On May 23 2014 04:51 ReMinD_ wrote:
I think that MULEs yield same amount of minerals despite mining gold patches.
I think that MULEs yield same amount of minerals despite mining gold patches.
Yea, but they don't affect saturation is my point.

Forum Index > SC2 General |
Foreverkul
United States1649 Posts
May 22 2014 20:04 GMT
#19801
On May 23 2014 04:51 ReMinD_ wrote: I think that MULEs yield same amount of minerals despite mining gold patches. Yea, but they don't affect saturation is my point. ![]() | ||
Foreverkul
United States1649 Posts
May 22 2014 20:14 GMT
#19802
On May 23 2014 05:03 Pursuit_ wrote: Show nested quote + On May 23 2014 04:49 EngrishTeacher wrote:Now I very rarely balance whine (and I play random), but PO feels like one of those things that basically gives the option of playing No Rush 10 minutes to the Protoss while Terran has to deal with a plethora of early Protoss cheese. I've complained about this plenty in the past, but it seems that at higher levels Terrans have learned how to play around this with standard play. The problem is that standard play for Terrans has essentially become 1-2 builds with only a couple variations, and nothing else really works. I think it's horrible design. That being said, win rates have started to even out with the mine buff MsC vision nerf and Terran players having had enough time to learn how to more consistently scout and respond to the mass amount of Protoss openings. Yea, there's almost no build option for Terran vs Protoss, which is probably why they are so boring. The entire game is dictated by what the Protoss does and the Terran can only answer. Terran have to prepare for Blink all ins (which aren't even all ins) and Oracle and colossus and Zealots. They can't slow down Protoss because overcharge. An interesting effect though is that it forces Terrans to play mechanically well in order to gain an advantage, so when they are balanced (enough) they will appear superior because they had previously had to work at a deficit. Kind of a joke because its extremely general but the basic strategy for battle boils down to: Protoss: Godlike units A-move to win Zerg: Throw infinite units at enemy to win Terran: Micro godlike to win Makes Terran seem really good when they have the same resources as other races because of how they are forced to play better mechanically. ![]() | ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
May 22 2014 20:43 GMT
#19803
On May 23 2014 05:04 Foreverkul wrote: Show nested quote + On May 23 2014 04:51 ReMinD_ wrote: I think that MULEs yield same amount of minerals despite mining gold patches. Yea, but they don't affect saturation is my point. ![]() They mine it as if its not a gold. So saturated gold + mule = saturated non-gold + mule. | ||
Enigmasc
United Kingdom147 Posts
May 22 2014 22:40 GMT
#19804
On May 23 2014 05:03 Pursuit_ wrote: Show nested quote + On May 23 2014 04:51 ReMinD_ wrote: I think that MULEs yield same amount of minerals despite mining gold patches. This is correct Show nested quote + On May 23 2014 04:49 EngrishTeacher wrote:Now I very rarely balance whine (and I play random), but PO feels like one of those things that basically gives the option of playing No Rush 10 minutes to the Protoss while Terran has to deal with a plethora of early Protoss cheese. I've complained about this plenty in the past, but it seems that at higher levels Terrans have learned how to play around this with standard play. The problem is that standard play for Terrans has essentially become 1-2 builds with only a couple variations, and nothing else really works. I think it's horrible design. That being said, win rates have started to even out with the mine buff MsC vision nerf and Terran players having had enough time to learn how to more consistently scout and respond to the mass amount of Protoss openings. i dunno tbh , when i watch a lot of terran streams a lot go for quick gas into aggressive builds that can work really well major does quick widow mine drops etc quite a lot on his stream and they seem reasonably effective granted that is like Na gm and not code s level protoss but even in proleague some of the maps really favour those sorts of oppenings | ||
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
May 23 2014 04:47 GMT
#19805
| ||
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
May 23 2014 05:11 GMT
#19806
On August 16 2011 07:19 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Show nested quote + On August 16 2011 07:18 Fig wrote: Yeah I have wondered about this for a long time myself. It seems like all the micro is in the terran's hands during the late game. Which admittedly makes it hard for the terran player, but it is nice to know that they do have the tools to win even engagements if they have strong enough micro. I wish there was more micro potential for toss to even it out. One big example of this is the ghost design. EMP = 10 range Snipe = 10 range Now we look at the HT Storm = 9 range Feedback = 9 range This shows that if both players have the same skills, the terran player will get off an EMP before a storm can occur. But this puts a lot of pressure on the terran to land them. If instead each spell had 9 range, then the toss would be required to micro just as much, making the engagement much more interesting and fair for all levels. Edit: Holy frick i ALWAYS thought it was 9 range! so they have even slightly more of an edge over HT (like they're supposed to as soft to hard counters in TvP) and actually outrange Neural/fungals o.o wow didn't know Edit2: Anyways, I honestly think the 1/1/1 push is fine, yeah sure it's a bit hard but these days most pros are going for economic builds as Protoss anyways aren't they? But isn't there a slight delay when casting emp and snipe as opposed to feedback and storm? | ||
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
May 23 2014 06:11 GMT
#19807
On May 23 2014 07:40 Enigmasc wrote: i dunno tbh , when i watch a lot of terran streams a lot go for quick gas into aggressive builds that can work really well major does quick widow mine drops etc quite a lot on his stream and they seem reasonably effective granted that is like Na gm and not code s level protoss but even in proleague some of the maps really favour those sorts of oppenings Yeah there are a couple aggressive builds Terran -can- do, the problem is that most of them straight up die to certain Protoss builds so you're taking a pretty huge risk- unlike the variety of Protoss builds which will work unless scouted. I have to admit I don't watch Major stream, so if Major does the Reaper FE -> 1/1/1 Widow Mine drop -> 3 rax then this is the '2' that is also standard. On May 23 2014 14:11 plogamer wrote: But isn't there a slight delay when casting emp and snipe as opposed to feedback and storm? Yeah, if Feedback and Snipe are cast between a HT and Ghost with vision of eachother the Feedback will hit before Snipe even goes off despite the range advantage. I dont think there is a delay on EMP though. | ||
Enigmasc
United Kingdom147 Posts
May 23 2014 07:53 GMT
#19808
On May 23 2014 15:11 Pursuit_ wrote: Show nested quote + On May 23 2014 07:40 Enigmasc wrote: i dunno tbh , when i watch a lot of terran streams a lot go for quick gas into aggressive builds that can work really well major does quick widow mine drops etc quite a lot on his stream and they seem reasonably effective granted that is like Na gm and not code s level protoss but even in proleague some of the maps really favour those sorts of oppenings Yeah there are a couple aggressive builds Terran -can- do, the problem is that most of them straight up die to certain Protoss builds so you're taking a pretty huge risk- unlike the variety of Protoss builds which will work unless scouted. I have to admit I don't watch Major stream, so if Major does the Reaper FE -> 1/1/1 Widow Mine drop -> 3 rax then this is the '2' that is also standard. Show nested quote + On May 23 2014 14:11 plogamer wrote: But isn't there a slight delay when casting emp and snipe as opposed to feedback and storm? Yeah, if Feedback and Snipe are cast between a HT and Ghost with vision of eachother the Feedback will hit before Snipe even goes off despite the range advantage. I dont think there is a delay on EMP though. fair enough then caos thats prettymuch the build he uses ![]() tho arnt 1-1-1 builds relativley safe? since youll have reapers for scouting + widow mines incase of oracles etc that and widowmines are rather helpfull in small engagements anyways, killing 1 unit for free is rather good when a puhs only hits with 4-5 | ||
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
May 23 2014 08:31 GMT
#19809
On May 23 2014 16:53 Enigmasc wrote: fair enough then caos thats prettymuch the build he uses ![]() tho arnt 1-1-1 builds relativley safe? since youll have reapers for scouting + widow mines incase of oracles etc that and widowmines are rather helpfull in small engagements anyways, killing 1 unit for free is rather good when a puhs only hits with 4-5 Reaper FE -> 1/1/1 builds are pretty safe, the biggest risk you run is a dedicated blink all-in which can straight up kill you (losing 1 stalker to a widow mine isn't a big deal for Protoss when you have a much smaller bio army than normal to back it up and no stim tech coming), but they are arguably holdable with a 1/1/1 opening by going marine / tank / medivac. But this style isn't very popular because it's easy for protoss to scout / react too and once they know it's coming they just need to get detection to be safe for a long time since stim has been delayed to like 9 minutes. | ||
Yello
Germany7411 Posts
May 23 2014 12:41 GMT
#19810
The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... | ||
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
May 23 2014 12:52 GMT
#19811
On May 23 2014 21:41 Yello wrote: I think the biggest reason for the imbalance (and also for the game being rather boring at the moment) is the map pool. In my opinion the map pool is just terrible. Every map is huge, has a lot of extremely wide-open spaces and way too few choke points and high-ground. We need more maps like Cloud Kingdom that allow for more tactical movement and where actual positional battles can happen. The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... just throwing in terrible, untested maps as you mention is a big slap in the face by blizz to mappers | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
May 23 2014 13:12 GMT
#19812
On May 23 2014 21:41 Yello wrote: I think the biggest reason for the imbalance (and also for the game being rather boring at the moment) is the map pool. In my opinion the map pool is just terrible. Every map is huge, has a lot of extremely wide-open spaces and way too few choke points and high-ground. We need more maps like Cloud Kingdom that allow for more tactical movement and where actual positional battles can happen. The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... The maps we have apart from Waystation are OK. Alterzim isnt good per se, but it produces different games. I'd love to see maps as you describe, but that's very hard. Those maps tend to be too good for blink or immortal/sentry. Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs look like extremely good Sentry Maps imo. I guess thats the main problem why we have few of them currently. Other maps are much easier to create, therefore we get more playable ones. | ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
May 23 2014 15:32 GMT
#19813
On May 23 2014 22:12 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On May 23 2014 21:41 Yello wrote: I think the biggest reason for the imbalance (and also for the game being rather boring at the moment) is the map pool. In my opinion the map pool is just terrible. Every map is huge, has a lot of extremely wide-open spaces and way too few choke points and high-ground. We need more maps like Cloud Kingdom that allow for more tactical movement and where actual positional battles can happen. The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... The maps we have apart from Waystation are OK. Alterzim isnt good per se, but it produces different games. I'd love to see maps as you describe, but that's very hard. Those maps tend to be too good for blink or immortal/sentry. Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs look like extremely good Sentry Maps imo. I guess thats the main problem why we have few of them currently. Other maps are much easier to create, therefore we get more playable ones. Whats needed is varied maps. Small ones, big ones, choke heavy, choke light, etc... Instead of trying to make the "perfect" map--just make maps that we actually have to treat differently from each other. This is the rush map, the macro map, the island map, the proxy map, etc... | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
May 23 2014 16:21 GMT
#19814
On May 24 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: Show nested quote + On May 23 2014 22:12 Big J wrote: On May 23 2014 21:41 Yello wrote: I think the biggest reason for the imbalance (and also for the game being rather boring at the moment) is the map pool. In my opinion the map pool is just terrible. Every map is huge, has a lot of extremely wide-open spaces and way too few choke points and high-ground. We need more maps like Cloud Kingdom that allow for more tactical movement and where actual positional battles can happen. The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... The maps we have apart from Waystation are OK. Alterzim isnt good per se, but it produces different games. I'd love to see maps as you describe, but that's very hard. Those maps tend to be too good for blink or immortal/sentry. Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs look like extremely good Sentry Maps imo. I guess thats the main problem why we have few of them currently. Other maps are much easier to create, therefore we get more playable ones. Whats needed is varied maps. Small ones, big ones, choke heavy, choke light, etc... Instead of trying to make the "perfect" map--just make maps that we actually have to treat differently from each other. This is the rush map, the macro map, the island map, the proxy map, etc... If you can make it balanced, sure. If it just turns out that "on this map you always go Sentry/Immortal and win; on that map if Zerg gets to the lategame you cannot take a 4th and lose", which a lot of maps that try what you are saying do, then no. Currently the mappool is a little bit too much on the long-rushdistance-side. Which is simply due to most of the smaller rush distance maps (Yeonsu, Heavy Rain, Polar Night) having to go because of blink. Which is no accident, because smaller maps have to use space more efficiently and thus have a harder time featuring the new "no ledge" condition. Also making a TLMC with a 3-5player map restriction at the same time doesn't make it easier to give 2player maps exposure. | ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
May 23 2014 17:53 GMT
#19815
On May 24 2014 01:21 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On May 24 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 23 2014 22:12 Big J wrote: On May 23 2014 21:41 Yello wrote: I think the biggest reason for the imbalance (and also for the game being rather boring at the moment) is the map pool. In my opinion the map pool is just terrible. Every map is huge, has a lot of extremely wide-open spaces and way too few choke points and high-ground. We need more maps like Cloud Kingdom that allow for more tactical movement and where actual positional battles can happen. The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... The maps we have apart from Waystation are OK. Alterzim isnt good per se, but it produces different games. I'd love to see maps as you describe, but that's very hard. Those maps tend to be too good for blink or immortal/sentry. Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs look like extremely good Sentry Maps imo. I guess thats the main problem why we have few of them currently. Other maps are much easier to create, therefore we get more playable ones. Whats needed is varied maps. Small ones, big ones, choke heavy, choke light, etc... Instead of trying to make the "perfect" map--just make maps that we actually have to treat differently from each other. This is the rush map, the macro map, the island map, the proxy map, etc... If you can make it balanced, sure. If it just turns out that "on this map you always go Sentry/Immortal and win; on that map if Zerg gets to the lategame you cannot take a 4th and lose", which a lot of maps that try what you are saying do, then no. Currently the mappool is a little bit too much on the long-rushdistance-side. Which is simply due to most of the smaller rush distance maps (Yeonsu, Heavy Rain, Polar Night) having to go because of blink. Which is no accident, because smaller maps have to use space more efficiently and thus have a harder time featuring the new "no ledge" condition. Also making a TLMC with a 3-5player map restriction at the same time doesn't make it easier to give 2player maps exposure. Of course they're harder to balance. But the reason the maps right now seem boring is because they're all the same. Daybreak was great until ALL maps became daybreak. Cloud Kingdom was great, until all maps became cloud kingdom, and so one. The way maps become memorable and good is if they are not copied to be similar. All maps right now are fast expand turtle. Is it really that bad that another map will always be Immortal Sentry all-in with zerg preemptively going anti-immortal sentry all in every time until the meta shifts and protoss stop going all in and then zerg starts laxing and then protoss starts rushing and so on and so forth. Players "play the same boring styles" each map right now, making maps so that we are almost guaranteed to see different play styles in a BoX series is a good thing to me. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
May 23 2014 17:57 GMT
#19816
On May 24 2014 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: Show nested quote + On May 24 2014 01:21 Big J wrote: On May 24 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 23 2014 22:12 Big J wrote: On May 23 2014 21:41 Yello wrote: I think the biggest reason for the imbalance (and also for the game being rather boring at the moment) is the map pool. In my opinion the map pool is just terrible. Every map is huge, has a lot of extremely wide-open spaces and way too few choke points and high-ground. We need more maps like Cloud Kingdom that allow for more tactical movement and where actual positional battles can happen. The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... The maps we have apart from Waystation are OK. Alterzim isnt good per se, but it produces different games. I'd love to see maps as you describe, but that's very hard. Those maps tend to be too good for blink or immortal/sentry. Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs look like extremely good Sentry Maps imo. I guess thats the main problem why we have few of them currently. Other maps are much easier to create, therefore we get more playable ones. Whats needed is varied maps. Small ones, big ones, choke heavy, choke light, etc... Instead of trying to make the "perfect" map--just make maps that we actually have to treat differently from each other. This is the rush map, the macro map, the island map, the proxy map, etc... If you can make it balanced, sure. If it just turns out that "on this map you always go Sentry/Immortal and win; on that map if Zerg gets to the lategame you cannot take a 4th and lose", which a lot of maps that try what you are saying do, then no. Currently the mappool is a little bit too much on the long-rushdistance-side. Which is simply due to most of the smaller rush distance maps (Yeonsu, Heavy Rain, Polar Night) having to go because of blink. Which is no accident, because smaller maps have to use space more efficiently and thus have a harder time featuring the new "no ledge" condition. Also making a TLMC with a 3-5player map restriction at the same time doesn't make it easier to give 2player maps exposure. Of course they're harder to balance. But the reason the maps right now seem boring is because they're all the same. Daybreak was great until ALL maps became daybreak. Cloud Kingdom was great, until all maps became cloud kingdom, and so one. The way maps become memorable and good is if they are not copied to be similar. All maps right now are fast expand turtle. Is it really that bad that another map will always be Immortal Sentry all-in with zerg preemptively going anti-immortal sentry all in every time until the meta shifts and protoss stop going all in and then zerg starts laxing and then protoss starts rushing and so on and so forth. Players "play the same boring styles" each map right now, making maps so that we are almost guaranteed to see different play styles in a BoX series is a good thing to me. What's that secret anti-sentry/immortal? And yes, such a sort of metagame is bad, because it results in a ton of BO losses. | ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
May 23 2014 18:05 GMT
#19817
On May 24 2014 02:57 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On May 24 2014 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 24 2014 01:21 Big J wrote: On May 24 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 23 2014 22:12 Big J wrote: On May 23 2014 21:41 Yello wrote: I think the biggest reason for the imbalance (and also for the game being rather boring at the moment) is the map pool. In my opinion the map pool is just terrible. Every map is huge, has a lot of extremely wide-open spaces and way too few choke points and high-ground. We need more maps like Cloud Kingdom that allow for more tactical movement and where actual positional battles can happen. The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... The maps we have apart from Waystation are OK. Alterzim isnt good per se, but it produces different games. I'd love to see maps as you describe, but that's very hard. Those maps tend to be too good for blink or immortal/sentry. Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs look like extremely good Sentry Maps imo. I guess thats the main problem why we have few of them currently. Other maps are much easier to create, therefore we get more playable ones. Whats needed is varied maps. Small ones, big ones, choke heavy, choke light, etc... Instead of trying to make the "perfect" map--just make maps that we actually have to treat differently from each other. This is the rush map, the macro map, the island map, the proxy map, etc... If you can make it balanced, sure. If it just turns out that "on this map you always go Sentry/Immortal and win; on that map if Zerg gets to the lategame you cannot take a 4th and lose", which a lot of maps that try what you are saying do, then no. Currently the mappool is a little bit too much on the long-rushdistance-side. Which is simply due to most of the smaller rush distance maps (Yeonsu, Heavy Rain, Polar Night) having to go because of blink. Which is no accident, because smaller maps have to use space more efficiently and thus have a harder time featuring the new "no ledge" condition. Also making a TLMC with a 3-5player map restriction at the same time doesn't make it easier to give 2player maps exposure. Of course they're harder to balance. But the reason the maps right now seem boring is because they're all the same. Daybreak was great until ALL maps became daybreak. Cloud Kingdom was great, until all maps became cloud kingdom, and so one. The way maps become memorable and good is if they are not copied to be similar. All maps right now are fast expand turtle. Is it really that bad that another map will always be Immortal Sentry all-in with zerg preemptively going anti-immortal sentry all in every time until the meta shifts and protoss stop going all in and then zerg starts laxing and then protoss starts rushing and so on and so forth. Players "play the same boring styles" each map right now, making maps so that we are almost guaranteed to see different play styles in a BoX series is a good thing to me. What's that secret anti-sentry/immortal? And yes, such a sort of metagame is bad, because it results in a ton of BO losses. Depends on the map right? In some maps, fast 3hatch play hitting a ling/roach timing that attacks the push midmap bleeds forcefields away from the push. In other maps I've seen the likes of DRG sac the 3rd while piling spines and flanking with ling/roach. i've seen some fast Hydras off of 2base do it I've seen some 3base roach timings hit before the push moves out stalling them long enough to build up a supply lead. There is no "secret anti-rush" build that you can just do blanketly. the builds will be different depending on map size, choke point locations, etc... Heck, Life won one his trophies during the most dominant period of the soul train push simply with proper ling micro. There is no unbeatable rush. None. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
May 23 2014 18:18 GMT
#19818
On May 24 2014 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote: Show nested quote + On May 24 2014 02:57 Big J wrote: On May 24 2014 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 24 2014 01:21 Big J wrote: On May 24 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 23 2014 22:12 Big J wrote: On May 23 2014 21:41 Yello wrote: I think the biggest reason for the imbalance (and also for the game being rather boring at the moment) is the map pool. In my opinion the map pool is just terrible. Every map is huge, has a lot of extremely wide-open spaces and way too few choke points and high-ground. We need more maps like Cloud Kingdom that allow for more tactical movement and where actual positional battles can happen. The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... The maps we have apart from Waystation are OK. Alterzim isnt good per se, but it produces different games. I'd love to see maps as you describe, but that's very hard. Those maps tend to be too good for blink or immortal/sentry. Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs look like extremely good Sentry Maps imo. I guess thats the main problem why we have few of them currently. Other maps are much easier to create, therefore we get more playable ones. Whats needed is varied maps. Small ones, big ones, choke heavy, choke light, etc... Instead of trying to make the "perfect" map--just make maps that we actually have to treat differently from each other. This is the rush map, the macro map, the island map, the proxy map, etc... If you can make it balanced, sure. If it just turns out that "on this map you always go Sentry/Immortal and win; on that map if Zerg gets to the lategame you cannot take a 4th and lose", which a lot of maps that try what you are saying do, then no. Currently the mappool is a little bit too much on the long-rushdistance-side. Which is simply due to most of the smaller rush distance maps (Yeonsu, Heavy Rain, Polar Night) having to go because of blink. Which is no accident, because smaller maps have to use space more efficiently and thus have a harder time featuring the new "no ledge" condition. Also making a TLMC with a 3-5player map restriction at the same time doesn't make it easier to give 2player maps exposure. Of course they're harder to balance. But the reason the maps right now seem boring is because they're all the same. Daybreak was great until ALL maps became daybreak. Cloud Kingdom was great, until all maps became cloud kingdom, and so one. The way maps become memorable and good is if they are not copied to be similar. All maps right now are fast expand turtle. Is it really that bad that another map will always be Immortal Sentry all-in with zerg preemptively going anti-immortal sentry all in every time until the meta shifts and protoss stop going all in and then zerg starts laxing and then protoss starts rushing and so on and so forth. Players "play the same boring styles" each map right now, making maps so that we are almost guaranteed to see different play styles in a BoX series is a good thing to me. What's that secret anti-sentry/immortal? And yes, such a sort of metagame is bad, because it results in a ton of BO losses. Depends on the map right? In some maps, fast 3hatch play hitting a ling/roach timing that attacks the push midmap bleeds forcefields away from the push. In other maps I've seen the likes of DRG sac the 3rd while piling spines and flanking with ling/roach. i've seen some fast Hydras off of 2base do it I've seen some 3base roach timings hit before the push moves out stalling them long enough to build up a supply lead. There is no "secret anti-rush" build that you can just do blanketly. the builds will be different depending on map size, choke point locations, etc... Heck, Life won one his trophies during the most dominant period of the soul train push simply with proper ling micro. There is no unbeatable rush. None. well yeah, that's the stuff when you don't have a FF friendly map, where Sentry/Immortal isn't as strong. The question was, what do you do when there is no midmap engagment place. When you make a map that is actually really chokey, more than the ones we have (like Habitation Station) or have had. Though on those maps its already very, very hard to do the midmap engagments. On Habitation Station though you often have the advantage of a gold vs no gold in that scenario, unless the Protoss does the nasty gold into sentry/immortal, which made all the Liquid Zergs veto the map a few months ago. Anything 2base should lose to it. Either to the rush itself (when you go mutas or zergling or SH based). Or gets hungered out, the Protoss just sits in front of the natural choke and eventually is maxed with Sentry/Immortal/Stalker against ~150supply zerg. And Life never won with "proper ling micro". He did the most standard 55drones-->mass roach reaction against Sentry/Immortal. Though I have seen Parting really screw up very badly and losing to some fast infestors of Life too, though those were WoL Infestors. Edit: There is no real magic build that you can throw out and that just counters it, imo. As you say, there are better and worse maps. In WoL (and recently) we had some of the maps that kind of show the boundaries, where if you made it even more chokey than Yeonsu or Cloud Kingdom, it would become impossible to stop if the Protoss plays it without mistakes, regardless of whether you play mistakeless yourself or not. And even on those mentioned maps, I question if a simple BO-rush should be capable of going somewhere near 50:50 when scouted. Or if we'd rather just use other maps than. | ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
May 23 2014 19:27 GMT
#19819
On May 24 2014 03:18 Big J wrote: Show nested quote + On May 24 2014 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 24 2014 02:57 Big J wrote: On May 24 2014 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 24 2014 01:21 Big J wrote: On May 24 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 23 2014 22:12 Big J wrote: On May 23 2014 21:41 Yello wrote: I think the biggest reason for the imbalance (and also for the game being rather boring at the moment) is the map pool. In my opinion the map pool is just terrible. Every map is huge, has a lot of extremely wide-open spaces and way too few choke points and high-ground. We need more maps like Cloud Kingdom that allow for more tactical movement and where actual positional battles can happen. The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... The maps we have apart from Waystation are OK. Alterzim isnt good per se, but it produces different games. I'd love to see maps as you describe, but that's very hard. Those maps tend to be too good for blink or immortal/sentry. Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs look like extremely good Sentry Maps imo. I guess thats the main problem why we have few of them currently. Other maps are much easier to create, therefore we get more playable ones. Whats needed is varied maps. Small ones, big ones, choke heavy, choke light, etc... Instead of trying to make the "perfect" map--just make maps that we actually have to treat differently from each other. This is the rush map, the macro map, the island map, the proxy map, etc... If you can make it balanced, sure. If it just turns out that "on this map you always go Sentry/Immortal and win; on that map if Zerg gets to the lategame you cannot take a 4th and lose", which a lot of maps that try what you are saying do, then no. Currently the mappool is a little bit too much on the long-rushdistance-side. Which is simply due to most of the smaller rush distance maps (Yeonsu, Heavy Rain, Polar Night) having to go because of blink. Which is no accident, because smaller maps have to use space more efficiently and thus have a harder time featuring the new "no ledge" condition. Also making a TLMC with a 3-5player map restriction at the same time doesn't make it easier to give 2player maps exposure. Of course they're harder to balance. But the reason the maps right now seem boring is because they're all the same. Daybreak was great until ALL maps became daybreak. Cloud Kingdom was great, until all maps became cloud kingdom, and so one. The way maps become memorable and good is if they are not copied to be similar. All maps right now are fast expand turtle. Is it really that bad that another map will always be Immortal Sentry all-in with zerg preemptively going anti-immortal sentry all in every time until the meta shifts and protoss stop going all in and then zerg starts laxing and then protoss starts rushing and so on and so forth. Players "play the same boring styles" each map right now, making maps so that we are almost guaranteed to see different play styles in a BoX series is a good thing to me. What's that secret anti-sentry/immortal? And yes, such a sort of metagame is bad, because it results in a ton of BO losses. Depends on the map right? In some maps, fast 3hatch play hitting a ling/roach timing that attacks the push midmap bleeds forcefields away from the push. In other maps I've seen the likes of DRG sac the 3rd while piling spines and flanking with ling/roach. i've seen some fast Hydras off of 2base do it I've seen some 3base roach timings hit before the push moves out stalling them long enough to build up a supply lead. There is no "secret anti-rush" build that you can just do blanketly. the builds will be different depending on map size, choke point locations, etc... Heck, Life won one his trophies during the most dominant period of the soul train push simply with proper ling micro. There is no unbeatable rush. None. well yeah, that's the stuff when you don't have a FF friendly map, where Sentry/Immortal isn't as strong. The question was, what do you do when there is no midmap engagment place. When you make a map that is actually really chokey, more than the ones we have (like Habitation Station) or have had. Though on those maps its already very, very hard to do the midmap engagments. On Habitation Station though you often have the advantage of a gold vs no gold in that scenario, unless the Protoss does the nasty gold into sentry/immortal, which made all the Liquid Zergs veto the map a few months ago. Anything 2base should lose to it. Either to the rush itself (when you go mutas or zergling or SH based). Or gets hungered out, the Protoss just sits in front of the natural choke and eventually is maxed with Sentry/Immortal/Stalker against ~150supply zerg. And Life never won with "proper ling micro". He did the most standard 55drones-->mass roach reaction against Sentry/Immortal. Though I have seen Parting really screw up very badly and losing to some fast infestors of Life too, though those were WoL Infestors. Edit: There is no real magic build that you can throw out and that just counters it, imo. As you say, there are better and worse maps. In WoL (and recently) we had some of the maps that kind of show the boundaries, where if you made it even more chokey than Yeonsu or Cloud Kingdom, it would become impossible to stop if the Protoss plays it without mistakes, regardless of whether you play mistakeless yourself or not. And even on those mentioned maps, I question if a simple BO-rush should be capable of going somewhere near 50:50 when scouted. Or if we'd rather just use other maps than. Well yeah, we don't have to go too crazy on chokes Crossfire style, but more similar to maps like the "choke heavy" Cloud Kingdom or Daybreak. I was thinking more of some maps having safe thirds, other maps having open naturals, some maps having a nearby third, but a 4rth and 5th close together. Island expansions were always fun, and some close air spawns every now and then would be interesting ala scrap station and metalopolis. having an oversized map like Whirlwind be in the same map pool as smaller maps like say something the size of Lost Temple and Delta Quadrant would be interesting because we'd get to see how players fare in large scale fights and knock out brawls. It would encourage both more specialization as well as a broader grip of different map dependent strats. Like, what if we made a "split map" island map that prevented early timings and suddenly all players would triple expand before barracks/gateway/pool and both sides either go for doom drops, heavy air, or fast aerial harass each game. Meta initially starts with triple expand until some guy decides to go 1base phoenix/banshee. Everyone makes antiair until someone just drops hellions/warps in. No matter the map people will evolve strategies to "play/fight" in it. And if half the maps promoted "standard play" while the other half promotes either HEAVY macro or Heavy Rush play, things get a lot more intense for the viewer. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
May 23 2014 19:40 GMT
#19820
On May 24 2014 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote: Show nested quote + On May 24 2014 03:18 Big J wrote: On May 24 2014 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 24 2014 02:57 Big J wrote: On May 24 2014 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 24 2014 01:21 Big J wrote: On May 24 2014 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: On May 23 2014 22:12 Big J wrote: On May 23 2014 21:41 Yello wrote: I think the biggest reason for the imbalance (and also for the game being rather boring at the moment) is the map pool. In my opinion the map pool is just terrible. Every map is huge, has a lot of extremely wide-open spaces and way too few choke points and high-ground. We need more maps like Cloud Kingdom that allow for more tactical movement and where actual positional battles can happen. The TLMC map contest showed maps like Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs that have these features but because of the length of WCS seasons we won't see any map changes for way too long. I think Blizzard needs to realize that we need to either change the full map pool every season or change map pools more often (mid-season changes). Especially when they keep throwing in terrible, untested maps like Daedalus Point and Waystation that we then have to deal with for at least 4 months... The maps we have apart from Waystation are OK. Alterzim isnt good per se, but it produces different games. I'd love to see maps as you describe, but that's very hard. Those maps tend to be too good for blink or immortal/sentry. Kamala Park and Foxtrot Labs look like extremely good Sentry Maps imo. I guess thats the main problem why we have few of them currently. Other maps are much easier to create, therefore we get more playable ones. Whats needed is varied maps. Small ones, big ones, choke heavy, choke light, etc... Instead of trying to make the "perfect" map--just make maps that we actually have to treat differently from each other. This is the rush map, the macro map, the island map, the proxy map, etc... If you can make it balanced, sure. If it just turns out that "on this map you always go Sentry/Immortal and win; on that map if Zerg gets to the lategame you cannot take a 4th and lose", which a lot of maps that try what you are saying do, then no. Currently the mappool is a little bit too much on the long-rushdistance-side. Which is simply due to most of the smaller rush distance maps (Yeonsu, Heavy Rain, Polar Night) having to go because of blink. Which is no accident, because smaller maps have to use space more efficiently and thus have a harder time featuring the new "no ledge" condition. Also making a TLMC with a 3-5player map restriction at the same time doesn't make it easier to give 2player maps exposure. Of course they're harder to balance. But the reason the maps right now seem boring is because they're all the same. Daybreak was great until ALL maps became daybreak. Cloud Kingdom was great, until all maps became cloud kingdom, and so one. The way maps become memorable and good is if they are not copied to be similar. All maps right now are fast expand turtle. Is it really that bad that another map will always be Immortal Sentry all-in with zerg preemptively going anti-immortal sentry all in every time until the meta shifts and protoss stop going all in and then zerg starts laxing and then protoss starts rushing and so on and so forth. Players "play the same boring styles" each map right now, making maps so that we are almost guaranteed to see different play styles in a BoX series is a good thing to me. What's that secret anti-sentry/immortal? And yes, such a sort of metagame is bad, because it results in a ton of BO losses. Depends on the map right? In some maps, fast 3hatch play hitting a ling/roach timing that attacks the push midmap bleeds forcefields away from the push. In other maps I've seen the likes of DRG sac the 3rd while piling spines and flanking with ling/roach. i've seen some fast Hydras off of 2base do it I've seen some 3base roach timings hit before the push moves out stalling them long enough to build up a supply lead. There is no "secret anti-rush" build that you can just do blanketly. the builds will be different depending on map size, choke point locations, etc... Heck, Life won one his trophies during the most dominant period of the soul train push simply with proper ling micro. There is no unbeatable rush. None. well yeah, that's the stuff when you don't have a FF friendly map, where Sentry/Immortal isn't as strong. The question was, what do you do when there is no midmap engagment place. When you make a map that is actually really chokey, more than the ones we have (like Habitation Station) or have had. Though on those maps its already very, very hard to do the midmap engagments. On Habitation Station though you often have the advantage of a gold vs no gold in that scenario, unless the Protoss does the nasty gold into sentry/immortal, which made all the Liquid Zergs veto the map a few months ago. Anything 2base should lose to it. Either to the rush itself (when you go mutas or zergling or SH based). Or gets hungered out, the Protoss just sits in front of the natural choke and eventually is maxed with Sentry/Immortal/Stalker against ~150supply zerg. And Life never won with "proper ling micro". He did the most standard 55drones-->mass roach reaction against Sentry/Immortal. Though I have seen Parting really screw up very badly and losing to some fast infestors of Life too, though those were WoL Infestors. Edit: There is no real magic build that you can throw out and that just counters it, imo. As you say, there are better and worse maps. In WoL (and recently) we had some of the maps that kind of show the boundaries, where if you made it even more chokey than Yeonsu or Cloud Kingdom, it would become impossible to stop if the Protoss plays it without mistakes, regardless of whether you play mistakeless yourself or not. And even on those mentioned maps, I question if a simple BO-rush should be capable of going somewhere near 50:50 when scouted. Or if we'd rather just use other maps than. Well yeah, we don't have to go too crazy on chokes Crossfire style, but more similar to maps like the "choke heavy" Cloud Kingdom or Daybreak. I was thinking more of some maps having safe thirds, other maps having open naturals, some maps having a nearby third, but a 4rth and 5th close together. Island expansions were always fun, and some close air spawns every now and then would be interesting ala scrap station and metalopolis. having an oversized map like Whirlwind be in the same map pool as smaller maps like say something the size of Lost Temple and Delta Quadrant would be interesting because we'd get to see how players fare in large scale fights and knock out brawls. It would encourage both more specialization as well as a broader grip of different map dependent strats. Like, what if we made a "split map" island map that prevented early timings and suddenly all players would triple expand before barracks/gateway/pool and both sides either go for doom drops, heavy air, or fast aerial harass each game. Meta initially starts with triple expand until some guy decides to go 1base phoenix/banshee. Everyone makes antiair until someone just drops hellions/warps in. No matter the map people will evolve strategies to "play/fight" in it. And if half the maps promoted "standard play" while the other half promotes either HEAVY macro or Heavy Rush play, things get a lot more intense for the viewer. yeah; i fully agree to that. However, not in the WCS format. Do it in Proleague, on ladder or in Showmatches. But in WCS I don't think it is fair to the players to keep maps like Daedalus around with 80:20 winrates Z>P just to hope that Protoss will develop something. | ||
| ||
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Group A
Creator vs MaxPax
Rogue vs Creator
MaxPax vs Rogue
Spirit vs Creator
Spirit vs Rogue
Spirit vs MaxPax
[ Submit Event ] |
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2![]() ![]() Calm ![]() Rain ![]() Horang2 ![]() GuemChi ![]() Pusan ![]() BeSt ![]() Larva ![]() Harstem ![]() Hyuk ![]() [ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games summit1g9828 singsing2363 B2W.Neo621 Pyrionflax312 hungrybox310 SortOf247 Fuzer ![]() Lowko116 nookyyy ![]() Dewaltoss31 ZerO(Twitch)25 JuggernautJason7 Organizations
StarCraft 2 • StrangeGG StarCraft: Brood War![]() • AfreecaTV YouTube • intothetv ![]() • Kozan • IndyKCrew ![]() • LaughNgamezSOOP • Migwel ![]() • sooper7s League of Legends |
Code For Giants Cup
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Jumy vs Zoun
Clem vs Jumy
ByuN vs Zoun
Clem vs Zoun
ByuN vs Jumy
ByuN vs Clem
The PondCast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
SC Evo Complete
Classic vs uThermal
SOOP StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SOOP
[ Show More ] WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
[BSL 2025] Weekly
SOOP StarCraft League
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
|
|