team: It's just way too simple to cheese and outright kill one player before your allies can even react. Surely you've run into PZ teams that do 8-10 pool to force your team to block off, only to find that they used a spotter overlord to warp in zealots at the back of your base, killing off your workers while keeping you occupied in the front. Surely you've run into pre-patch reaperling BS. That stuff really only works because no way in hell can one stop two. And SC1, 1vx defense was possible because terrans didn't have marauders and zerg didn't have roaches. Also, hydras with no upgrades were terrible. And the old high ground advantage really does scare away any early attacks.
People aren't suggesting that every map on the pool should be non-shared base. You have your preferences. Fair enough. We also have ours and we'd like to have a more diverse map pool.
|
On March 02 2011 12:57 Sein wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 12:47 Lunchador wrote:Totally agree. Blizzard doesn't realize how much more fun it is when bases are seperate They're really not, unless if all you love is cheesing and T1 aggression every single time. There's a reason I have almost every split base map possible veto'd from my map selection, especially since 80% of my team games played are random team: It's just way too simple to cheese and outright kill one player before your allies can even react. Surely you've run into PZ teams that do 8-10 pool to force your team to block off, only to find that they used a spotter overlord to warp in zealots at the back of your base, killing off your workers while keeping you occupied in the front. Surely you've run into pre-patch reaperling BS. That stuff really only works because no way in hell can one stop two. And SC1, 1vx defense was possible because terrans didn't have marauders and zerg didn't have roaches. Also, hydras with no upgrades were terrible. And the old high ground advantage really does scare away any early attacks. People aren't suggesting that every map on the pool should be non-shared base. You have your preferences. Fair enough. We also have ours and we'd like to have a more diverse map pool.
Something to consider is that maps where luck can really influence the outcome of the game, such as a 4v4 on Hunters in BW, are detrimental to a ladder that accurately reflects the skill of the players on it.
|
I played Warcraft III for eight years and continue to play the game. Most of that time is spent playing Four vs. Four Random Team. Warcraft III teams are absolutely superior to Starcraft games because you can rush, you can tech, you can expand, you can turtle, you can play harassment styles, you can play a gigantic number of gimmick and feeding strategies. You can do this because Warcraft III is predicated on soft counters. If the enemy floods one side and your allies are on the other side, they can Town Portal. And since static base defense assures the defending base can be protected long enough that his teammates can determine a course of action, it works.
Starcraft II is entirely predicated on hard counters and those hard counters were built for the One vs. One gametype. Every map has a ramp because Zerglings can get into the inside of a Terran or Protoss base and wreak havoc. Every map has an easily-defendable natural expansion because Zerg basically requires it. Blizzard strategy games are built on the philosophy of "bend but don't break" and Starcraft is far more rigid than Warcraft III. The game is balanced around the idea that an individual player is only capable of defending against the range of tactics and strategies being employed by another individual player. He is not capable of defending himself against multiple threats from multiple players simultaneously. This is the same reason that free-for-alls are so awful in Starcraft. The player isn't given the options to deal with it. He has no free base defense. His buildings are made out of paper. And skilled micromanagement can't be parlayed into massive gains like it can in Warcraft III. In most standard early-game Starcraft situations, your units have to take some kind of damage in order to deal it back. That limits how long a player can hold out against a much larger force. Thus, this reduces the complexity in team games because specific team-oriented strategies will always defeat or seriously maim a single player, no matter how talented he or she is. This funnels team games into a series of the "most efficient" timing pushes and rushes predicated on seriously harming a single player before his teammates can adequately respond to the threat. There's nothing complex about that.
Hardcore Starcraft players didn't want any change to that model so the only conceivable option is to let players "share bases". Shared bases are the only thing that allow a team ample room to bend but not break when they're caught out of position. Shared bases are the only thing that discourage the idea of immediate and constant harassment or rush play and removing those shared bases is only going to further reduce the number of interesting strategies that can be played. We already know that the Korean leagues used to play team games in Brood War and then decided they couldn't hold up to the same scrutiny. Diminishing the ability for teams to play as a team isn't going to help that.
|
On March 02 2011 12:31 Kyadytim wrote:
The problem with split base maps is that they actually kills creativity. In Brood War, pro 2v2 died because there was a single strategy for PZ which dominated every possible strategy for every other race combination. Thus, more or less every 2v2 was PZvPZ, with both Zergs opening 9-pool speed into 1-hatch muta with no further drones pumped, while the Protoss both opened 2-gate into 3-gate Dragoon into Templar tech. There were a few TZ teams that tried, but Mutalisks force the Terran to play MM + Vessels, and Templar + Dark Archons shut that down hard. There was one 2v2 map, however, that didn't follow this pattern. Hunters. Hunters was even worse. Whichever team had a player that tried to tech past Zerglings, Zealots, or Marines first, lost.
The principles which caused this problem exist in SC2, as well. Mass speedling yields map control. This prevents players on the other team from moving out without being immediately faced with a 2v1 situation. They can't join armies and fight together. The only unit that can match the threat and mobility of Zerglings is Zerglings of your own. Furthermore, Mutalisks force every player to be able to defend against Mutalisks, unless that team has an equal air force. Their are some units that could match the mobility of the mutalisk (corsair, phoenix), but they don't match the threat, so the Mutalisks were always the aggressive group, which gives them the advantage.
As an addendum, proleague rules didn't allow teams to have both players select Zerg. There were some teams that played Zerg Random in hopes of getting two Zergs, because two Zerg far and away dominated 2v2, for the principles described above.
In general, these principles apply to 3v3 and 4v4 as well. A team with 1 Zerg will almost always have that Zerg killed by early aggression of 2 Zergs on the other team, and from there, that team is down a player and down map control, and the non-zerg on the team that has map control can essentially have opened Nexus or CC first (in fact, in BW 2v2, PZ against TT, if the Zerg opened 9-pool speed, the Protoss could open Nexus first and then tech right to Dragoons, because of the map control provided by the mass speedling), or tech rapidly to something which will crush players forced to play against mass ling, such as cloaked Banshees, DTs, or Colossi. This works because every player on the team with less Zerg players is forced to have enough units to defend against Speedlings, while the players on the team with more Zergs can often cut units for econ or tech.
Shared bases alleviates more or less all of these problems, allowing a variety of strategies to be effective, and making the game more about player skill and decision making than ability to execute the one superior strategy.
TL;DR
Shared base maps allow for more varied play because of the mechanics of pressure and map control.
Also, the poll sucks. There's no option for non-shared base maps are worse than shared base maps.
This guys wins the thread. No other posts needed.
|
It is about variety, that is the spice of life after all right?
I'd love if there were a few maps that had 6-8 spawn locations and it was random. I remember in BW part of the strategy on Hunters was quickly identifying certain things :
A - Who was isolated and could be attacked first. Do we save him or counter.
B - Who was close together and could share defense and perhaps expand or one player could defend another while teching.
C - Who can we take out first.
Yes it did open up ganging up on one player if isolated, but then your team had to either save you or they could easily counter. I also do like the shared bases, and more set spawn locations.
I don't see why everything in SC2 always has to be absolutes. Both options are fun why can't we just get both?
|
I like shared bases (the game plays more like a more complex 1v1). The maps they took out for 2v2 were too biased for army compositions of speed and it was frustrating helping your ally out at time. The new maps have better open field battles are huge and tons of fun during macro games as well.
|
Men i had this feeling, i was also enjoying the team games a lot bore in BW rather than in SC2. I also wondered why The Hunters or Big Game Hunters were not there at the release of sc2, that's the first map i have been looking for just after launching the game !
I fully support you and i think you should post this on blizzard's forum !
Edit : after reading a little bit more about the thread i have to say he made a good point :
On March 02 2011 13:08 MichaelJLowell wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I played Warcraft III for eight years and continue to play the game. Most of that time is spent playing Four vs. Four Random Team. Warcraft III teams are absolutely superior to Starcraft games because you can rush, you can tech, you can expand, you can turtle, you can play harassment styles, you can play a gigantic number of gimmick and feeding strategies. You can do this because Warcraft III is predicated on soft counters. If the enemy floods one side and your allies are on the other side, they can Town Portal. And since static base defense assures the defending base can be protected long enough that his teammates can determine a course of action, it works.
Starcraft II is entirely predicated on hard counters and those hard counters were built for the One vs. One gametype. Every map has a ramp because Zerglings can get into the inside of a Terran or Protoss base and wreak havoc. Every map has an easily-defendable natural expansion because Zerg basically requires it. Blizzard strategy games are built on the philosophy of "bend but don't break" and Starcraft is far more rigid than Warcraft III. The game is balanced around the idea that an individual player is only capable of defending against the range of tactics and strategies being employed by another individual player. He is not capable of defending himself against multiple threats from multiple players simultaneously. This is the same reason that free-for-alls are so awful in Starcraft. The player isn't given the options to deal with it. He has no free base defense. His buildings are made out of paper. And skilled micromanagement can't be parlayed into massive gains like it can in Warcraft III. In most standard early-game Starcraft situations, your units have to take some kind of damage in order to deal it back. That limits how long a player can hold out against a much larger force. Thus, this reduces the complexity in team games because specific team-oriented strategies will always defeat or seriously maim a single player, no matter how talented he or she is. This funnels team games into a series of the "most efficient" timing pushes and rushes predicated on seriously harming a single player before his teammates can adequately respond to the threat. There's nothing complex about that.
Hardcore Starcraft players didn't want any change to that model so the only conceivable option is to let players "share bases". Shared bases are the only thing that allow a team ample room to bend but not break when they're caught out of position. Shared bases are the only thing that discourage the idea of immediate and constant harassment or rush play and removing those shared bases is only going to further reduce the number of interesting strategies that can be played. We already know that the Korean leagues used to play team games in Brood War and then decided they couldn't hold up to the same scrutiny. Diminishing the ability for teams to play as a team isn't going to help that.
I enjoyed bw the most with BGH and i loved war3 which i mastered far more than bw where i were a total noob, i think we should just try out and see how it goes, maybe it will be broken, maybe it won't....or maybe Blizzard already noticed that it was indeed broken and that's why there is no BGH in blizzard's map pool =(
|
On March 02 2011 12:39 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 11:29 Chicane wrote:
I really dislike biased posts like this. You drew each individual player as their own color for the first one to look like there was even more action, and you drew across water all the time, which I suppose would be drops, but didn't draw all the drop locations on the second one. Instead you drew it as one big blob and still didn't even draw out the 2 locations to go to.
While I agree there aren't many options for the second map, you should at least be fair to both sides if you want your argument to seem valid. Saying "WOW Look at all these different paths!!!!!!" for the first one and then saying "meh... there is only like 1 spot... I *guess* you could do a small drop over here if you wanted..." clearly shows the side you are taking. Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts). The point of an essay is to argue a point.
I'll quote myself. "Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts)."
Facts should be presented as facts, and opinions should be separate, even if they are along side them. Do you disagree?
Either way I am not looking to get into an argument over it, but drawing out all the possible paths with the same criteria seems most logical to me. It allows for people to draw their own conclusions based on facts and to also read the opinion of the original poster. Also just in case you feel like going there... no I don't think the "facts" need to be perfect, but I don't think anyone would deny that there is obvious bias in the diagrams that tries to push people in one direction.
|
I have to admit, I don't know what kind of BGH games you played, because every non-pub BGH game i played involved controlling the center, and then killing whomever wasn't Terran. After that, expand and win. Sometimes, you build defense in order to survive your opponents dt tech, but only because you dealt massive or fatal damage to one of his allies.
A good way to illustrate this point is to play TTTT vs PPPP teams. Terrans almost always lose (unless they get a good BBS off) because they can never control the center of the map while protoss masses goons and picks off the terrans one by one.
Iron curtain is probably the only map that made games extremely interesting, but it was also a coin toss for zerg players. Non shared base meant they dominated the skies with mutas, but shared base meant they died to Mass wraith/corsair.
However I do agree team games can get stale when there's only one attack path, but you can have shared base maps and still keep the variety by having multiple attack paths.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
On March 02 2011 13:19 Chicane wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 12:39 Manifesto7 wrote:On March 02 2011 11:29 Chicane wrote:
I really dislike biased posts like this. You drew each individual player as their own color for the first one to look like there was even more action, and you drew across water all the time, which I suppose would be drops, but didn't draw all the drop locations on the second one. Instead you drew it as one big blob and still didn't even draw out the 2 locations to go to.
While I agree there aren't many options for the second map, you should at least be fair to both sides if you want your argument to seem valid. Saying "WOW Look at all these different paths!!!!!!" for the first one and then saying "meh... there is only like 1 spot... I *guess* you could do a small drop over here if you wanted..." clearly shows the side you are taking. Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts). The point of an essay is to argue a point. I'll quote myself. "Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts)." Facts should be presented as facts, and opinions should be separate, even if they are along side them. Do you disagree? Either way I am not looking to get into an argument over it, but drawing out all the possible paths with the same criteria seems most logical to me. It allows for people to draw their own conclusions based on facts and to also read the opinion of the original poster. Also just in case you feel like going there... no I don't think the "facts" need to be perfect, but I don't think anyone would deny that there is obvious bias in the diagrams that tries to push people in one direction.
i already addressed this. are you trying to say you don't understand what a map looks like unless i draw out every possible drop path? be constructive or get out.
On March 02 2011 13:08 MichaelJLowell wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I played Warcraft III for eight years and continue to play the game. Most of that time is spent playing Four vs. Four Random Team. Warcraft III teams are absolutely superior to Starcraft games because you can rush, you can tech, you can expand, you can turtle, you can play harassment styles, you can play a gigantic number of gimmick and feeding strategies. You can do this because Warcraft III is predicated on soft counters. If the enemy floods one side and your allies are on the other side, they can Town Portal. And since static base defense assures the defending base can be protected long enough that his teammates can determine a course of action, it works.
Starcraft II is entirely predicated on hard counters and those hard counters were built for the One vs. One gametype. Every map has a ramp because Zerglings can get into the inside of a Terran or Protoss base and wreak havoc. Every map has an easily-defendable natural expansion because Zerg basically requires it. Blizzard strategy games are built on the philosophy of "bend but don't break" and Starcraft is far more rigid than Warcraft III. The game is balanced around the idea that an individual player is only capable of defending against the range of tactics and strategies being employed by another individual player. He is not capable of defending himself against multiple threats from multiple players simultaneously. This is the same reason that free-for-alls are so awful in Starcraft. The player isn't given the options to deal with it. He has no free base defense. His buildings are made out of paper. And skilled micromanagement can't be parlayed into massive gains like it can in Warcraft III. In most standard early-game Starcraft situations, your units have to take some kind of damage in order to deal it back. That limits how long a player can hold out against a much larger force. Thus, this reduces the complexity in team games because specific team-oriented strategies will always defeat or seriously maim a single player, no matter how talented he or she is. This funnels team games into a series of the "most efficient" timing pushes and rushes predicated on seriously harming a single player before his teammates can adequately respond to the threat. There's nothing complex about that.
Hardcore Starcraft players didn't want any change to that model so the only conceivable option is to let players "share bases". Shared bases are the only thing that allow a team ample room to bend but not break when they're caught out of position. Shared bases are the only thing that discourage the idea of immediate and constant harassment or rush play and removing those shared bases is only going to further reduce the number of interesting strategies that can be played. We already know that the Korean leagues used to play team games in Brood War and then decided they couldn't hold up to the same scrutiny. Diminishing the ability for teams to play as a team isn't going to help that.
excellent post. teamgames revolve more around lower tech units though, where hard counters don't factor as heavily (except for the marauder, the stupidest unit in any game i've ever played). i think the maps i want may end up playing out like you've described, but we haven't even had the option to move beyond theorycraft. judging from their 1v1 map pool, blizzard certainly does make errors in gauging what kind of maps work and what don't. it can't possibly hurt to introduce some new-styled maps.
people concerned about the "purity" of the ladder have to keep in mind the blatantly imbalanced maps that were in circulation long before this. do people care more about team-game ladder rank more or having a variety of maps to have a good time on? the fixation on rank and balance shouldn't apply as much to non-1v1 formats.
|
On March 02 2011 13:34 intrigue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 13:19 Chicane wrote:On March 02 2011 12:39 Manifesto7 wrote:On March 02 2011 11:29 Chicane wrote:
I really dislike biased posts like this. You drew each individual player as their own color for the first one to look like there was even more action, and you drew across water all the time, which I suppose would be drops, but didn't draw all the drop locations on the second one. Instead you drew it as one big blob and still didn't even draw out the 2 locations to go to.
While I agree there aren't many options for the second map, you should at least be fair to both sides if you want your argument to seem valid. Saying "WOW Look at all these different paths!!!!!!" for the first one and then saying "meh... there is only like 1 spot... I *guess* you could do a small drop over here if you wanted..." clearly shows the side you are taking. Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts). The point of an essay is to argue a point. I'll quote myself. "Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts)." Facts should be presented as facts, and opinions should be separate, even if they are along side them. Do you disagree? Either way I am not looking to get into an argument over it, but drawing out all the possible paths with the same criteria seems most logical to me. It allows for people to draw their own conclusions based on facts and to also read the opinion of the original poster. Also just in case you feel like going there... no I don't think the "facts" need to be perfect, but I don't think anyone would deny that there is obvious bias in the diagrams that tries to push people in one direction. i already addressed this. are you trying to say you don't understand what a map looks like unless i draw out every possible drop path? be constructive or get out.
First, I think the point that Chicane was making was that the BGH image might have looked something like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jdXuj.jpg)
while the Outpost image might looked like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CjrPz.jpg)
Suddenly, the Outpost game looks a whole lot more interesting than the BGH game.
|
On March 02 2011 13:34 intrigue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 13:19 Chicane wrote:On March 02 2011 12:39 Manifesto7 wrote:On March 02 2011 11:29 Chicane wrote:
I really dislike biased posts like this. You drew each individual player as their own color for the first one to look like there was even more action, and you drew across water all the time, which I suppose would be drops, but didn't draw all the drop locations on the second one. Instead you drew it as one big blob and still didn't even draw out the 2 locations to go to.
While I agree there aren't many options for the second map, you should at least be fair to both sides if you want your argument to seem valid. Saying "WOW Look at all these different paths!!!!!!" for the first one and then saying "meh... there is only like 1 spot... I *guess* you could do a small drop over here if you wanted..." clearly shows the side you are taking. Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts). The point of an essay is to argue a point. I'll quote myself. "Instead you should present the information and leave the opinion up to other people (while also including your own if you'd like... but NOT as you present the facts)." Facts should be presented as facts, and opinions should be separate, even if they are along side them. Do you disagree? Either way I am not looking to get into an argument over it, but drawing out all the possible paths with the same criteria seems most logical to me. It allows for people to draw their own conclusions based on facts and to also read the opinion of the original poster. Also just in case you feel like going there... no I don't think the "facts" need to be perfect, but I don't think anyone would deny that there is obvious bias in the diagrams that tries to push people in one direction. i already addressed this. are you trying to say you don't understand what a map looks like unless i draw out every possible drop path? be constructive or get out.Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 13:08 MichaelJLowell wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I played Warcraft III for eight years and continue to play the game. Most of that time is spent playing Four vs. Four Random Team. Warcraft III teams are absolutely superior to Starcraft games because you can rush, you can tech, you can expand, you can turtle, you can play harassment styles, you can play a gigantic number of gimmick and feeding strategies. You can do this because Warcraft III is predicated on soft counters. If the enemy floods one side and your allies are on the other side, they can Town Portal. And since static base defense assures the defending base can be protected long enough that his teammates can determine a course of action, it works.
Starcraft II is entirely predicated on hard counters and those hard counters were built for the One vs. One gametype. Every map has a ramp because Zerglings can get into the inside of a Terran or Protoss base and wreak havoc. Every map has an easily-defendable natural expansion because Zerg basically requires it. Blizzard strategy games are built on the philosophy of "bend but don't break" and Starcraft is far more rigid than Warcraft III. The game is balanced around the idea that an individual player is only capable of defending against the range of tactics and strategies being employed by another individual player. He is not capable of defending himself against multiple threats from multiple players simultaneously. This is the same reason that free-for-alls are so awful in Starcraft. The player isn't given the options to deal with it. He has no free base defense. His buildings are made out of paper. And skilled micromanagement can't be parlayed into massive gains like it can in Warcraft III. In most standard early-game Starcraft situations, your units have to take some kind of damage in order to deal it back. That limits how long a player can hold out against a much larger force. Thus, this reduces the complexity in team games because specific team-oriented strategies will always defeat or seriously maim a single player, no matter how talented he or she is. This funnels team games into a series of the "most efficient" timing pushes and rushes predicated on seriously harming a single player before his teammates can adequately respond to the threat. There's nothing complex about that.
Hardcore Starcraft players didn't want any change to that model so the only conceivable option is to let players "share bases". Shared bases are the only thing that allow a team ample room to bend but not break when they're caught out of position. Shared bases are the only thing that discourage the idea of immediate and constant harassment or rush play and removing those shared bases is only going to further reduce the number of interesting strategies that can be played. We already know that the Korean leagues used to play team games in Brood War and then decided they couldn't hold up to the same scrutiny. Diminishing the ability for teams to play as a team isn't going to help that. excellent post. teamgames revolve more around lower tech units though, where hard counters don't factor as heavily (except for the marauder, the stupidest unit in any game i've ever played). i think the maps i want may end up playing out like you've described, but we haven't even had the option to move beyond theorycraft. judging from their 1v1 map pool, blizzard certainly does make errors in gauging what kind of maps work and what don't. it can't possibly hurt to introduce some new-styled maps. people concerned about the "purity" of the ladder have to keep in mind the blatantly imbalanced maps that were in circulation long before this. do people care more about team-game ladder rank more or having a variety of maps to have a good time on? the fixation on rank and balance shouldn't apply as much to non-1v1 formats.
I am being constructive. Notice I am not flaming you and I never even said I disagreed with your statement. My comments are completely valid and I feel I am being fair about it. It is alright that you don't like my input, but that doesn't mean you have to claim it is not constructive. Most people would agree that being fair to both view points (whether needed or not) is perfectly acceptable to bring up as criticism.
I was hoping to bring this up for you to consider in future posts so that they seem more valid... it is simply how arguments are traditionally supposed to go. My intention was not to get people upset over it.
|
Marauders are actually terrible in team games. As you mentioned, it starts with low-tech units (lings/lots/rines), all of which fare well against Marauders. Then come the longer games, which end up focusing on air due to higher mobility and the ability for all your forces to attack simultaneously. Players on shared bases can actually afford to tech since taking expansions is easier when you have 4 defenders.
Also, team games are inherently broken, and obviously blizzard doesn't focus on this. Perhaps the best example of this is letting a Zerg ally use your medivacs with their units. Zergs w/ medics is completely OP.
|
My main complaint with the current team map pool isn't really base design but the lack of 3rds. Several of the maps it's just you take the gold or you 2 base allin. In 4v4 it's just difficult to take one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
