| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
On October 12 2011 21:59 insolentrus wrote: no maps slightly change balance. in general no Maps are a huge deal in balance. Maps are basicly how people made BW balanced. ( because blizzard were not patching the game ) | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
| ||
|
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
GOM should port Central Plains and Polaris Rhapsody, then introduce them into the GSL. :D | ||
|
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
On October 12 2011 23:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: In theory, but obviously not in practice lol. Nestea have a winning record there, despite it looking like an ugly map for them. fix'd | ||
|
IMRandom
Korea (South)34 Posts
On October 13 2011 02:49 Noocta wrote: Maps are a huge deal in balance. Maps are basicly how people made BW balanced. ( because blizzard were not patching the game ) You're right, and I'd hate to see SC2 ending up in the same way. About the Maps, they're obviously far more zerg favoured than the ladder, but there still are terran favoured maps. Terminus, Metal(late game) Crossfire(early game) and xnf(not that much, a bit exaggerated) | ||
|
hjop
Netherlands10 Posts
In other words bigger maps mean you can play more reactionary based | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
On October 13 2011 03:30 hjop wrote: Maps actually have a huge role, because on a bigger map you might just have those 15 seconds extra to prepare for an attack, meaning you'll be able to hold it off while on a smaller map you would not have those extra 15 seconds making certain 'timing' or just general attacks much more effective. In other words bigger maps mean you can play more reactionary based I'd have to disagree. Yes it takes him another 15 seconds to reach you, but it also takes you another 15 seconds to scout his rush/timing. It's the reason you never see 6pools on 2 player maps, they're instantly scouted and stopped. | ||
|
TrickyGilligan
United States641 Posts
Finally, just remember how long Zerg was in a recession comparatively before they finally "figured it out." Protoss players just need more innovators, and more pros that try the new builds that people come up with. There are a lot of lesser Protoss players who use builds that are crazy scary, but the players themselves just haven't had as much success for whatever mechanic or technical reason. Inka's (spelling?) recent PvZ builds make it look so easy, and not gimicky. If a tip top pro picked up some of these strategies I immagine the metagame could easily shift drastically. I'm sorry, but I'm fucking sick of hearing this argument. Zerg did not just magically "figure out" ZvP and suddenly turned the matchup around. Zerg got massive buffs (roach range, fungal) and Protoss got significant nerfs (zealot build time, void ray damage and speed, amulet, warp gate research time.) If you really think that Zerg players just collectively woke up one morning and decided to stop losing, then why do we need all of these balance changes? Clearly since it was "figured out" they're completely unnecessary and we can revert back to the old balance, right? | ||
|
GreyKnight
United States4720 Posts
| ||
|
InvXXVII
Canada242 Posts
The answer to "can we blame the map?" is "yes and no", and here is why (at least imo). Yes: As maps get created and added to the gsl map pool, the terrain becomes more and more detailed and sophisticated. And generally speaking, that means that there are more and more opportunities for terrans to perform drops and for zergs to do muta harrass (or drop). Although warp prisms recently got buffed, most of the time, one will often find himsefl sacrificing his whole drop force to harrass, thus making prism drops less cost effective than terran/zerg drops. In this sense, the new maps are disadvantageous to protoss players. Our harrassing units are simply not the best. No: In a straight up 200/200 fight, the outcome depends mostly on micro, army positionning, upgrades, etc.; there isn't a race that can simply a-move over someone else's army and still win no matter what the opponent does. Also in every matchup, theres always an army composition A that counters composition B, that counters C, that counters D, that counters A. In this sense, the three races are well balanced (again imo). The problem is that protoss dont have, or at least havent figured out, a cost effective way of harrassing. So, if you look at the problem this way, the races are imbalanced. So in conclusion, yes the map pool somewhat puts protoss at a disadvantage, but i dont necessarily think that it is the map-maker's fault necessarily. | ||
|
shtdisturbance
Canada613 Posts
| ||
|
ChineseWife
United States373 Posts
Poll: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance? No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING (9) yes, Terrans and zergs just make less mistakes (6) 15 total votes Your vote: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance? (Vote): No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING Better poll imo | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46395 Posts
On October 13 2011 04:24 ChineseWife wrote: Poll: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance? No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING (9) yes, Terrans and zergs just make less mistakes (6) 15 total votes Your vote: Do you think decision making is part of the GSL race imbalance? (Vote): No, protoss have shown GREAT DECISION MAKING Better poll imo That's the same as asking whether or not Zerg and Terran players are just naturally smarter and better at the game than Protoss players right? lol -_______- | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13418 Posts
| ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On October 13 2011 04:27 ZeromuS wrote: I feel that maps would be the reason for GSL balance if at any point in the GSL we had a map that we could point to and say - YUP that Map is terrible for Terran. Unfortunately I can't think of a single one. Personally, I can think of maps that were Z or P favoured or bad for them but not one that was Terran unfavoured. belshir 1.0 taldarim altar can be really bad for terran lategame just look at what terrans veto in TvZ and TvP so basically next time you can't think of a single one, you should try to think of one first :\ | ||
|
Penke
Sweden346 Posts
| ||
|
EctoMimed
United States38 Posts
On October 13 2011 04:03 TrickyGilligan wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm fucking sick of hearing this argument. Zerg did not just magically "figure out" ZvP and suddenly turned the matchup around. Zerg got massive buffs (roach range, fungal) and Protoss got significant nerfs (zealot build time, void ray damage and speed, amulet, warp gate research time.) If you really think that Zerg players just collectively woke up one morning and decided to stop losing, then why do we need all of these balance changes? Clearly since it was "figured out" they're completely unnecessary and we can revert back to the old balance, right? A few issues I have before continuing You say Zerg got massive buffs but.... -Roach range was to address reapers and really now do you think that buff was even a question or decision at all? Also, Zergs did not figure out the matchup until LONG after the roach buff, so that isn't really a valid point.. -Fungal was buffed in damage, but it was nerfed back on 1.4, and furthermore the damage has never been the main problem for protoss, the problem is generally accepted from what I observe to be the stun (or root, idk what would be best to use) factor in combination with baneling drops or other such units that benefit from the protoss army being stuck. Mind you that the root time was decreased. The root time decrease made fungal dps better yes but the stun loss time is a huge nerf in the ZvP matchup. Anyways... I never once ever said they woke up one morning and decided to stop losing.. Maybe you are just trolling? I said clearly that it took around 10 months or a year for Zerg's to really transition their ZvP playstyles. My point was actually that you have to give the metagame space to move itself. Zealot build time has been switched back and forth but I really doubt anyone would want the zealot time reduced again, as it hurts pvp as well. Void ray damage and speed lol does anyone actually believe that those could possibly be considered bad changes? That's already been discussed to death. I agree amulet may have been a bad nerf and I wouldn't mind it making a return. Although really it hasn't changed much other then ability to warp in a HT and defend in a situation you should not be able to defend.. but thats a change that is debateable for sure Warpgate research time was a good change in my opinion because it helped with the fact that players like Naniwa could just 4gate a whole tournament and win flawlessly. Apart from that it also helps PvP and really the early game ZvP feels much more balanced now from what is going on in pro games. Bleh | ||
|
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
On October 13 2011 04:30 Penke wrote: I think the main reason why the terrans are doing so well is because the TvT mirror is the mirror matchup that favours the better player to the greatest extent while PvP and ZvZ are more fragile and creates a larger opportunity for a lesser player to advance which leads to the better protosses and zergs naturally having a higher chance of being knocked out earlier in tournaments. Terrans should have the lowest winrate in a balanced game because they spend the lowest percentage of their practice time in non-mirror matchups. | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On October 13 2011 04:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That's the same as asking whether or not Zerg and Terran players are just naturally smarter and better at the game than Protoss players right? lol -_______- With a poll phrased like that, you'll get a lot of "YES" votes, because of the way the "I'm in Bronze but I understand the game very well" demographic judges decisions - by their outcome. A Protoss loses, therefore he made bad decisions, therefore he is a bad player. The result validates anything. I mean, after the infamous hero vs Puma game 3 in IPL3, there were posters in the LR thread who thought Puma won because of his superior decision-making. There is no end to the nonsense that can be supported by the result of 1 game. If a player loses, their decisions were awful, and Mr "I don't really play the game but I watch GSL a lot!" will be quick to point out better alternatives. Sigh.  | ||
|
Escoffier
United States120 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
AI Arena Tournament
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Percival
Cure vs Classic
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
IdrA vs MC
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs JyJ
Soulkey vs hero
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
