|
Maps as balance, past and future
Pool, Hatch, Hatch. You might call it standard ZvP these days. The timings are clear and crisp, the plan is both safe and greedy. It leaves us many options and few vulnerabilities. Why did it take us so long to find it? Well, Let's go back in time a little bit. Perhaps a year ago or so, the various web communities were utterly saturated with pictures like this:
Dustin's Trollface
y u mad tho? I think our map pool ROCKS
As far as Blizzard was concerned, we didn't need macro maps. If the maps were too big, people would just hide expansions everywhere and the poor low level players would never have fair games. Furthermore, without rocks, It would be too easy to expand and expand without ever making an army. Close spawns had to exist so that players could enjoy a "variety of playstyles". Blizzard felt that without their guiding hand, we would play their game wrong. To quote Dustin Browder from an interview with coL.CatZ,
"We make our map pools for the ladder, for ladder players. There are players who like to rush, there are players who like to macro, We do have a system where you can veto maps you don't want to play on.. But I think we're starting to see a lot of the tournament players making these VERY complicated maps, with a LOT of expansions. This is not going to work for a lot our ladder players. A lot of our ladder players are going to fail to scout a lot of those extra expansions - and then its all about hidden expansions. Which is not appropriate - it's not a fun game. So we do want to have a mix of maps. We don't feel like what happens in tournament is appropriate for ladder, and what happens on ladder is not appropriate for tournaments, and we're very comfortable with two separate types of pools happening there. And we're gonna continue with that until we're convinced otherwise."
Oh, how far we've come. It's hard to imagine such blasphemous words being uttered today, isn't it? Yet a year ago, that's where we were. And we hated Blizzard for it. The community reached out every chance it got to tell them - Fix the maps! We asked in live interviews, we asked through online Q&As, even Nestea had some choice words about the map pool at Blizzcon. Eventually they were convinced and we all breathed a sigh of relief, and today we have "tournament-style" maps in our ladder pool. And for that, Zerg players are especially thankful. Modern zerg styles would be nearly impossible on a map like Slag Pits (In fact, my solution for that map was 1base baneling all-ins in all matchups).
The Past
there were so many bad maps, i couldn't even veto this one
The few maps today that block the 3rd with rocks, I veto, and I'm sure many zerg players do. And I'll be honest, ZvP is my favorite matchup right now.... I just ROACH my way through pretty much whatever the protoss player does and it feels good. Perhaps, a little TOO good. What if it was never supposed to be this easy? With all the changes in balance and maps, Zerg finally has enough breathing room to macro up - to be fair, the other races do too, but Zerg always has the ability to "one up" the other races in terms of economic growth. We scout you, figure out how many drones we can get away with, and then try to overrun you. Was it Blizzard's intent to stifle that economic growth, for the sake of balance? Is the game still balanced with that growth running unchecked? As we move into Season 7 with even larger macro maps like Daybreak, How will the metagame be affected?
For answers to these questions we simply have to wait and see - The majority of us aren't qualified to make definitive statements on the matter. My gut feeling is that we the gamers collectively can solve almost any problem without Blizzard's help, even if it takes us thousands of hours played to eventually have an epiphany. When that epiphany arrives to one man and he shows the world, the rest of us will integrate it into our play overnight. Although, Stephano's recent comments have rustled the jimmies of many players out there, protoss and zerg alike:
Lots of zerg are saying PvZ is favoring the protoss, but I am one of the only ones saying the zerg is way ahead of the protoss. The protoss have no real strategy choices against zerg, they always have to do the same thing to be safe, while the zerg can change strategy and still win and be safe at the same time. I feel like Blizzard needs to patch something for protoss to give them more options in the metagame, because zerg has only to do one build to counter all the possible build from protoss, and its really stupid i think.
He's at least partially right, and speaks with authority, since he very well could take credit for our "Standard ZvP", Pool hatch hatch. So long as you scout a protoss fast expand build of some sort, it's the go-to build, and simply adjust the quantities of lings, roaches and queens to fit what your opponent is doing. Then again, racial win rates are still pretty close, although slightly Zerg favored in ZvP. Right now it doesn't happen in ZvT, although a variant of it may come into play on Daybreak if terrans start doing no-gas expands more than hellion openings. And on these larger maps, ZvZ might finally become a macro-oriented matchup instead of the "chaotic knife fights" we're used to seeing. If Daybreak goes over well, we might end up with a ladder map pool FULL of giant GSL macro maps. That would be great.... Or would it?
How will things unfold now that the community has a say in the maps on which we play, and will the game need more balance adjustments to compensate?
The future
Poll: How will larger macro maps affect the game?Good for the game overall (584) 56% Too good for Zerg, zerg imba (365) 35% Shit for everyone, broken metagame, killing esports (40) 4% Good for Z and T, sucks for P (22) 2% Proxy cheese, Proxy cheese everywhere (13) 1% Too good for T/P (11) 1% Other Considerations(lower leagues, etc) (10) 1% 1045 total votes Your vote: How will larger macro maps affect the game? (Vote): Good for the game overall (Vote): Too good for Zerg, zerg imba (Vote): Too good for T/P (Vote): Good for Z and T, sucks for P (Vote): Shit for everyone, broken metagame, killing esports (Vote): Proxy cheese, Proxy cheese everywhere (Vote): Other Considerations(lower leagues, etc)
PS: Before you respond, realize no statements are made in this OP. I'm asking, not telling. If you'd like to vote for something other than what's on the poll, it can't be changed, sorry just click "other" and explain why in the thread!
Further study For a more in depth, number oriented read about maps as balance, and how economy can affect the matchups, head on over to The Breadth of Gameplay in SC2
|
|
Daybreak is an excellent map. It's really not THAT big. Allins are still very viable on that map, and hey, look, hidden expansions AREN'T really viable on the map (you might take a base quicker than usual and make it hidden that way, but so easy to check...).
I also don't think Protoss has to do the same thing everygame. Of course, my Zerg is nowhere near as good as Stephanos, but as a random player who has a better PvZ than ZvP, I don't have any issues at all with that mass roach style as Protoss.
However, every Protoss out there seems to like to forge FE. I personally 2gate FE, with the 2gates at the natural. Change of pace, significantly more fun, and working quite well for me. The main main advantage of the build is you can't get roach/ling allined without knowing far ahead of time, and since I follow the FE up with a stargate, if they delay too long, I'll have a voidray up. PvZ used to be one of my worst MUs since I couldn't fight off a roach ling allin whatsoever.
|
So many old maps were so broken.I'm glad blizz smartened up and started to put in good maps.
|
On March 19 2012 18:21 darkscream wrote:The future
Is that the SC2 version of Nostalgia?
|
Big maps are good. But most importantly maps without goddamn rocks and gold expansions everywhere.
|
On March 19 2012 18:38 Manit0u wrote:Is that the SC2 version of Nostalgia?
The layout is more similar to Match Point.
|
The shitty ladder map pool was the primary reason why I stopped playing this game. Even if good games were happening in tournaments, I could never play good games myself, and it just got too frustrating waiting months for Blizzard to remove Steppes of War and Jungle Basin. By now they've improved the ladder map pool dramatically, but it's too late for me, as I've already lost interest in playing the game myself. I'm sure there are many others in the same boat.
The larger maps have proven themselves to be relatively balanced for competitive play. If they prove to be heavily imbalanced at lower levels, that doesn't really matter, except that it would probably prompt Blizzard to remove the maps from the ladder pool, which would be a real tragedy.
|
i do not even veto anymore, maps seem good enough now!
|
Funny thing about this topic, I remember when I first started watching Koreans play in casts by Husky Starcraft or whoever, the biggest thing I noticed is that the players were always up in each others faces with almost non-stop aggression of some sort at the start of the game, for all races. Can't tell if it's the metagame or maps or both, but that isn't always the case so much anymore. If we get to the point where maps keep getting bigger and bigger it might gradually make esports less exciting, but then again with the birth of Barcrafting SC2 will always be pretty popular in general. I just think it'd be interesting to see less of maps that keep getting larger and larger and more maps that are relatively smaller but where skilled players can use positioning, timings or tactics or some other facet of expertise to keep pressure on and create some exciting games. Or maybe I'm just crazy. Point is, please don't keep making maps much bigger than they already are!
|
Big maps are good but to some extend. For instance Calm before the storm is one of the worst maps ever played on GSL and it's not surprise that they dropped it after just one season. IMO there shouldn't be bigger maps than Tal'Darim Altar.
|
On March 19 2012 19:11 Pr0wler wrote: Big maps are good but to some extend. For instance Calm before the storm is one of the worst maps ever played on GSL and it's not surprise that they dropped it after just one season. IMO there shouldn't be bigger maps than Tal'Darim Altar.
Calm Before the Storm is still played in GSTL, though.
|
zvp nowdays is exactly like zvp in sc1 (atleast the start pool hatch hatch vs nexus forge etc. or forge nexus etc.)
|
Larger maps means more bases for zerg not necessarily for protoss. Unless we get something that allows us to REALLY leave our base. It's bich to defend 4bases already and needs about 50cannon. Watching MC play PvZ it's just his 4th gets sniped all the time with like infested terrans requiring no resource. Even when there is 8cannons and HT. That game in entombed valley showed that zerg could mine about 3extra bases against MC and with all of those resources make only spines/spores on middle of map.
|
I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made.
|
Blizzard did not forsee it no. Blizzard have statet many times that they don't think that far ahead with balance. They do check how the units fare against each other but when it comes to map or strategy balance they don't know beforehand. So no I don't think they crippled economy for the sake of balance. But more that they crippled economy because they didn't know better.
|
I think people are overlooking that protoss on 3 or 4 bases has basically won the game, unless you can get hive tech before he gets to your front door, and then the game goes on (and becomes a weird scenario in which the gameplay now completely revolves around stopping vortex - but that's another matter).
Bigger maps also means it's a little further for zerg to take out the toss 3rd, which basically is the aim of the game for most styles.
|
No, I don't think Blizzard really expected anything at all. When they made Starcraft 2, they had set out to make a better Starcraft, without knowing anything about how their game worked at the highest levels. They simply picked out random things and replaced them with shiny junk, and the end result is the gunk you see here.
Take a look at BW and SC2 zvp: Protoss uses cannons to take their natural early, because they have found pressure at low tech with little gas to be ineffective for them. Zerg double expands in response, because toss can't attack for awhile.
Blizzard then widens the naturals and sticks rocks at every viable third.
Protoss uses zealots / stargate units to keep zerg's economy in check while either taking a third or teching to templar / getting goon range.
Blizzard gives Zerg a 150 mineral unit that costs no larvae, shoots up, and can use energy to spawn a massive amount of larvae from hatcheries. They then replace the Hydralisk with a unit that does full damage to all targets, and has 1 armor and 145 hp. Also, they throw another 50 minerals / 50 gas onto the cost of zealot speed.
See where I'm going here? I really don't think they would have thought to design their maps to compensate for these changes, either. (I know strategies weren't intended to be copied to the letter like this, but the game as a whole wasn't really changed THAT drastically. The same themes apply in most matchups, and ZvP was balanced on a razor-wire to begin with)
|
"Shit for everyone, broken metagame, killing esports"
|
On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made.
Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder.
|
Macro maps are great for the game. If these kinds of maps leads to imbalance, this needs to be fixed by rebalancing the races, no one wants to go back to 2base allin SC2.
|
why they can't just copy the BW maps? they are awesome
|
Map are ultimately still evolving. People often over simplify map criticism too. The most obvious example I can think of its Tal Darim being 'too big'. Well yes I think in cross positions it is (rotationally symmetric should only be x spawn for balance reasons) too big, but the reason is because its so big and they couldn't think of anything to do with that space, as a result its too open, which turns it into a zerg playground in the late game.
Map design is much more important than map size, which is why we're seeing a slight reduction in size but with more appropriate design, like Cloud Kingdom for instance but the reason we went straight to larger maps initially was that the main design fault was a small size. We've overcome this now so hopefully we can ditch the whole map size arguement and focus on other things, sure maps like DayBreak are large but they are also well designed, chokes allow Terran to push out and expansion locations are good, there are also smaller maps like Cloud Kingdom which arent so small they're bad but will be good enough for those ladder players Blizzard are so worried about.
In summary I think map size will become less relevant as other design elements become the focus, that being said it should still be a consideration, we can't just go big, we need to have some bigger maps and some which strike a nice balance like CK. Maps like Steppes / Xel Naga are a thing of the past, and so are the maps which were designed to combat them like Tal Darim.
I see a good future in maps, but I think the size debate is dated.
|
Vatican City State334 Posts
Blizzard knew, I do remember they said Zerg was too powerful on macro maps quite a few times, but they created these problems by lacing the game with extremities thinking it would make the game "deep". What we ended up with was a Zerg which get bowled over on small, tight maps, but enjoys a free vacation when it's a large, open map.
|
"We make our map pools for the ladder, for ladder players. There are players who like to rush, there are players who like to macro, We do have a system where you can veto maps you don't want to play on.. But I think we're starting to see a lot of the tournament players making these VERY complicated maps, with a LOT of expansions. This is not going to work for a lot our ladder players. A lot of our ladder players are going to fail to scout a lot of those extra expansions - and then its all about hidden expansions. Which is not appropriate - it's not a fun game. So we do want to have a mix of maps. We don't feel like what happens in tournament is appropriate for ladder, and what happens on ladder is not appropriate for tournaments, and we're very comfortable with two separate types of pools happening there. And we're gonna continue with that until we're convinced otherwise."
I can't believe Browder actually had the audacity to say something like that. All I have to say is thank God SC2 didn't turn out the way Blizzard originally envisioned it to be.
|
This is why im stoked for HoTS. The new protoss units, barring the tempest which the phoenix range upgrade renders fairly redundant, I think will do very well at diversifying protoss options against all races.
|
On March 19 2012 20:05 Garmer wrote: why they can't just copy the BW maps? they are awesome
It's a different game?
I'm not convinced either way that map sizes favor certain matchups or if that's just the current metagame. Either way, HotS is going to completely change the game again, balance-wise and hence map-wise.
|
from my experience, ZvP still evolve around Mass Mutas and base trade
bigger map would make it harder for P to defend all the bases
|
I actually forgot about about slag pits, just look at that map seriously. Look at those close spawns! (im pretty sure they were allowed) where does anyone take a third on that map
I think large maps make ZvP really interesting, its true zerg has an easy third, but protoss still have so many options out of a FFE
|
Seconded, red4ce. "What's more, "hidden" expansions aren't safe if you scout them, they're a huge gamble, basically, it's not a matter of it "not being fun" for lower players if those unskilled lower players learned to scout anyway. Said players can get free wins by scouting hidden bases and capitalising on it, the skill level is irrelevant.
The late game protoss army is so strong, it's not a simple issue of big map/macro map = zerg. Heck, in Brood War, which is about as balanced as people could have hoped, I think there's a case (people could disagree though) that with exceptional players and very macro-orientated maps, terran might have the advantage.
Most players, especially most professional players, want maps and balance to be centred around reasonably long macro games being more viable at the highest level of play than 1 base all-ins. Blizzard's earlier attempts at maps did not reflect this.
EDIT: Close was allowed on Slag Pits, yes and close spawns on both Searing Crater and Shattered Temple had equally close rush distances. Shattered Temple is still in the map pool, although probably not next season (and has been without close spawns for a while now). One thing I'm glad Blizzard seems to be cutting out is BS-length distances from one's main to natural, I think plenty people of all races find that when they're too long, it makes for bad maps. 1 base banshee all-ins, mass mutas, 1 base gateway+void ray all-ins all become too strong really, so that even with the appropriate defence, the defender is at a loss, when they'd be fine on other maps. Arid Plateau was the pinnacle of this nonsense.
|
Yeah, I think that they foresaw that if maps get too big, turtle mightbecome too strong and spacecontrolling styles with statics too hard.
But imo everything comes back to "too much money in the game". Macro mechanisms (especially Mules, Warpgates and injects- to a lesser extend chronoboost and reactors) are so strong, that mass production is probably too strong compared to quality production - which makes low Tier Units the go-to style and units are so expendable, that micro becomes very inefficient in a lot of cases.
Blizzard tried to make this game work out like SC:BW (see all their battlereport and gameplay videos from the early days and also how people played the game in the early beta), yet at some point people found out that being all over the place with very few units is not very efficient, due to how fast economy builds up and rebuilds. This absolutly has nothing to do with specific unit designs imo, it is just a question of too much macro, too many workers, not enough important/potent things besides units and macro you have to spend money on.
|
Calm down Bisu is switching over.
|
On March 19 2012 20:36 BadBinky wrote: Calm down Bisu is switching over. Who? An OSL Champion maybe?
|
On March 19 2012 20:29 Big J wrote:yet at some point people found out that being all over the place with very few units is not very efficient, due to how fast economy builds up and rebuilds. Multi-pronged attacks as zerg, warp prism play that protoss CAN be bothered doing these days, harassment force warp ins at an expansion while targeting another base with the main force, marine+medivac drop play, all of this is extremely powerful and pretty common in SCII at high level play. Targeting infrastructure and/or workers attempts to deal with the economic build up you talk about. That said, I do think that maps should not be made in a way that encourages Big Game Hunters style ability to sit on so few units before getting many high "tier" protoss units ("sudden deathball") or getting a mass of Hive tech units and support without needing many zerglings, roaches or mutalisks beforehand. Interestingly, I have always liked Antiga Shipyard, which discourages early aggressive play with fairly long rush distances while not actually being as large a map as Tal'Darim Altar (in dimensions), which, by comparison, actually has shorter rush distances by ground (I'm speaking about natural to natural distances, not main to main). Maps should have plenty of bases, but are ideally not set up so that players can sit idle for 14 minutes before any action is close to commencing. Using rocks to stop races expanding is not a good way to solve this.
|
On March 19 2012 20:39 empty.bottle wrote:Who? An OSL Champion maybe?
awesome dig at bisu fanboys!!
|
On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made. Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder.
Xel'Naga was an amazing map for its time. bear in mind it was introduced roughly around the same era as we were playing on Desert Oasis, and Incineration Zone.
Even on its own merits, its not a BAD map. Its just that it was around for SO long.
|
blizzard designed the game to last 10-15 minutes. did they really consider macro maps? probably nothing behind 2 base to be honest. that might explain the efficacy of two base all ins.
they lacked a lot of foresight which i hope they will correct in hots. the avg game length is more 20minutes i hope.
|
It's impossible to predict how the game will play out on bigger maps and I am sure the guys at Blizz didn't test that out. The thing in current PvZ is that forge fast expo is the best in terms of economy, but forces you to either turtle on three bases, or go for a 2 base all-in. That's it. Not to mention that you build the so called deathball over time, in response to the current zerg army composition and we all know that zergs can go for mass roach, then mutas, then ling/festor/broodlord. We don't see that in TvZ.
|
You have no evidence to support any claims you make in the op. ZvP is fairly balanced as is and there is no reason to believe this will change in the near future, other than some stupid out of context quotes from a minority of players. Further more the discussion, that bigger maps will destroy the delicate balance of this game, is going on for a year now and the game is fine as is. Let me tell you something. There is no delicate balance between the races, there is only the metagame. There's really no reason to believe that some small changes will change the balance between the races. There have been so many changes already to the game and players have just adapted and used different units and different builds. So please can we stop predicting the downfall of a matchup everytime some small changes are introduced to the game.
|
they also said that on big maps zerg is imba at-least that what there internal tests showed them. you should mention that
|
On March 19 2012 20:46 Dhalphir wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote:On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made. Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder. Xel'Naga was an amazing map for its time. bear in mind it was introduced roughly around the same era as we were playing on Desert Oasis, and Incineration Zone. Even on its own merits, its not a BAD map. Its just that it was around for SO long.
To be honest, I really loved Desert Oasis, it was a unique map that was hated because it was a unique map. Especially after they fixed it (and then like a few weeks later remove it out of the map pool -_-)
|
I think that If the maps were to be much bigger it would have the potential to break certain matchups. but a mix of big maps like daybreak and small maps like Bel'shir beach, it keeps the ladder and tournaments interesting as players are forced to play different styles because of the map.
|
On March 19 2012 20:50 Shorty90 wrote: You have no evidence to support any claims you make in the op.
I didn't make any claims, I posed questions looking for feedback. So angry!
|
Where in this poll is the option "good for Z and P, terrible for T", or am I missing something? Remember calm of the storm and how Protoss favored it was in TvP? Hint: It had something to do with how big the map was and stuff like that, you know.. just throwing it out there.
|
On March 19 2012 20:52 di3alot wrote: they also said that on big maps zerg is imba at-least that what there internal tests showed them. you should mention that
their internal test of 2 (maybe 4 players playing each other)? lol
|
I guess they could even be a bit bigger (not rushdistancewise maybe but overall), compared to BW units move faster and are bigger :D
|
Lots of zerg are saying PvZ is favoring the protoss, but I am one of the only ones saying the zerg is way ahead of the protoss. The protoss have no real strategy choices against zerg, they always have to do the same thing to be safe, while the zerg can change strategy and still win and be safe at the same time. I feel like Blizzard needs to patch something for protoss to give them more options in the metagame, because zerg has only to do one build to counter all the possible build from protoss, and its really stupid i think.
Stephano seems to say whatever it is that people aren't expecting. IMO he's wrong most of the time, though. Everyone wants to go to Korea to train, and dreams of winning of a GSL? Stephano doesn't think Korea is necessary, and says he has no interest in GSL. Everyone practices their ass off? Stephano says he never practices. People think Protoss is OP against Zerg? Stephano thinks Zerg is OP against Protoss.
I dunno, some people have personality types that motivate them to be very individualistic. IMO that Stephano quote says a lot more about Stephano than about the state of ZvP. How many other pros think that way?
And Short90 is right, there are no actual warrants or evidence for any of the claims in the OP.
|
if we asked blizzard maps like slug pits would still be in the mappool. and i hope that maps like daybreak the way they are aren't the future. i strongly stand behind the 6m/7m maps and i think that this will fix the game ond make it more enjojable.
|
i actually think its hard to tell, for example ZvP is really map dependant and what you make out of it. If the third is very open like on daybreak its bad for protoss but if the third is as easy defendable like on antiga it really helps protoss. A maxed "perfect" army for protoss is always stronger than a maxed out "perfect" zerg army if both control their armys well.
I really think terrans are the worst on huge macro maps just because they often times are forced to stay on low tier units the whole game and then die once protoss have 3bases + ht and or zergs infestor broodlord. The matchup TvZ changed a lot it has gone from "terran needs to mess up so zerg has a chance(steppes of war / reapers) to if zerg denies drops and harass they win for free(new maps)".
|
Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.-
|
On March 19 2012 20:59 Vul wrote:Show nested quote +Lots of zerg are saying PvZ is favoring the protoss, but I am one of the only ones saying the zerg is way ahead of the protoss. The protoss have no real strategy choices against zerg, they always have to do the same thing to be safe, while the zerg can change strategy and still win and be safe at the same time. I feel like Blizzard needs to patch something for protoss to give them more options in the metagame, because zerg has only to do one build to counter all the possible build from protoss, and its really stupid i think. Stephano seems to say whatever it is that people aren't expecting. IMO he's wrong most of the time, though. Everyone wants to go to Korea to train, and dreams of winning of a GSL? Stephano doesn't think Korea is necessary, and says he has no interest in GSL. Everyone practices their ass off? Stephano says he never practices. People think Protoss is OP against Zerg? Stephano thinks Zerg is OP against Protoss. I dunno, some people have personality types that motivate them to be very individualistic. IMO that Stephano quote says a lot more about Stephano than about the state of ZvP. How many other pros think that way? And Short90 is right, there are no actual warrants or evidence for any of the claims in the OP. According to latest SOTG stephano trains around 6hours a day. And he also stated that it was some time ago when he had very little practice. You go too far in analyzing stephano and you don't even follow him clearly. And it's not about what stephano or someone else says, it's about what the GAME says. Also guy who has that good W/L ratio against zerg isn't unexpected to come out and say this is pretty easy because I can just spam 1-2 units and win.
e:Also theorethically we could fix toss and tweak T a more (they alrdy have pretty good static defense and sensor tower) so defending more expansions against multiprong zerg attacks is viable. Everyone would win probably.
|
On March 19 2012 20:41 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 20:29 Big J wrote:yet at some point people found out that being all over the place with very few units is not very efficient, due to how fast economy builds up and rebuilds. Multi-pronged attacks as zerg, warp prism play that protoss CAN be bothered doing these days, harassment force warp ins at an expansion while targeting another base with the main force, marine+medivac drop play, all of this is extremely powerful and pretty common in SCII at high level play. Targeting infrastructure and/or workers attempts to deal with the economic build up you talk about. That said, I do think that maps should not be made in a way that encourages Big Game Hunters style ability to sit on so few units before getting many high "tier" protoss units ("sudden deathball") or getting a mass of Hive tech units and support without needing many zerglings, roaches or mutalisks beforehand. Interestingly, I have always liked Antiga Shipyard, which discourages early aggressive play with fairly long rush distances while not actually being as large a map as Tal'Darim Altar (in dimensions), which, by comparison, actually has shorter rush distances by ground (I'm speaking about natural to natural distances, not main to main). Maps should have plenty of bases, but are ideally not set up so that players can sit idle for 14 minutes before any action is close to commencing. Using rocks to stop races expanding is not a good way to solve this.
Yeah, but those things are only played when you have a huge big ass army. You will never see games like the battlereport where they just used their full army to attack all the time starting at minute 4. It just doesn't make sense, when walking across the map means that you are at least one full production circle behind and a production circle is often like 20% more supply due to superstrong economy in SC2. The prime example for this are probably the stalker and the roach early in ZvP: you move out, you try to pressure (because you have invested into these units) and you just lose those units, because your opponent built a bunch of faster units (zerglings, stalkers) and kills your pressure and instead of getting into a microbattle, you just lose your pressure to more units. The effect this has on the game is simply that in ZvP you don't build early units with offensive potential (yeah void rays and +1 exist, just like roach allins and baneling busts etc... but it always relies on your opponent not being able to react, because reacting in this game is just superstrong), because they are an investment that does not pay off.
|
On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.-
No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered.
At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features.
|
On March 19 2012 20:59 Vul wrote:Show nested quote +Lots of zerg are saying PvZ is favoring the protoss, but I am one of the only ones saying the zerg is way ahead of the protoss. The protoss have no real strategy choices against zerg, they always have to do the same thing to be safe, while the zerg can change strategy and still win and be safe at the same time. I feel like Blizzard needs to patch something for protoss to give them more options in the metagame, because zerg has only to do one build to counter all the possible build from protoss, and its really stupid i think. Stephano seems to say whatever it is that people aren't expecting. IMO he's wrong most of the time, though. Everyone wants to go to Korea to train, and dreams of winning of a GSL? Stephano doesn't think Korea is necessary, and says he has no interest in GSL. Everyone practices their ass off? Stephano says he never practices. People think Protoss is OP against Zerg? Stephano thinks Zerg is OP against Protoss. I dunno, some people have personality types that motivate them to be very individualistic. IMO that Stephano quote says a lot more about Stephano than about the state of ZvP. How many other pros think that way? And Short90 is right, there are no actual warrants or evidence for any of the claims in the OP. If you look at ZvP currently at higher levels grandmaster/progamer, tosses are not having a really good time at all, in zvp that is. Same strat vs all openings and st ill be safe as zerg is just bs and that is the current state of zvp, and with that that strat they never get a third up most of the time as well
|
On March 19 2012 21:07 Ryndika wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 20:59 Vul wrote:Lots of zerg are saying PvZ is favoring the protoss, but I am one of the only ones saying the zerg is way ahead of the protoss. The protoss have no real strategy choices against zerg, they always have to do the same thing to be safe, while the zerg can change strategy and still win and be safe at the same time. I feel like Blizzard needs to patch something for protoss to give them more options in the metagame, because zerg has only to do one build to counter all the possible build from protoss, and its really stupid i think. Stephano seems to say whatever it is that people aren't expecting. IMO he's wrong most of the time, though. Everyone wants to go to Korea to train, and dreams of winning of a GSL? Stephano doesn't think Korea is necessary, and says he has no interest in GSL. Everyone practices their ass off? Stephano says he never practices. People think Protoss is OP against Zerg? Stephano thinks Zerg is OP against Protoss. I dunno, some people have personality types that motivate them to be very individualistic. IMO that Stephano quote says a lot more about Stephano than about the state of ZvP. How many other pros think that way? And Short90 is right, there are no actual warrants or evidence for any of the claims in the OP. According to latest SOTG stephano trains around 6hours a day. And he also stated that it was some time ago when he had very little practice. You go too far in analyzing stephano and you don't even follow him clearly. And it's not about what stephano or someone else says, it's about what the GAME says. Also guy who has that good W/L ratio against zerg isn't unexpected to come out and say this is pretty easy because I can just spam 1-2 units and win. e:Also theorethically we could fix toss and tweak T a more (they alrdy have pretty good static defense and sensor tower) so defending more expansions against multiprong zerg attacks is viable. Everyone would win probably.
Yes, it is unexpected for a professional gamer to say that they're winning by using easy strategies all the time. That would imply that their results aren't based on their actual skill level, which is not something a successful player would necessarily want to admit. I definitely don't hear that very often, and would be surprised if I heard it again in the future. CoCa's ZvP is better than Stephano's, ever hear CoCa say that he's only good at ZvP because he abuses easy strategies?
As for the point about his practice--that's fine. That he now admits that he practices more doesn't disprove my point. All I'm saying is that Stephano has shown that he's something of a devil's advocate, or maybe it would be better to say that he's an individualist. I would just take what he's saying with a grain of salt.
And it's not about what stephano or someone else says, it's about what the GAME says.
This I absolutely agree with but like several people have said, there's no evidence in the OP.
|
On March 19 2012 21:30 Vul wrote:
This I absolutely agree with but like several people have said, there's no evidence in the OP.
Of course there's no evidence. The entire post was a question, not a statement. Sounds like a pretty bad case of TLDR to me.
|
On March 19 2012 18:56 QuothTheRaven wrote: The shitty ladder map pool was the primary reason why I stopped playing this game. Even if good games were happening in tournaments, I could never play good games myself, and it just got too frustrating waiting months for Blizzard to remove Steppes of War and Jungle Basin. By now they've improved the ladder map pool dramatically, but it's too late for me, as I've already lost interest in playing the game myself. I'm sure there are many others in the same boat.
The larger maps have proven themselves to be relatively balanced for competitive play. If they prove to be heavily imbalanced at lower levels, that doesn't really matter, except that it would probably prompt Blizzard to remove the maps from the ladder pool, which would be a real tragedy. Hopefully Blizzard realized that the game should be balanced from the top down including the map pool. It sure did take away a lot of my interest by losing to 100s of 1 base allins. I don't mind losing to 1 base allin 1 out of 10 games, but not 7 out of 10 games because that doesn't help improve play at all. Instead it makes it stagnate and the skill ceiling becomes lower at all levels. May Blizzard continue to move in the right direction.
|
On March 19 2012 21:11 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.- No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered. At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features.
Well, this post is just nonsense on so many levels. First of all it's 15 terrans now and it used to be alot more than that, so in the last 2 months many terrans dropped out of Code S, so your argument that terran is still doing fine in Code S doesn't really make alot of sense from that perspective seeing as they actually "lost" alot of players in Code S.
Second of all, why is it then that Protoss had the highest win rate last month in international and korean tournaments? You are obviously biased, just by not even considering to put that option into a poll which is supposed to be "fair". If you are gonna make a poll give us ALL OPTIONS, not just the options that are most convenient for you, or else the poll becomes absolutely pointless and meaningless. Yes you can't edit it now, but your bias is pretty much established as a fact now anyway, so don't even bother replying, I won't waste anymore time with you.
User was warned for this post
|
i hate xel naga watch tower. it made the game much ezier
|
On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made. Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder.
Xel'Naga provided some awesome games. Considering the small size the games often turned into at least 20minute games... The only thing I didn't like was the forward gold, which was terran favored. But the multiple attack routes, high ground, low ground, 5 expoes/player (good for the size), and the Tasteless secret hallway made that map unique in a good way. I honestly miss it. I can tell TDA and Daybreak are better and more balanced though... Maybe it's nostalgia?
|
On March 19 2012 21:49 winthrop wrote: i hate xel naga watch tower. it made the game much ezier
When an option is available to both you and your opponent - however you need to fight for it, that doesn't make it easier? That makes it just as skilldependant as if it wasn't there.
|
On March 19 2012 21:45 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:11 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.- No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered. At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features. Well, this post is just nonsense on so many levels. First of all it's 15 terrans now and it used to be alot more than that, so in the last 2 months many terrans dropped out of Code S, so your argument that terran is still doing fine in Code S doesn't really make alot of sense from that perspective seeing as they actually "lost" alot of players in Code S. Second of all, why is it then that Protoss had the highest win rate last month in international and korean tournaments? You are obviously biased, just by not even considering to put that option into a poll which is supposed to be "fair". If you are gonna make a poll give us ALL OPTIONS, not just the options that are most convenient for you, or else the poll becomes absolutely pointless and meaningless. Yes you can't edit it now, but your bias is pretty much established as a fact now anyway, so don't even bother replying, I won't waste anymore time with you.
By that logic a millionaire that loses 500.000 dollars in income per year would be "poor". Relative != Absolute.
|
On March 19 2012 21:52 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:45 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 19 2012 21:11 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.- No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered. At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features. Well, this post is just nonsense on so many levels. First of all it's 15 terrans now and it used to be alot more than that, so in the last 2 months many terrans dropped out of Code S, so your argument that terran is still doing fine in Code S doesn't really make alot of sense from that perspective seeing as they actually "lost" alot of players in Code S. Second of all, why is it then that Protoss had the highest win rate last month in international and korean tournaments? You are obviously biased, just by not even considering to put that option into a poll which is supposed to be "fair". If you are gonna make a poll give us ALL OPTIONS, not just the options that are most convenient for you, or else the poll becomes absolutely pointless and meaningless. Yes you can't edit it now, but your bias is pretty much established as a fact now anyway, so don't even bother replying, I won't waste anymore time with you. By that logic a millionaire that loses 500.000 dollars in income per year would be "poor". Relative != Absolute.
He was talking about trend and trend is almost always more important then actual results in such enviroment as sc2 metagame. Also, I completly agree with the second paragraph, as the poll is clearly biased and not even funny..
|
On March 19 2012 21:58 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:52 DarQraven wrote:On March 19 2012 21:45 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 19 2012 21:11 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.- No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered. At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features. Well, this post is just nonsense on so many levels. First of all it's 15 terrans now and it used to be alot more than that, so in the last 2 months many terrans dropped out of Code S, so your argument that terran is still doing fine in Code S doesn't really make alot of sense from that perspective seeing as they actually "lost" alot of players in Code S. Second of all, why is it then that Protoss had the highest win rate last month in international and korean tournaments? You are obviously biased, just by not even considering to put that option into a poll which is supposed to be "fair". If you are gonna make a poll give us ALL OPTIONS, not just the options that are most convenient for you, or else the poll becomes absolutely pointless and meaningless. Yes you can't edit it now, but your bias is pretty much established as a fact now anyway, so don't even bother replying, I won't waste anymore time with you. By that logic a millionaire that loses 500.000 dollars in income per year would be "poor". Relative != Absolute. He was talking about trend and trend is almost always more important then actual results in such enviroment as sc2 metagame. Also, I completly agree with the second paragraph, as the pool is clearly biased and not even funny..
Trends on their own also don't say anything without context. To take the millionaire example again. Even though his income is still miles above the national average, the loss of 500.000/year comes down to -50%. That's a STEEP trend downward. Yet somehow this person still isn't poor. How come?
|
On March 19 2012 21:45 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:11 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.- No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered. At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features. Well, this post is just nonsense on so many levels. First of all it's 15 terrans now and it used to be alot more than that, so in the last 2 months many terrans dropped out of Code S, so your argument that terran is still doing fine in Code S doesn't really make alot of sense from that perspective seeing as they actually "lost" alot of players in Code S. Second of all, why is it then that Protoss had the highest win rate last month in international and korean tournaments? You are obviously biased, just by not even considering to put that option into a poll which is supposed to be "fair". If you are gonna make a poll give us ALL OPTIONS, not just the options that are most convenient for you, or else the poll becomes absolutely pointless and meaningless. Yes you can't edit it now, but your bias is pretty much established as a fact now anyway, so don't even bother replying, I won't waste anymore time with you.
Kinda funny coming from one of the worst offenders from the "Where did all of the terrans go?" thread.
Why is TL allowing more and more balance whine on either side?
|
On March 19 2012 21:58 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:52 DarQraven wrote:On March 19 2012 21:45 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 19 2012 21:11 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.- No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered. At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features. Well, this post is just nonsense on so many levels. First of all it's 15 terrans now and it used to be alot more than that, so in the last 2 months many terrans dropped out of Code S, so your argument that terran is still doing fine in Code S doesn't really make alot of sense from that perspective seeing as they actually "lost" alot of players in Code S. Second of all, why is it then that Protoss had the highest win rate last month in international and korean tournaments? You are obviously biased, just by not even considering to put that option into a poll which is supposed to be "fair". If you are gonna make a poll give us ALL OPTIONS, not just the options that are most convenient for you, or else the poll becomes absolutely pointless and meaningless. Yes you can't edit it now, but your bias is pretty much established as a fact now anyway, so don't even bother replying, I won't waste anymore time with you. By that logic a millionaire that loses 500.000 dollars in income per year would be "poor". Relative != Absolute. He was talking about trend and trend is almost always more important then actual results in such enviroment as sc2 metagame. Also, I completly agree with the second paragraph, as the pool is clearly biased and not even funny..
How is it biased? It's a thread asking about whether or not Zerg is too strong against Protoss on macro maps. I play zerg. What's the bias exactly? that I didn't bother to include a lengthy analysis about how rocks affect ZvT? (Hint: They don't, because zergs cant take a 3rd at 24 supply in ZvT). Make your own thread if you want to talk about how weak Terran is or whatever. Meanwhile, notice that the guy complaining about bias against Terrans is named "ChaosTerran".
|
On March 19 2012 22:02 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:58 Everlong wrote:On March 19 2012 21:52 DarQraven wrote:On March 19 2012 21:45 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 19 2012 21:11 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.- No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered. At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features. Well, this post is just nonsense on so many levels. First of all it's 15 terrans now and it used to be alot more than that, so in the last 2 months many terrans dropped out of Code S, so your argument that terran is still doing fine in Code S doesn't really make alot of sense from that perspective seeing as they actually "lost" alot of players in Code S. Second of all, why is it then that Protoss had the highest win rate last month in international and korean tournaments? You are obviously biased, just by not even considering to put that option into a poll which is supposed to be "fair". If you are gonna make a poll give us ALL OPTIONS, not just the options that are most convenient for you, or else the poll becomes absolutely pointless and meaningless. Yes you can't edit it now, but your bias is pretty much established as a fact now anyway, so don't even bother replying, I won't waste anymore time with you. By that logic a millionaire that loses 500.000 dollars in income per year would be "poor". Relative != Absolute. He was talking about trend and trend is almost always more important then actual results in such enviroment as sc2 metagame. Also, I completly agree with the second paragraph, as the pool is clearly biased and not even funny.. How is it biased? It's a thread asking about whether or not Zerg is too strong against Protoss on macro maps. I play zerg. What's the bias exactly? that I didn't bother to include a lengthy analysis about how rocks affect ZvT? (Hint: They don't, because zergs cant take a 3rd at 24 supply in ZvT). Make your own thread if you want to talk about how weak Terran is or whatever. Meanwhile, notice that the guy complaining about bias against Terrans is named "ChaosTerran".
Just ignore him. He's one of the most vocal complainers in the thread about TvP. He just doesn't stop and the level of discussion is on battle.net levels.
|
On March 19 2012 22:00 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:58 Everlong wrote:On March 19 2012 21:52 DarQraven wrote:On March 19 2012 21:45 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 19 2012 21:11 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.- No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered. At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features. Well, this post is just nonsense on so many levels. First of all it's 15 terrans now and it used to be alot more than that, so in the last 2 months many terrans dropped out of Code S, so your argument that terran is still doing fine in Code S doesn't really make alot of sense from that perspective seeing as they actually "lost" alot of players in Code S. Second of all, why is it then that Protoss had the highest win rate last month in international and korean tournaments? You are obviously biased, just by not even considering to put that option into a poll which is supposed to be "fair". If you are gonna make a poll give us ALL OPTIONS, not just the options that are most convenient for you, or else the poll becomes absolutely pointless and meaningless. Yes you can't edit it now, but your bias is pretty much established as a fact now anyway, so don't even bother replying, I won't waste anymore time with you. By that logic a millionaire that loses 500.000 dollars in income per year would be "poor". Relative != Absolute. He was talking about trend and trend is almost always more important then actual results in such enviroment as sc2 metagame. Also, I completly agree with the second paragraph, as the pool is clearly biased and not even funny.. Trends on their own also don't say anything without context. To take the millionaire example again. Even though his income is still miles above the national average, the loss of 500.000/year comes down to -50%. That's a STEEP trend downward. Yet somehow this person still isn't poor. How come?
Hmm, I'm not sure your example with the millionaire here is appropriate. You are talking about context, yet it's very relevant what context we are talking about. But let's see - say you "as a millionaire" lose 500.000/year - is this a bad trend? Yes.. Would you concider yourself poor immidiately? I don't think so. But what if the trend continues and you do nothing about it. You might find yourself poor really, really quickly. The same goes with sc2 metagame, where the trend means no immediate problem, but it definitely will become one if unchecked. Don't you see?
|
On March 19 2012 22:02 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:58 Everlong wrote:On March 19 2012 21:52 DarQraven wrote:On March 19 2012 21:45 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 19 2012 21:11 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.- No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered. At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features. Well, this post is just nonsense on so many levels. First of all it's 15 terrans now and it used to be alot more than that, so in the last 2 months many terrans dropped out of Code S, so your argument that terran is still doing fine in Code S doesn't really make alot of sense from that perspective seeing as they actually "lost" alot of players in Code S. Second of all, why is it then that Protoss had the highest win rate last month in international and korean tournaments? You are obviously biased, just by not even considering to put that option into a poll which is supposed to be "fair". If you are gonna make a poll give us ALL OPTIONS, not just the options that are most convenient for you, or else the poll becomes absolutely pointless and meaningless. Yes you can't edit it now, but your bias is pretty much established as a fact now anyway, so don't even bother replying, I won't waste anymore time with you. By that logic a millionaire that loses 500.000 dollars in income per year would be "poor". Relative != Absolute. He was talking about trend and trend is almost always more important then actual results in such enviroment as sc2 metagame. Also, I completly agree with the second paragraph, as the pool is clearly biased and not even funny.. How is it biased? It's a thread asking about whether or not Zerg is too strong against Protoss on macro maps. I play zerg. What's the bias exactly? that I didn't bother to include a lengthy analysis about how rocks affect ZvT? (Hint: They don't, because zergs cant take a 3rd at 24 supply in ZvT). Make your own thread if you want to talk about how weak Terran is or whatever. Meanwhile, notice that the guy complaining about bias against Terrans is named "ChaosTerran".
Ok, I take it back, but look - how is it a well build poll if you make options like "Good for T/P", "Good for T/Z" and then go ahead and not give us an option "Good for Z/P"? One can see it as "biased", but it definitely is not well designed..
|
i think that big maps made game boring, there is only few tactics that pros use and there is only a few pros who dosent follow metagame.. But other wise big maps might be better for balance
|
The balance problem is not a problem of the maps, it is a problem of units. Terrans have no real high end tier unit with the battlecruiser being as it is right now. Protoss have... well, the mommaship. Buff battlecruisers and carrieres and all will be fine.
Blizzards argument about the lower level players having no fun is not true. Lower level players don´t care.
|
On March 19 2012 22:15 Aunvilgod wrote: The balance problem is not a problem of the maps, it is a problem of units. Terrans have no real high end tier unit with the battlecruiser being as it is right now. Protoss have... well, the mommaship. Buff battlecruisers and carrieres and all will be fine.
Blizzards argument about the lower level players having no fun is not true. Lower level players don´t care. Can we stop asking to buff carriers and battlecruisers? Buffs won't do anything as there are hard counters that destroy then so easily.
|
SC2 is a completely messed up game thanks to the latest string of fruits from the "bigger is always better!" mentality. The transitions between 1, 2, and 3 base economies are lost because getting up to 3 bases is essentially guaranteed unless someone chooses to make the game an instance of rock paper scissors that lasts 8-20 minutes longer than a more reasonable game of rps.
Daybreak and similar maps have also demonstrated that games which have essentially ended still have to take ~40 minutes to complete because there is no way to force an engagement; any attempt to end the game from the player who's ahead will result in a base trade, which you can't make yourself 100% sure you'll win until you have a quite large economy.
Worst of all, though, is what happens when both players get to 3+ base economies: the ONLY thing that matters in the game at that point is managing the artificially imposed 200 food supply cap. Everything else is irrelevant. So what's the proper way to handle this? You make the stuff that doesn't take supply, of course. So the map gets flooded with static defenses everywhere because that's the safest way you can do something useful with your money. And now all that fun harassment stuff that is the hallmark of medium sized maps is just gone, and the incentive to try to make stuff happen in the game is far outweighed by your desire to actually win, because playing the game then constitutes losing it.
The worst of it is super late game ZvP. The Zerg's zero supply costing "static" defenses can crawl from one base to the next, so that many late games consist of a Zerg making a brood lord + corrupter + Infestor ball and just parking it over an endlessly growing spine + spore forest which just slowly meanders across the map. Unless Zerg messes up and lets a Vortex hit the whole army, Protoss has no way to engage into this once it has developed. But Zerg can't really push at the Protoss, either, so long as Protoss does a decent job of managing the creep spread. The result is a stalemate which generally ends when one player gets too frustrated at the idiotic game that the gigantic maps have cursed them with and throws away their army to be done with it.
|
On March 19 2012 22:32 Crow! wrote: SC2 is a completely messed up game thanks to the latest string of fruits from the "bigger is always better!" mentality. The transitions between 1, 2, and 3 base economies are lost because getting up to 3 bases is essentially guaranteed unless someone chooses to make the game an instance of rock paper scissors that lasts 8-20 minutes longer than a more reasonable game of rps.
Daybreak and similar maps have also demonstrated that games which have essentially ended still have to take ~40 minutes to complete because there is no way to force an engagement; any attempt to end the game from the player who's ahead will result in a base trade, which you can't make yourself 100% sure you'll win until you have a quite large economy.
Worst of all, though, is what happens when both players get to 3+ base economies: the ONLY thing that matters in the game at that point is managing the artificially imposed 200 food supply cap. Everything else is irrelevant. So what's the proper way to handle this? You make the stuff that doesn't take supply, of course. So the map gets flooded with static defenses everywhere because that's the safest way you can do something useful with your money. And now all that fun harassment stuff that is the hallmark of medium sized maps is just gone, and the incentive to try to make stuff happen in the game is far outweighed by your desire to actually win, because playing the game then constitutes losing it.
The worst of it is super late game ZvP. The Zerg's zero supply costing "static" defenses can crawl from one base to the next, so that many late games consist of a Zerg making a brood lord + corrupter + Infestor ball and just parking it over an endlessly growing spine + spore forest which just slowly meanders across the map. Unless Zerg messes up and lets a Vortex hit the whole army, Protoss has no way to engage into this once it has developed. But Zerg can't really push at the Protoss, either, so long as Protoss does a decent job of managing the creep spread. The result is a stalemate which generally ends when one player gets too frustrated at the idiotic game that the gigantic maps have cursed them with and throws away their army to be done with it.
What about late-game TvZ then were action takes place everywhere, Terran is dropping everywhere trying to deny expansions and Zerg is tech switching like mad man, etc? Seems like it's a problem of a matchup rather then whole game to me..Nothing that can't be fixed in upcoming expansions with new units and new maps.
|
On March 19 2012 22:15 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 22:02 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:58 Everlong wrote:On March 19 2012 21:52 DarQraven wrote:On March 19 2012 21:45 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 19 2012 21:11 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:03 ChaosTerran wrote: Can you please add the option "Good for Z and P, bad for T" as that is actually the right option and it's not even in the poll, which I find not only ignorant but also unfair. If you are going to make a poll at least give us all the options and not just the one's that are more convenient to you. I will repeat myself for as long as you don't add the option and play fair. Just saying.- No, I can't, you can't edit polls. Don't bother repeating yourself, it's not possible even if I wanted to. I put an "Other" category just in case someone was not satisfied with the choices I offered. At the top levels Terran is still dominant even though they play on large macro maps. In the 32man Code S, there are 16 terrans. The thread wasn't really about Terran anyways, as the nature of ZvT keeps zerg in check all on its own without help from map features. Well, this post is just nonsense on so many levels. First of all it's 15 terrans now and it used to be alot more than that, so in the last 2 months many terrans dropped out of Code S, so your argument that terran is still doing fine in Code S doesn't really make alot of sense from that perspective seeing as they actually "lost" alot of players in Code S. Second of all, why is it then that Protoss had the highest win rate last month in international and korean tournaments? You are obviously biased, just by not even considering to put that option into a poll which is supposed to be "fair". If you are gonna make a poll give us ALL OPTIONS, not just the options that are most convenient for you, or else the poll becomes absolutely pointless and meaningless. Yes you can't edit it now, but your bias is pretty much established as a fact now anyway, so don't even bother replying, I won't waste anymore time with you. By that logic a millionaire that loses 500.000 dollars in income per year would be "poor". Relative != Absolute. He was talking about trend and trend is almost always more important then actual results in such enviroment as sc2 metagame. Also, I completly agree with the second paragraph, as the pool is clearly biased and not even funny.. How is it biased? It's a thread asking about whether or not Zerg is too strong against Protoss on macro maps. I play zerg. What's the bias exactly? that I didn't bother to include a lengthy analysis about how rocks affect ZvT? (Hint: They don't, because zergs cant take a 3rd at 24 supply in ZvT). Make your own thread if you want to talk about how weak Terran is or whatever. Meanwhile, notice that the guy complaining about bias against Terrans is named "ChaosTerran". Ok, I take it back, but look - how is it a well build poll if you make options like "Good for T/P", "Good for T/Z" and then go ahead and not give us an option "Good for Z/P"? One can see it as "biased", but it definitely is not well designed..
Which is exactly my point. You can't just put in the option that it's good for terran and not give us the option that is bad for terran. That's pretty much like in a fascist regime where you can only vote yes or can't vote at all.
|
The picture of Slag Pits just reminds me HOW bad the pool used to be. I was the kind of guy who always supported small maps; I wanted that variety of playstyle Blizzard talked about! Looking back now, I'm so glad we've moved in the direction we have. Aggressive plays are still totally doable on most maps, and we don't have to deal with shit maps like Slag Pits. If I had to play on it now, I actually don't know what I would do. I kind of liked Xel'Naga Caverns, because you COULD macro on it, but it was still a haven for ridiculous beta cheese (every terran in the world seemed to 3rax Protoss on it, every TvT was gas first cloak or proxy siege tank/marauder). I wouldn't mind some smaller maps in the pool, as long as they are well designed, which the previous ladder maps often weren't.
|
Good OP, but Blizzard did definitely not 'forsee' this current state of the game. I look at the History of map pools and I get no sense of "intelligent thought" on their behalf.
Currently I do feel that Zerg has it too easy in ZvP yes, speaking as a Protoss player. I don't repeatedly lose to it, neither do professional Protoss players, its not like the 1-1-1 was back in its prime. But I think its just a matter of time until people figure some stuff out, or Blizzard throws another Balance Hammer at our testicles and then everything changes. Perhaps people will start using Protoss Mech, one of the most fun things I've ever used when dicking around.
|
I think it's good for Zerg because zerg have been trying to macro even on non-macro maps, since the beginning of the game. Terran and Protoss on the other hand took every opportunity they had to do very agressive styles and so it will take longer for them to adapt. However, the players in the GSL have adapted and I don't think anyone can claim it's imbalanced towards zerg. In fact, we've always had a steady pool of terrans but only a few heroes in the Zerg and Protoss clan. I feel like Protoss is starting to get this pool of players as well, while Zerg still relies on some unlikely heroes lead by DRG.
And so while larger maps do fit the current Zerg style very well, I think it's very good for the game in general. Other races will adapt, and most already have ( 3 nexus on 1 gate v terran, CC first -> hellions -> 3rd CC vs zerg, ect. )
|
I feel like the biggest problem with sc2 is the of of the three races, namely protoss. Is the gameplay in Zvp entertaining? is pvp entertaining? is tvp entertaining? No matter the maps the fact is that protoss have a severe desgin flaw. Although gameplay have is a lot better now compared how it just to be with 1base play against the zerg.
|
Even though your thready directly relates to ZvP, we still need to address the TvP late game scenario.
More macro maps = more likely to go to late game = more Terran frustration, as we have seen that 2 out of 3 (I`m guessing) TvP threads are Terrans complaining about Protoss` late game.
|
It's good for the game overall. Right now it's hard for Protoss in ZvP, no doubt about that, but in games that go past the mass roach phase the Mothership/Archon combo gives Toss the edge against even the mightiest of Zerg lategame comps. The only problem is that defending a third against that 200/200 roach wave that hits so early is really difficult
While that's certainly annoying, shrinking the maps isn't the answer. Big maps create more exciting and strategic games, and right now PvZ is the only match-up that's suffering because of them. Big maps are helping the traditionally PvP and ZvZ mirrors, and all the Terran match-ups seem as stable and solid as ever. PvZ is the one tricky spot, and even there the win-rates are even despite the mass roach play
|
On March 19 2012 23:16 MajorityofOne wrote: It's good for the game overall. Right now it's hard for Protoss in ZvP, no doubt about that, but in games that go past the mass roach phase the Mothership/Archon combo gives Toss the edge against even the mightiest of Zerg lategame comps. The only problem is that defending a third against that 200/200 roach wave that hits so early is really difficult
While that's certainly annoying, shrinking the maps isn't the answer. Big maps create more exciting and strategic games, and right now PvZ is the only match-up that's suffering because of them. Big maps are helping the traditionally PvP and ZvZ mirrors, and all the Terran match-ups seem as stable and solid as ever. PvZ is the one tricky spot, and even there the win-rates are even despite the mass roach play
How can you say that all Terran match-ups seems as stable and solid as ever? I think only a guy who doesn't play, watch or care about other matchups than his own can say something like that.
|
|
On March 19 2012 23:27 Barrin wrote:By the way, Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 <-- this is partially meant to cure the problem brought up here. I call it the "protoss 3rd base problem". It seemed pretty inelegant in the OP though and I wasn't sure people would get it, but thank you for explaining it. Will probably link to here in breadth of gameplay OP now.
O_o
Even though I was a bit scathing to you in your own thread, you link to mine? I am humbled <3
Consider it a treaty then, I've got the bachelor's degree, you've got the PHD. Linked you at the end of the OP.
|
Question: not to bring up a volatile issue but might the steady transition to large macro maps give meching tvp more of a chance to be experimented/explored. Wasn't a major issue of mech the fragile early game?
|
On March 19 2012 23:45 Sc2eleazar wrote: Question: not to bring up a volatile issue but might the steady transition to large macro maps give meching tvp more of a chance to be experimented/explored. Wasn't a major issue of mech the fragile early game?
Not really sure that's within the scope of this thread o_O
besides, i think the problem with mech is that zealots > mech, lol. but what do i know, i make zerglings
|
I'd like to know why OP quotes stephano as saying how Z is favored vs P and ignores how much better players like DRG and nestea have said multiple times it's the other way around. I mean if you really want to argue that, why not bring up both sides?
And no, macro maps are always good and always will be better than small maps. The game should not be the cheese/all in fest that it has been and that in a way it can still be. Cheese and all ins while being viable, need to be extremely risky and a failed cheese/all in should have almost no chance of coming back. With smaller maps and the current game design, that's just not true right now. With smaller maps cheese/all ins become way too effective.
|
Speaking from a Terran point of view, I think the Big maps give us advantages as well. Attacking at multible locations at once with drops is easier, and harder to defend. You do need the multi tasking though.
What I see more and more with protoss, is that they seem to loose because their army is to weak when it isnt in a ball. Sometimes you see zerg just streaming in units to all the bases of the protoss. With the big maps they just dont seem to be able to move their army around efficiently (compared to the other races). What I am trying to say is that I am not sure if the problem lays in the ability from the zerg to take 3 bases in 4/5/6 min. But more in the inability from the protoss to ever take a fourth and defend it.
|
In the end though, I think the combination of map/metagame shifts has brought us to a point of defend -> dream army X -> big deciding engagement/set of engagements. Each matchup has slowly slipped that way. Sure early aggression ("cheese" if you will) can still stop somebody who is being overly eco-agressive, but on the whole the game has slowly shifted towards the inevitable deathball/bioball/bl-infestor ball/etc. as defense/economy strategies have reached their conclusion.
But then again even that meta is slowly shifting. Dream army X can't be everywhere at once and typically is fairly slow. Hence if I attack/drop around it then I can cripple you to the point where that dream army must win because it has nothing behind it. With that we hav the rise of static defenses. Mass spines being practically part of the main army...mass cannons at a new expand.
What remains to be seen is how the meta will continue to shift. Perhaps deathballs will fall out of favor to something else. Mass drop base racing... Return of early aggression.. Who knows *shrug*. However what is clear is that BLizzard cannOt anticipate the next step. minor changes to deny something blatantly unbeatable but the meta has not settled enough to really see the next step.
|
i feel bored the new metagame
|
The new metagame is the reason why I stopped playing. The macro playstyle and the imbalance in early-mid pvz is frustrating.
What? Forge expand into sentry stalker defense while your opponent goes fast third and hope your opponent gets caught in force fields?
There needs to be more close distance maps that are still viable in micro and macro.
The maps in the metagame favor macro games. There needs to be more viability for rush maps and micro oriented maps. Say, a better version of steppes.
If only the 2gate rush was still scary. Now its so easy to shut down even if you dont scout it.
The game is just boring as hell now and it isn't even fun to play.
|
The current ZvP metagame definitely seems to be a bit favoring the Zerg right now [I play Zerg by the way] but I don't really think that changing the way maps are layed out is the proper way to fix this, I think it should come down to racial balance over map balance. I'm perfectly happy with the way the map pools have been looking lately and I enjoy being able to rush out 2 expansions at the start of the game and flood Roaches if I should so choose and do not want maps with rocks blocking any possible 3rd base to stop this, I would rather see Protoss get some new units or abilities to help them compete if this turns out to be a problem. Using map design to force certain play styles just seems so wrong to me and it doesn't really seem to address the real issues, it's more like putting a bandaid on them.
Now, just to add a bit of speculation, I would really like to see Protoss get some real overhaul to the way their army works so that it doesn't gain all of it's strength from being in a ball, the whole "deathball" seems to be the biggest issue at hand. On one hand the Protoss army can be incredibly strong in a ball but then it becomes incredibly weak if you split it apart at all. I would like to see a bit more of a middle ground because currently sure Protoss may be able to get 3 bases up but then they have to spend all of their time running around defending those 3 bases over and over or risk losing everything while Zerg can expand everywhere and achieve Hive Tech and Protoss will almost never be able to move out without simply dying. If Protoss had some kind of unit that doubled as a defensive unit and a harassing unit similar to how the Mutalisk works it would be a lot better I think, or even just some kind of unit that acts to control space...ironically Protoss could really use something like the Shredder which is supposedly going to the Terrans, the race who probably needs it the least.
I forsee PvZ being a big problem for Blizzard to address here in the near future, in the meantime I'm gonna keep on racking up ladder wins vs Protoss. Thanks Stephano, for breaking the metagame.
:D kekekekek
Edit: Then again maybe Protoss will be able to figure something clever out, the only thing that comes to mind is some really well-executed all-ins since I've seen a few that have blown my mind, but that still doesn't really resolve the macro game issue.
|
Who's to say that PvZ is entirely figured out? What if going for a quick nexus isn't optimal, or someone discovers a way to kill a zerg base early on?
|
There's something wrong when an 18hatch can't get killed by a 2gate.
|
Not a problem with ZvP, it's actually a problem with Terran. Can't walk the group of bio across the map with instant reinforcement or it's so hard to control and macro up. Zerg is too mobile, Protoss is too strong with a death ball late game. I feel like map should also be included with rush/mid and large macro style for all races.
|
... protoss does only one build in all ZvP, and zerg does only one thing in response.
I don't really see why only protoss need options ... perhaps, you know, zerg need options to get through forcefields, or something, so there would be a way to break forge expand? But since there isn't ... yeah.
Right now ZvP is pretty much figured out, and it still seems quite fine for P at the highest level. The thing is, there aren't a lot of options in the game when it comes to starting build orders for either race, with the way the game has been figured out more and more.
Protoss feels behind if they do anything but nexus forge, or forge nexus.
Zerg feels behind if they do anything but 3 hatch as a response to forge expand.
Both are in my opinion correct.
Then you reach the 8:00 or so when the game diverges, because based on the openings, it gives itself pretty much. Warpgate is done, and the choice is ...
Protoss: 1) Fast third and defend it. 2) 8 minutes 6-8 gate zealot sentry all in. 3) 4 gate +1 ground weapons 1 stargate pressure to third into expanding (11:00) and tech of choice (robo, blink combo usually) 4) +2 blink all in. 5) 10:30 sentry immortal zealot with stalker reinforcement all in. 6) 11:00 3 colossus with range, warp prism, gateway all in. 7) 10:00 5 DT's warp in, hoping they do a ton of damage.
... and so on. You will not as zerg hold all these variants 'doing the same thing'. If that was true, top protoss wouldn't be doing so well. Because they know how they can keep you guessing and make mistakes.
And the zerg reacts and does what he thinks is the right choice.
But all other builds have been tried and they are inferior. For both races. So that's where we are.
The only reason it doesn't work this way in the other matchups is because mirror is weird, and Terran have flexibility the other races doesn't ... note how zergs open the same way (15 hatch, and ... ooooh, is that 16 or 17 pool and when is that gas there?), whereas terrans have at least 4 viable openings in the same time frame (2 rax, 1 rax expand, gas rax, cc first) in ZvT - Z have one. All others are inferior ... because there's nothing viable you can do differently.
|
Sucks for toss since mutas will be so good.
|
I just want a funpool. I don't care so much about the map balance as long as it isn't ridiculously favoured. I want a good variety of rush maps, I want close positions and I also want good macro maps. As a macro map Taldarim Alter is my favorite. As a rush type map I guess it would be metalopolis or Shattered, both with close spawns on. I can't even remember the last time I experienced a rush :/. Right now strategies are too limited with always faraway spawns. You'll always be set for a macro game...
|
I love bigger macro maps BUT if toss players don't figure a decent way to to deal with 3 base zerg max roach without doing stupid 2 base allins every game I feel roaches or zergs macro mechanics must be looked into or maps must find a way to balance it (preferably the former).
I don't want to go back to smaller maps but I also don't want to struggle to take thirds and end up loosing to a 5 base hive tech zerg....
Terran have a much easier time expanding with the command center being able to be built in the safety of your main and the planetary fortress making expos much easier to hold.
|
I personally don't think Zerg is that overpowered with bigger maps, but if balancing to accommodate Zerg being too powerful on these maps is necessary, just add a lot of terrain, Zerg struggles very hard against high/low ground areas and/or chokes.
|
Let's take BW. If you just had an open field battle (not considering bases), the game would be pretty well balanced. I have suspected that the reason for the resource limitation and the small maps was because of poor balance for a long time.
|
On March 19 2012 20:52 di3alot wrote: they also said that on big maps zerg is imba at-least that what there internal tests showed them. you should mention that
a protoss 3/3 on 5 bases with 25+ gates is imba
|
Having bigger maps is always better for the game. The game will be better from a spectator and a player perspective if there are multiple small engagements and harass all over the map as opposed to a small map where there's only army vs army battles.
ZvP is more or less fine, even with the bigger maps like Daybreak in my opinion. Sure the 200/200 roach push is hard to deal with but there's a similar timing before Zerg gets Broods/Infestors that Protoss can abuse too. If anything it's slightly in favor of Zerg, but not enough to justify the exaggerations of the state of ZvP right now in my opinion.
|
On March 20 2012 03:17 JohnMatrix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 20:52 di3alot wrote: they also said that on big maps zerg is imba at-least that what there internal tests showed them. you should mention that a protoss 3/3 on 5 bases with 25+ gates is imba
being able to warp in GW units against a mass of BL/infestor/spines is usually not very helpful...
Also, larva, so STFU....
|
The days where we had slag pits T.T-WTF were you thinking blizzard.? Glad to see that they changed the map pool to revolve around competitive play, they're moving in the right direction which makes me hopeful for HOTS.
|
On March 19 2012 21:34 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:30 Vul wrote:
This I absolutely agree with but like several people have said, there's no evidence in the OP.
Of course there's no evidence. The entire post was a question, not a statement. Sounds like a pretty bad case of TLDR to me.
The entire post was a question? Are you sure? Speaking of TLDR, I'll go back and show you exactly which claims you make without evidence.
He's at least partially right, and speaks with authority, since he very well could take credit for our "Standard ZvP", Pool hatch hatch. So long as you scout a protoss fast expand build of some sort, it's the go-to build, and simply adjust the quantities of lings, roaches and queens to fit what your opponent is doing.
Looks like you missed a few question marks when you asked these "questions." As it reads now, you're claiming that Stephano speaks with authority, not asking whether he does. You also say that he's at least "partially right" which isn't a question either. These are both claims you make with no evidence.
Also, you're not following along in the conversation. I was responding to someone else's post which said that only the game can determine whether it's truly imbalanced (based on numbers), I was not responding specifically to the OP. So as I pointed out, there is no evidence which actually demonstrates the argument. I didn't say that there should be evidence, I just said that there wasn't any, so if you're going to answer the question based on evidence then the answer is absolutely no.
Next time, don't respond to my post with bullshit if you're not going to take a second and think about what people are actually discussing.
edit: Also, if you're going to reiterate that Stephano is an expert for whatever reason and therefore you were using that as evidence, then know that that's probably a non sequitur. 'Appeal to authority' is illogical (generally) but it can be done properly to at least provide context and say that it's reasonable to assume that it might be true for the purposes of the conversation. In the way that you used it, though, imo it's a fallacy.
|
On March 19 2012 21:07 Ryndika wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 20:59 Vul wrote:Lots of zerg are saying PvZ is favoring the protoss, but I am one of the only ones saying the zerg is way ahead of the protoss. The protoss have no real strategy choices against zerg, they always have to do the same thing to be safe, while the zerg can change strategy and still win and be safe at the same time. I feel like Blizzard needs to patch something for protoss to give them more options in the metagame, because zerg has only to do one build to counter all the possible build from protoss, and its really stupid i think. Stephano seems to say whatever it is that people aren't expecting. IMO he's wrong most of the time, though. Everyone wants to go to Korea to train, and dreams of winning of a GSL? Stephano doesn't think Korea is necessary, and says he has no interest in GSL. Everyone practices their ass off? Stephano says he never practices. People think Protoss is OP against Zerg? Stephano thinks Zerg is OP against Protoss. I dunno, some people have personality types that motivate them to be very individualistic. IMO that Stephano quote says a lot more about Stephano than about the state of ZvP. How many other pros think that way? And Short90 is right, there are no actual warrants or evidence for any of the claims in the OP. According to latest SOTG stephano trains around 6hours a day. And he also stated that it was some time ago when he had very little practice. You go too far in analyzing stephano and you don't even follow him clearly. And it's not about what stephano or someone else says, it's about what the GAME says. Also guy who has that good W/L ratio against zerg isn't unexpected to come out and say this is pretty easy because I can just spam 1-2 units and win. e:Also theorethically we could fix toss and tweak T a more (they alrdy have pretty good static defense and sensor tower) so defending more expansions against multiprong zerg attacks is viable. Everyone would win probably.
And yet the best Zerg in the world, DRG, just lost to Creator at the KSL the other day on a big macro map, Daybreak... He lost to Genius on the same map in the GSL finals too. So maybe Stephano should teach DRG how to play against P and win easily by using the same simple strategy against all P builds?
Or maybe Stephano should actually play and win against Protoss like MC, Creator and Genius instead of Grubby, before anyone can take anything he says about balance seriously.
|
What dustin browder said makes sense. his job isnt to decide maps for tournament play. correct me if im wrong, but even in bw, how many actual blizzard maps were used in the tournaments. werent most of the maps used made by the iccup mapmaking team. even nowadays, most tournaments are not using the full blizzard map pool.
|
35% disfavor the map sizes getting bigger (weakening all-in based play), citing zerg op as a main part in their reason? o_0;;
|
Protoss is a broken race. The supply densitiy is too high and warpgate mechanic favours large maps - a complete redesign is necessary otherwise ladder will be Protosscraft vs Zergcraft where Protoss is heavily favoured. Broodwar was balanced in this regard since there was no broken warpgate mechanics.
|
I think if you removed the watchtowers (which is a big part of zerg greed) then the game would be totally different.
Protoss and terran dont rely on watchtower use nearly as much as zerg does.
|
Really i think that rocks shouldn't be in place except to stop lines of attack that can be opened. However, there is a need to help the toss metagame because we are kinda blocked off with the FFE. What the majority need are larger macro maps, but something with an almost magical balance and i think that is the 180 sec rush time, long enough to get defenses up, but not too long to make rushes fail, like midgame pushes.
|
On March 20 2012 03:41 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:07 Ryndika wrote:On March 19 2012 20:59 Vul wrote:Lots of zerg are saying PvZ is favoring the protoss, but I am one of the only ones saying the zerg is way ahead of the protoss. The protoss have no real strategy choices against zerg, they always have to do the same thing to be safe, while the zerg can change strategy and still win and be safe at the same time. I feel like Blizzard needs to patch something for protoss to give them more options in the metagame, because zerg has only to do one build to counter all the possible build from protoss, and its really stupid i think. Stephano seems to say whatever it is that people aren't expecting. IMO he's wrong most of the time, though. Everyone wants to go to Korea to train, and dreams of winning of a GSL? Stephano doesn't think Korea is necessary, and says he has no interest in GSL. Everyone practices their ass off? Stephano says he never practices. People think Protoss is OP against Zerg? Stephano thinks Zerg is OP against Protoss. I dunno, some people have personality types that motivate them to be very individualistic. IMO that Stephano quote says a lot more about Stephano than about the state of ZvP. How many other pros think that way? And Short90 is right, there are no actual warrants or evidence for any of the claims in the OP. According to latest SOTG stephano trains around 6hours a day. And he also stated that it was some time ago when he had very little practice. You go too far in analyzing stephano and you don't even follow him clearly. And it's not about what stephano or someone else says, it's about what the GAME says. Also guy who has that good W/L ratio against zerg isn't unexpected to come out and say this is pretty easy because I can just spam 1-2 units and win. e:Also theorethically we could fix toss and tweak T a more (they alrdy have pretty good static defense and sensor tower) so defending more expansions against multiprong zerg attacks is viable. Everyone would win probably. And yet the best Zerg in the world, DRG, just lost to Creator at the KSL the other day on a big macro map, Daybreak... He lost to Genius on the same map in the GSL finals too. So maybe Stephano should teach DRG how to play against P and win easily by using the same simple strategy against all P builds? Or maybe Stephano should actually play and win against Protoss like MC, Creator and Genius instead of Grubby, before anyone can take anything he says about balance seriously.
DRG losing two games out of like 10 is fairly common. It's not uncommon for even DRG to drop games here and there. Stephano doesn't win all his games vs Protoss either.
But yeah, I do agree that Stephano should play some more top tier Protoss before saying the ZvP is completely broken. Better micro with blink stalkers and FFs might make all the difference in the midgame "advantage" that Zerg has over Protoss.
|
United States181 Posts
I think maps that force you to expand a lot will make match-ups more technical. Currently 3 base Terran/Protoss is a lot stronger at the mid game and beyond because of the cost efficiency of the units. Certainly I like Cloud Kingdom because the 3rd is easy to take, but very difficult to defend for any race. With a 3rd that is difficult to secure like on BW maps, it makes the match-ups more dynamic/volatile.
|
I like the 5 zergs that voted "Too good for P/T". Yeah sure ....
|
On March 20 2012 04:22 AGIANTSMURF wrote: I think if you removed the watchtowers (which is a big part of zerg greed) then the game would be totally different.
Protoss and terran dont rely on watchtower use nearly as much as zerg does. I've never liked watchtowers, I think it promotes degenerative play.
|
The poll isn't correct: "Too good for zerg, zerg imba"...
False. Zerg isn't imba: Stephano is. ^^
|
On March 20 2012 04:56 EdSlyB wrote: The poll isn't correct: "Too good for zerg, zerg imba"...
False. Zerg isn't imba: Stephano is. ^^
Just imagine someone with actual unit control added to his skillset!!!!!!!!
|
On March 20 2012 03:40 Vul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:34 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 21:30 Vul wrote:
This I absolutely agree with but like several people have said, there's no evidence in the OP.
Of course there's no evidence. The entire post was a question, not a statement. Sounds like a pretty bad case of TLDR to me. The entire post was a question? Are you sure? Speaking of TLDR, I'll go back and show you exactly which claims you make without evidence. Show nested quote +He's at least partially right, and speaks with authority, since he very well could take credit for our "Standard ZvP", Pool hatch hatch. So long as you scout a protoss fast expand build of some sort, it's the go-to build, and simply adjust the quantities of lings, roaches and queens to fit what your opponent is doing. Looks like you missed a few question marks when you asked these "questions." As it reads now, you're claiming that Stephano speaks with authority, not asking whether he does. You also say that he's at least "partially right" which isn't a question either. These are both claims you make with no evidence. Also, you're not following along in the conversation. I was responding to someone else's post which said that only the game can determine whether it's truly imbalanced (based on numbers), I was not responding specifically to the OP. So as I pointed out, there is no evidence which actually demonstrates the argument. I didn't say that there should be evidence, I just said that there wasn't any, so if you're going to answer the question based on evidence then the answer is absolutely no. Next time, don't respond to my post with bullshit if you're not going to take a second and think about what people are actually discussing. edit: Also, if you're going to reiterate that Stephano is an expert for whatever reason and therefore you were using that as evidence, then know that that's probably a non sequitur. 'Appeal to authority' is illogical (generally) but it can be done properly to at least provide context and say that it's reasonable to assume that it might be true for the purposes of the conversation. In the way that you used it, though, imo it's a fallacy.
Appeal to authority about what, though? All I said was that he a) knows what he's talking about and b) Found a build that is a swiss army knife. That's the only conclusion I made. Quit being a dillhole dude. What argument am I making in the OP? The point of the OP, literally, is raising a bunch of points both ways and asking for feedback. I do not have a dog in the fight. I do not make a statement either way. I constantly say "This is imbalanced - or is it? This is too strong - or is it? Blizzard tried to stop this - or did they?" Yes, I included Stephano's statement on balance, but I did not say if he is correct or not. In fact, RIGHT AFTER the piece you snipped out of context I said "But win rates are fairly even in spite of that". Seriously? I go back and forth every other sentence. To only cite the parts where i go "back" is reading comprehension failure.
You're irrationally hostile and also trying to "prove me wrong" when the whole reason I made the thread was to spark discussion on the matter. Don't argue with me, I'm not trying to prove anything. You're saying i'm "WRONG AND HAVE NO EVIDENCE" when the summation of the thread is a community poll with many options. Why would I leave the entire post open ended if I was trying to declare something?
|
776 Posts
On March 19 2012 19:53 Reyis wrote: "Shit for everyone, broken metagame, killing esports" Don't believe in this answer but I picked it nonetheless just because it sounds ridiculously awesome.
|
You forgot the best poll option, too good for zerg, but still better for the game.
I think that it will give too much of advantage to zerg in ZvP, but that overall the game will improve by a greater margin than this imbalance grows.
But I do agree that ZvP blows to play as protoss, I don't want to say it's imba, just not very many options available.
|
On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made. Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder. it was metalopolis. 33% chance of smallest map in game, 33% chance of mediocre map 33% chance of bad air dominant map.
as for playing PvZ, since i play both races i kind of think the matchup is balanced. but i guess i have a very unique perspective.
i truly think FFE -> stargate play -> third and robo for a couple immortals and warp prism and observers -> fleet beacon + archives for pheonix range + storm . and then get support bay as game gets late for collosus and warp prism speed. is what will be the future and basic standard of PvZ, it flows very well, responds to the best responses of zerg at any point, requires a bit of micro skill to maintain the lead, and always flows in the direction of more and more gas heavy units. you expand at the safe points of the game easily.
|
Because of the large amount of two base timings and the map-shrinking warp-in mechanic, I don't think bigger maps are necessarily better for Zerg against Protoss.
It's not like Z can triple expand or anything. The double expand before gas play is standard but it also seems to be quite well figured out by Protoss players.
I don't think map size has much to do with the matchup as long as the map isn't too small. My problem with the matchup is more with that the Zerg, at a certain point, simply cannot engage the Protoss army which leads to way too many base races and "attack and hope" counter-attacks. Just think of ZvT. Even though there are times to avoid the T army, Z is usually able to engage and the outcome is based on numbers, micro, maneuvering, etc. No amount of micro will help when slamming your army up against a P deathball. I guess that's a topic for a different thread though.
|
I think it's perfectly fine. Protoss still has a variety of options, it's up to the player whether or not the game is nr20.
|
Judging by the posts it looks like I am one of the few people who still enjoys watching this game...
|
6 mineral maps are the future :3
|
lol, stephano didn't invent pool, hatch, hatch to be honest there probably is no sure way of who did it first. But I will say the first time I saw it used in a competitive match was in the GSL and it was Nestea and Losira who popularized it and was later known as IM zerg style, if you do some searching on TL you will find the strategy thread.
|
I see some Zergs saying they can't beat a Protoss deathball if the map is too big and too easy to take expansions on, but all we've seen happen so far in pro-level PvZ is Zergs failing to get hive tech in time (which even David Kim and Day9 say is unbeatable) when Protoss players defend mass roach attacks perfectly. The only danger in ZvP, IMO is failing to scout an all-in. If Toss takes a fast third you can kill him (if he isn't Huk) with mass roach pretty easily, or go for faster hive tech if he's going expand plus power-up to deathball and just build a few less roaches.
This is not a balance thing, btw, it's just Protoss needs to practice FFE into Stargate into third play, IMO. It requires a lot of multi-tasking, but now that there's a way to not die to mutas, it'll end up being quite strong.
|
Rocks would actually fix the problem of zerg getting away with 4 minute thirds
|
On March 19 2012 18:50 Exigaet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 18:38 Manit0u wrote:On March 19 2012 18:21 darkscream wrote:The future Is that the SC2 version of Nostalgia? The layout is more similar to Match Point. Except that the third is a mineral only and the 3rd gas is too far away from Zerg turns it into a Zerg unfavoured map xd The type of ramps which allow/constrict army movement are similar though.
|
On March 20 2012 07:58 emc wrote: lol, stephano didn't invent pool, hatch, hatch to be honest there probably is no sure way of who did it first. But I will say the first time I saw it used in a competitive match was in the GSL and it was Nestea and Losira who popularized it and was later known as IM zerg style, if you do some searching on TL you will find the strategy thread.
Sssshhh!! Let his fans believe he invented everything...
|
On March 20 2012 08:38 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 07:58 emc wrote: lol, stephano didn't invent pool, hatch, hatch to be honest there probably is no sure way of who did it first. But I will say the first time I saw it used in a competitive match was in the GSL and it was Nestea and Losira who popularized it and was later known as IM zerg style, if you do some searching on TL you will find the strategy thread. Sssshhh!! Let his fans believe he invented everything...
No fan has sayd he invented pool, hatch, hatch. But what he did invent is the "Stephano style" (that many zergs now try to copy) And what is that? Its the gas timings and upgrade timings and thats why he is very special
|
On March 20 2012 08:44 Benjamin80 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 08:38 sitromit wrote:On March 20 2012 07:58 emc wrote: lol, stephano didn't invent pool, hatch, hatch to be honest there probably is no sure way of who did it first. But I will say the first time I saw it used in a competitive match was in the GSL and it was Nestea and Losira who popularized it and was later known as IM zerg style, if you do some searching on TL you will find the strategy thread. Sssshhh!! Let his fans believe he invented everything... No fan has sayd he invented pool, hatch, hatch. But what he did invent is the "Stephano style" (that many zergs now try to copy) And what is that? Its the gas timings and upgrade timings and thats why he is very special
I didn't say he invented it. I said he deserves credit for the style being popular, which he does!
|
On March 20 2012 08:44 Benjamin80 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 08:38 sitromit wrote:On March 20 2012 07:58 emc wrote: lol, stephano didn't invent pool, hatch, hatch to be honest there probably is no sure way of who did it first. But I will say the first time I saw it used in a competitive match was in the GSL and it was Nestea and Losira who popularized it and was later known as IM zerg style, if you do some searching on TL you will find the strategy thread. Sssshhh!! Let his fans believe he invented everything... No fan has sayd he invented pool, hatch, hatch. But what he did invent is the "Stephano style" (that many zergs now try to copy) And what is that? Its the gas timings and upgrade timings and thats why he is very special
Oh please, those gas and upgrade timings and their 10000 variations have been around for a long time, and were around for a long time before anyone even knew who Stephano was. And there's nothing fixed about them, everyone has their own timings, based on what they scout and what they think they can get away with. Even Stephano was saying in his interview the other day, that he doesn't have specific timings about when he puts down his Roach Warren etc, that he goes by feeling.
|
On March 20 2012 08:53 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 08:44 Benjamin80 wrote:On March 20 2012 08:38 sitromit wrote:On March 20 2012 07:58 emc wrote: lol, stephano didn't invent pool, hatch, hatch to be honest there probably is no sure way of who did it first. But I will say the first time I saw it used in a competitive match was in the GSL and it was Nestea and Losira who popularized it and was later known as IM zerg style, if you do some searching on TL you will find the strategy thread. Sssshhh!! Let his fans believe he invented everything... No fan has sayd he invented pool, hatch, hatch. But what he did invent is the "Stephano style" (that many zergs now try to copy) And what is that? Its the gas timings and upgrade timings and thats why he is very special I didn't say he invented it. I said he deserves credit for the style being popular, which he does!
Maybe if you're following only the European scene, yeah, maybe then you can credit him for making it popular.
|
On March 20 2012 08:44 Benjamin80 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 08:38 sitromit wrote:On March 20 2012 07:58 emc wrote: lol, stephano didn't invent pool, hatch, hatch to be honest there probably is no sure way of who did it first. But I will say the first time I saw it used in a competitive match was in the GSL and it was Nestea and Losira who popularized it and was later known as IM zerg style, if you do some searching on TL you will find the strategy thread. Sssshhh!! Let his fans believe he invented everything... No fan has sayd he invented pool, hatch, hatch. But what he did invent is the "Stephano style" (that many zergs now try to copy) And what is that? Its the gas timings and upgrade timings and thats why he is very special He didn't invent that either, he just popularized it. There is a thread somewhere on TL of my build which is a very early version of what stephano does, but the core concepts all exist in my build, i just had a much safer less macro based opening, because steppes of war was just out of the map pool when i was doing it.
|
A good part of it is blizzard deciding to incorporate excellent non-blizzard maps.
|
3 hatches aren't the problem with these macro maps, it's roaches. They're so damn cheap, you can just sit and drone like mad without having to pool many resources, then just max out on them as fast as you can inject.
|
On March 20 2012 08:59 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 08:44 Benjamin80 wrote:On March 20 2012 08:38 sitromit wrote:On March 20 2012 07:58 emc wrote: lol, stephano didn't invent pool, hatch, hatch to be honest there probably is no sure way of who did it first. But I will say the first time I saw it used in a competitive match was in the GSL and it was Nestea and Losira who popularized it and was later known as IM zerg style, if you do some searching on TL you will find the strategy thread. Sssshhh!! Let his fans believe he invented everything... No fan has sayd he invented pool, hatch, hatch. But what he did invent is the "Stephano style" (that many zergs now try to copy) And what is that? Its the gas timings and upgrade timings and thats why he is very special He didn't invent that either, he just popularized it. There is a thread somewhere on TL of my build which is a very early version of what stephano does, but the core concepts all exist in my build, i just had a much safer less macro based opening, because steppes of war was just out of the map pool when i was doing it.
Ok, Prince keep beliving that.
|
There's a limit to how big maps can get. No matter what, you aren't going to saturate more than 3 bases. And another point is that taking more bases greatly increases the surface area you have to defend. Unlike BW, it's too difficult to hold large areas with few units. Even Terrans can't defend 2 fronts at once with all their tanks and PFs against a concentrated attack. Big maps have no place in SC2.
|
On March 20 2012 09:08 Audemed wrote: 3 hatches aren't the problem with these macro maps, it's roaches. They're so damn cheap, you can just sit and drone like mad without having to pool many resources, then just max out on them as fast as you can inject.
You'd think with these posts that Zerg has 100% win rate or something... Just inject, spam Roaches and collect win, sounds great...
|
I'm pretty sure blizzard is only making good maps for zerg, Read Tal'darim;Metalopolis;Metropolis
|
On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made. Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder. Steppes of War.
|
stephano: "don't worry i have many activities to do" lolol i love the guy. Interesting comments made by him regarding ZvP. People should learn from his play
|
What i don't want is for every map to be a Tal Darim altar, that map is fucking huge and trying to defend the 4th base is always a bitch. Call me crazy but i don't mind mid sized maps like Shattered and Metal (a little smaller than mid i know). I do enjoy the "fast" paced action that blizzard wanted, when the maps are huge counter attacks seem dull because it takes at least 40 seconds more than enough time for static defenses.
My last argument is that by having a balanced map pool that has even numbered of Large and mid-sized map pool it allows people to use their veto's currently i only have 1 map vetoed (Zergopolis) For my own obvious biased opinions on that map.
|
On March 20 2012 09:32 iiGreetings wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote:On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made. Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder. Steppes of War.
At least on steppes of war, it was so small even zergs could do 1base all-ins pretty reliably. 1base hydra was my zvp build lol, at least in games where I didn't get proxy 2gates in my natural.
My personal vote for worst ladder map ever is either slag pits or jungle basin.
|
On March 20 2012 09:32 iiGreetings wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote:On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made. Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder. Steppes of War.
followed by slag pits
|
On March 20 2012 09:32 iiGreetings wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote:On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made. Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder. Steppes of War. I'd take Steppes over Blistering Sands. At least you could hold your ramp in Steppes. Those stupid back rocks in Blistering Sands were awful.
|
On March 20 2012 09:19 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 09:08 Audemed wrote: 3 hatches aren't the problem with these macro maps, it's roaches. They're so damn cheap, you can just sit and drone like mad without having to pool many resources, then just max out on them as fast as you can inject. You'd think with these posts that Zerg has 100% win rate or something... Just inject, spam Roaches and collect win, sounds great...
I wish it was that easy
|
bigger maps favor zerg and protoss due to their obvious mechanics. The longer a distance it takes for tanks to get across the map etc. allows for more build-up of units from zerg and the ability to run by. Protoss have the warp in mechanic which allows them to ignore distance to a certain extent. Drops are very good for terran, but the current trend is having 3 bases all very close together with very few actual drop paths that aren't easily defended to able to be foritfied. Just stating obvious things, but sometimes macro isn't as fun as a 2 base game with lots of little skirmishes. A macro game up for 4 bases with 1 3/3 battle is just as boring and abusive as a 1 base 1/1/1 or 3g VR baneling bust what have you.
Macro is a nice idea, but with certain designs in place, it will phase out more passive terran players. Before anyone jumps on the fact that passive = bad. Protoss and zerg are designed to be passive, are they all designed to be bad players then?
|
Terran has had this solved for a while with Reactor Hellion double expand builds that hit a 3 base timing with 2/2 before hive tech - that's part of what makes Antiga Shipyard such a good terran map in the matchup. Protoss players like genius are figuring out ways to take a third base and do a timing before hive tech as well. I would like to see Stephano play against him and get back to everyone. DRG plays the same style as Stephano and struggles against the fast third base phoenix build from Genius. Really anyone who watched the finals should recognize that if Genius was not incredibly nervous and had properly executed in a few of the games he would have won instead of DRG, especially if Crossfire were not in the pool.
Personally I find that marine/tank play based around drawing units away with drops is quite hard on some of the new maps as the bases are simply too easy and close together, but that same quality also makes mech far stronger. So yes maps play a role in balance, but I disagree completely that alternative strategies are not the solution to these maps. I do think that the snipe nerf was unjustified, particularly given how the metagame was developing with Ultra/Baneling/Infestor kind of toppling the strength of ghost builds, but it's not something that players can't overcome.
More importantly, maps with tight defensive positions for 3 bases, yet with rocks blocking the 3rd base are incredibly imbalanced against zerg. Zerg simply can't defend FE builds into 2 base timings and gain any advantage to deny maxed steamrolling armies if they can't get a third base up early on. It's also important to note that even on those awful maps there is very little risk in Terran or Protoss utilizing incredibly greedy openings into those 2 base timings, so zerg really doesn't even have that option of doing strong timings themselves to punish economic openers - they need to be able to get a strong economy to compete.
tl;dr, as has long been the case with maps being less rush favored - learn to macro and you'll love the macro maps.
|
On March 20 2012 09:27 mrafaeldie12 wrote: I'm pretty sure blizzard is only making good maps for zerg, Read Tal'darim;Metalopolis;Metropolis Blizzard didn't make Tal'darim or metropolis. Also, the VAST MAJORITY of Blizzard maps have been anti zerg. For every Metal there is a Kulas, Xel'naga and Steps.
|
On March 20 2012 10:52 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 09:27 mrafaeldie12 wrote: I'm pretty sure blizzard is only making good maps for zerg, Read Tal'darim;Metalopolis;Metropolis Blizzard didn't make Tal'darim or metropolis. Also, the VAST MAJORITY of Blizzard maps have been anti zerg. For every Metal there is a Kulas, Xel'naga and Steps.
Steppes wasn't anti-zerg. It was Anti-Idra. There were plenty of cheesy builds available to all races, and Zergs just refused to engage in the optimal strategies.
|
On March 20 2012 11:03 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 10:52 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:On March 20 2012 09:27 mrafaeldie12 wrote: I'm pretty sure blizzard is only making good maps for zerg, Read Tal'darim;Metalopolis;Metropolis Blizzard didn't make Tal'darim or metropolis. Also, the VAST MAJORITY of Blizzard maps have been anti zerg. For every Metal there is a Kulas, Xel'naga and Steps. Steppes wasn't anti-zerg. It was Anti-Idra. There were plenty of cheesy builds available to all races, and Zergs just refused to engage in the optimal strategies.
steppes was anti zerg. Every zerg hated it.
|
On March 20 2012 10:38 Trealador wrote: bigger maps favor zerg and protoss due to their obvious mechanics. The longer a distance it takes for tanks to get across the map etc. allows for more build-up of units from zerg and the ability to run by. Protoss have the warp in mechanic which allows them to ignore distance to a certain extent. Drops are very good for terran, but the current trend is having 3 bases all very close together with very few actual drop paths that aren't easily defended to able to be foritfied. Just stating obvious things, but sometimes macro isn't as fun as a 2 base game with lots of little skirmishes. A macro game up for 4 bases with 1 3/3 battle is just as boring and abusive as a 1 base 1/1/1 or 3g VR baneling bust what have you.
Macro is a nice idea, but with certain designs in place, it will phase out more passive terran players. Before anyone jumps on the fact that passive = bad. Protoss and zerg are designed to be passive, are they all designed to be bad players then?
+1.However I think you are forgetting why most macro games are boring for any TvX matchup (other than TvT) and why T in general cannot be passive. The P and Z can be passive because they can utilise their late game units and actually be cost efficient. However the T race as a whole do not have any late game units viable in today's metagame. Hence the T has to play aggressive and try to end the game before reaching to a stage where they will for sure lose out in terms of production rate and cost efficiency of their units. Those 200/200 battles often comes out either equal (disadvantage T) or a complete landslide against the T (T loses, cant re-max fast enough) where the game pretty much ends there.
Until T can stand toe to toe with late game P/Z armies and have the ability to trade against each other without being disadvantaged, having larger maps will ultimately nerf T once again.
|
wheres the too good for z and p? big maps with long rush distances makes it really hard for terran to do pressure any pressure meaning its easy for toss to turtle and zerg to drone. it also depends on the "feel" of the map not just size.
|
On March 20 2012 11:06 YyapSsap wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 10:38 Trealador wrote: bigger maps favor zerg and protoss due to their obvious mechanics. The longer a distance it takes for tanks to get across the map etc. allows for more build-up of units from zerg and the ability to run by. Protoss have the warp in mechanic which allows them to ignore distance to a certain extent. Drops are very good for terran, but the current trend is having 3 bases all very close together with very few actual drop paths that aren't easily defended to able to be foritfied. Just stating obvious things, but sometimes macro isn't as fun as a 2 base game with lots of little skirmishes. A macro game up for 4 bases with 1 3/3 battle is just as boring and abusive as a 1 base 1/1/1 or 3g VR baneling bust what have you.
Macro is a nice idea, but with certain designs in place, it will phase out more passive terran players. Before anyone jumps on the fact that passive = bad. Protoss and zerg are designed to be passive, are they all designed to be bad players then? +1.However I think you are forgetting why most macro games are boring for any TvX matchup (other than TvT) and why T in general cannot be passive. The P and Z can be passive because they can utilise their late game units and actually be cost efficient. However the T race as a whole do not have any late game units viable in today's metagame. Hence the T has to play aggressive and try to end the game before reaching to a stage where they will for sure lose out in terms of production rate and cost efficiency of their units. Those 200/200 battles often comes out either equal (disadvantage T) or a complete landslide against the T (T loses, cant re-max fast enough) where the game pretty much ends there. Until T can stand toe to toe with late game P/Z armies and have the ability to trade against each other without being disadvantaged, having larger maps will ultimately nerf T once again.
funny you mention that. There was a morrow (as T) vs leenock game in IPL I believe where morrow played super passively and went for ghosts and mech+ravens and absolutely demolished leenocks army time and time again practically for free while leenock was up quite a few bases, and in the end morrow on because nothing leenock did did any damage to morrows army.
|
On March 20 2012 11:05 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 11:03 cLutZ wrote:On March 20 2012 10:52 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:On March 20 2012 09:27 mrafaeldie12 wrote: I'm pretty sure blizzard is only making good maps for zerg, Read Tal'darim;Metalopolis;Metropolis Blizzard didn't make Tal'darim or metropolis. Also, the VAST MAJORITY of Blizzard maps have been anti zerg. For every Metal there is a Kulas, Xel'naga and Steps. Steppes wasn't anti-zerg. It was Anti-Idra. There were plenty of cheesy builds available to all races, and Zergs just refused to engage in the optimal strategies. steppes was anti zerg. Every zerg hated it. Not every zerg, Catz for example liked it.
At least you could rush on this map. Considering the map pool at the time, Steppes wasn't really anti-zerg, unless you consider that all the maps were anti-zerg (which is true).
|
On March 20 2012 10:34 Corsica wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 09:32 iiGreetings wrote:On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote:On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made. Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder. Steppes of War. followed by slag pits
You guys really believed slag pits is worse than blistering sands?
or desert oasis?
|
On March 20 2012 08:53 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 08:44 Benjamin80 wrote:On March 20 2012 08:38 sitromit wrote:On March 20 2012 07:58 emc wrote: lol, stephano didn't invent pool, hatch, hatch to be honest there probably is no sure way of who did it first. But I will say the first time I saw it used in a competitive match was in the GSL and it was Nestea and Losira who popularized it and was later known as IM zerg style, if you do some searching on TL you will find the strategy thread. Sssshhh!! Let his fans believe he invented everything... No fan has sayd he invented pool, hatch, hatch. But what he did invent is the "Stephano style" (that many zergs now try to copy) And what is that? Its the gas timings and upgrade timings and thats why he is very special I didn't say he invented it. I said he deserves credit for the style being popular, which he does!
I remember 3 hatch being the standard for a looooooooooong time. I don't know why everyone thinks it's just only popular now when it was the go-to build vs FFE since like forever.
|
On March 20 2012 09:19 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 09:08 Audemed wrote: 3 hatches aren't the problem with these macro maps, it's roaches. They're so damn cheap, you can just sit and drone like mad without having to pool many resources, then just max out on them as fast as you can inject. You'd think with these posts that Zerg has 100% win rate or something... Just inject, spam Roaches and collect win, sounds great...
There is a reason very few Protoss players sit back and attempt to macro/defend 3rd because trying to do so is basically suicide. Defending 180+ supply of Roaches with about 110-120 at most is impossible. What does P do? Hit the Z before he can do that nonsense.
Every good PvZ player attempts to threaten Z with something in order to deviate him away from Roaches.
|
Blizzard is not good enough to foresee the future of pro-players strategies (which will become the norm) tbh
I think we came a long way, if Zerg has a too easy time now, they'll get little nerfs or 3rds will be rock blocked or harder to connect.
|
On March 20 2012 11:22 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 08:53 darkscream wrote:On March 20 2012 08:44 Benjamin80 wrote:On March 20 2012 08:38 sitromit wrote:On March 20 2012 07:58 emc wrote: lol, stephano didn't invent pool, hatch, hatch to be honest there probably is no sure way of who did it first. But I will say the first time I saw it used in a competitive match was in the GSL and it was Nestea and Losira who popularized it and was later known as IM zerg style, if you do some searching on TL you will find the strategy thread. Sssshhh!! Let his fans believe he invented everything... No fan has sayd he invented pool, hatch, hatch. But what he did invent is the "Stephano style" (that many zergs now try to copy) And what is that? Its the gas timings and upgrade timings and thats why he is very special I didn't say he invented it. I said he deserves credit for the style being popular, which he does! I remember 3 hatch being the standard for a looooooooooong time. I don't know why everyone thinks it's just only popular now when it was the go-to build vs FFE since like forever. It's the timings that he hits which make it a solid solution in every single scenario. Many other pros that do the build will get a later lair, or slower upgrades, or less drones. Stephano's variation is pretty much picture perfect.
|
On March 20 2012 11:28 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 09:19 sitromit wrote:On March 20 2012 09:08 Audemed wrote: 3 hatches aren't the problem with these macro maps, it's roaches. They're so damn cheap, you can just sit and drone like mad without having to pool many resources, then just max out on them as fast as you can inject. You'd think with these posts that Zerg has 100% win rate or something... Just inject, spam Roaches and collect win, sounds great... There is a reason very few Protoss players sit back and attempt to macro/defend 3rd because trying to do so is basically suicide. Defending 180+ supply of Roaches with about 110-120 at most is impossible. What does P do? Hit the Z before he can do that nonsense. Every good PvZ player attempts to threaten Z with something in order to deviate him away from Roaches. When does a Z ever have 180 supply in Roaches?
|
just make it so if you want to play a map you play that map, i hate randomized ladder since you're always forced to play on objectively bad maps (ie i hate NR20 large maps, i feel as if early game micro defense = less options to defend successfully if you're surprised = higher skill cap than 200 200 battles)
|
On March 20 2012 11:28 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 09:19 sitromit wrote:On March 20 2012 09:08 Audemed wrote: 3 hatches aren't the problem with these macro maps, it's roaches. They're so damn cheap, you can just sit and drone like mad without having to pool many resources, then just max out on them as fast as you can inject. You'd think with these posts that Zerg has 100% win rate or something... Just inject, spam Roaches and collect win, sounds great... There is a reason very few Protoss players sit back and attempt to macro/defend 3rd because trying to do so is basically suicide. Defending 180+ supply of Roaches with about 110-120 at most is impossible. What does P do? Hit the Z before he can do that nonsense. Every good PvZ player attempts to threaten Z with something in order to deviate him away from Roaches.
So you're saying that when Zerg has to go 3 fast Hatches and build nothing but Drones, and delay tech to the point of not even having Zergling speed 8 minutes into the game, just to be able to deal with the army Protoss can build off of a FFE, Protoss has options to punish it? No kidding!!!
|
On March 20 2012 11:05 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 11:03 cLutZ wrote:On March 20 2012 10:52 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:On March 20 2012 09:27 mrafaeldie12 wrote: I'm pretty sure blizzard is only making good maps for zerg, Read Tal'darim;Metalopolis;Metropolis Blizzard didn't make Tal'darim or metropolis. Also, the VAST MAJORITY of Blizzard maps have been anti zerg. For every Metal there is a Kulas, Xel'naga and Steps. Steppes wasn't anti-zerg. It was Anti-Idra. There were plenty of cheesy builds available to all races, and Zergs just refused to engage in the optimal strategies. steppes was anti zerg. Every zerg hated it.
Because zergs hate all ins. Plenty worked, the map was basically a coinflip map for every matchup. I really liked it as random because people would get pissed because they would have to scout my race before deciding on a BO.
|
ah yes, steppes of war. lawlzy map. RIP steppes of war, u will never be seen again.
|
Reading this just made me think of Scrap Station. I know Scrap Station had issues (like the different base size, creep tumor etc.) but I think I played the most entertaining and fun games on that map. I also have good memories when it comes to professional play. I remember watching the GSL Code S finals between Mvp and MarineKing with Scrap Station as the map where MVP takes the series 4:0. Ahh... good old days. Even though I was cheering for MarineKing.
I guess I have gone quite off topic. Back on track: I really miss more creative map formats like 3 player maps, layouts like Scrap Station etc. I know it is extremely difficult to make a balanced map but I am also noticing a trend of maps becoming more and more similar in style and layout and wish some map makers would try to do something different. Something new! Something exciting. Something risky.
|
On March 20 2012 11:51 JOJOsc2news wrote:Reading this just made me think of Scrap Station. I know Scrap Station had issues (like the different base size, creep tumor etc.) but I think I played the most entertaining and fun games on that map. I also have good memories when it comes to professional play. I remember watching the GSL Code S finals between Mvp and MarineKing with Scrap Station as the map where MVP takes the series 4:0. Ahh... good old days. Even though I was cheering for MarineKing. I guess I have gone quite off topic. Back on track: I really miss more creative map formats like 3 player maps, layouts like Scrap Station etc. I know it is extremely difficult to make a balanced map but I am also noticing a trend of maps becoming more and more similar in style and layout and wish some map makers would try to do something different. Something new! Something exciting. Something risky. One of the new proposed maps in a contest is essentially a remake of scrap station with altered base designs that make the third less absurd and a reasonable fourth base, as well as removing gold/island/rocked bases. It's pretty interesting and I agree I have some memories of unique games on the map, though I feel even with the changes, the map is poorly balanced.
|
On March 20 2012 12:07 oOOoOphidian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 11:51 JOJOsc2news wrote:Reading this just made me think of Scrap Station. I know Scrap Station had issues (like the different base size, creep tumor etc.) but I think I played the most entertaining and fun games on that map. I also have good memories when it comes to professional play. I remember watching the GSL Code S finals between Mvp and MarineKing with Scrap Station as the map where MVP takes the series 4:0. Ahh... good old days. Even though I was cheering for MarineKing. I guess I have gone quite off topic. Back on track: I really miss more creative map formats like 3 player maps, layouts like Scrap Station etc. I know it is extremely difficult to make a balanced map but I am also noticing a trend of maps becoming more and more similar in style and layout and wish some map makers would try to do something different. Something new! Something exciting. Something risky. One of the new proposed maps in a contest is essentially a remake of scrap station with altered base designs that make the third less absurd and a reasonable fourth base, as well as removing gold/island/rocked bases. It's pretty interesting and I agree I have some memories of unique games on the map, though I feel even with the changes, the map is poorly balanced.
That sounds interesting. What map is that?
|
History of the map pool:
Season 1: Maps did actually kind of suck for zerg. Zerg was somewhat UP and they really let Blizzard know about it (Even though zerg won GSL's 1 and 2.
Season 2-Present: Zergs continue whining and crying to blizzard about how much the map pool sucks and they veto everything until every single map gives you a free 3 bases and wide open spaces in front of expos so that all-in's can't punish greedy play any more.
So no, blizz did not foresee modern ZvP. They made it, with the help of forum whining, etc.
|
On March 20 2012 11:09 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 11:06 YyapSsap wrote:On March 20 2012 10:38 Trealador wrote: bigger maps favor zerg and protoss due to their obvious mechanics. The longer a distance it takes for tanks to get across the map etc. allows for more build-up of units from zerg and the ability to run by. Protoss have the warp in mechanic which allows them to ignore distance to a certain extent. Drops are very good for terran, but the current trend is having 3 bases all very close together with very few actual drop paths that aren't easily defended to able to be foritfied. Just stating obvious things, but sometimes macro isn't as fun as a 2 base game with lots of little skirmishes. A macro game up for 4 bases with 1 3/3 battle is just as boring and abusive as a 1 base 1/1/1 or 3g VR baneling bust what have you.
Macro is a nice idea, but with certain designs in place, it will phase out more passive terran players. Before anyone jumps on the fact that passive = bad. Protoss and zerg are designed to be passive, are they all designed to be bad players then? +1.However I think you are forgetting why most macro games are boring for any TvX matchup (other than TvT) and why T in general cannot be passive. The P and Z can be passive because they can utilise their late game units and actually be cost efficient. However the T race as a whole do not have any late game units viable in today's metagame. Hence the T has to play aggressive and try to end the game before reaching to a stage where they will for sure lose out in terms of production rate and cost efficiency of their units. Those 200/200 battles often comes out either equal (disadvantage T) or a complete landslide against the T (T loses, cant re-max fast enough) where the game pretty much ends there. Until T can stand toe to toe with late game P/Z armies and have the ability to trade against each other without being disadvantaged, having larger maps will ultimately nerf T once again. funny you mention that. There was a morrow (as T) vs leenock game in IPL I believe where morrow played super passively and went for ghosts and mech+ravens and absolutely demolished leenocks army time and time again practically for free while leenock was up quite a few bases, and in the end morrow on because nothing leenock did did any damage to morrows army.
Leenock played like shit that game, please quit citing it people...
|
On March 20 2012 11:17 xtruder wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 10:34 Corsica wrote:On March 20 2012 09:32 iiGreetings wrote:On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote:On March 19 2012 19:16 AxUU wrote: I've been quite happy with all the maps except Xel naga is possibly the worst map ever made. Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder. Steppes of War. followed by slag pits You guys really believed slag pits is worse than blistering sands? or desert oasis?
if you spawn close positions, like 12 and 2, rush distance was smaller than Steppes, you could open 2 gate zealot, and still be ahead vs 14 pool
|
On March 20 2012 12:19 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 12:07 oOOoOphidian wrote:On March 20 2012 11:51 JOJOsc2news wrote:Reading this just made me think of Scrap Station. I know Scrap Station had issues (like the different base size, creep tumor etc.) but I think I played the most entertaining and fun games on that map. I also have good memories when it comes to professional play. I remember watching the GSL Code S finals between Mvp and MarineKing with Scrap Station as the map where MVP takes the series 4:0. Ahh... good old days. Even though I was cheering for MarineKing. I guess I have gone quite off topic. Back on track: I really miss more creative map formats like 3 player maps, layouts like Scrap Station etc. I know it is extremely difficult to make a balanced map but I am also noticing a trend of maps becoming more and more similar in style and layout and wish some map makers would try to do something different. Something new! Something exciting. Something risky. One of the new proposed maps in a contest is essentially a remake of scrap station with altered base designs that make the third less absurd and a reasonable fourth base, as well as removing gold/island/rocked bases. It's pretty interesting and I agree I have some memories of unique games on the map, though I feel even with the changes, the map is poorly balanced. That sounds interesting. What map is that? It's called Odin. It's the first map here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=320479
|
The idea of anyone at Blizzard being competent enough at map design or game balance to "forsee" anything is laughable. As in I literally laughed
|
I think the biggest tragedy of this is that Blizzard so underestimates their 'lowest common denominator' player base. SC2 is complex shit. I was walking my GF through a co-op game and told her to do a basic bio terran build and sheer amount of crap she had to do was startling. She's played the dawn of war series and is no RTS newbie, but it was quickly obvious that the 'best' thing to do was play the campaign and learn it bit by bit.
Anyone know knows enough to play on ladder is capable of learning to scout the map. Maybe not efficiently, maybe not with any meaningful timings, but they can learn to occasionally shift click a marine around the 'unused' expos. The blunt truth is that Blizzard thinks low level players are stupid, barely able to do more than build and army and 1A it at the enemy, and they are wrong.
|
I can only imagine what the maps will be like in HoTS..... Rofl. More rocks.
Anyway, the new maps are quite good for Zerg imo.... but at least it would allow for more entertaining games and additional skill would be required to do well.
|
On March 19 2012 21:01 idonthinksobro wrote: I really think terrans are the worst on huge macro maps just because they often times are forced to stay on low tier units the whole game and then die once protoss have 3bases + ht and or zergs infestor broodlord. The matchup TvZ changed a lot it has gone from "terran needs to mess up so zerg has a chance(steppes of war / reapers) to if zerg denies drops and harass they win for free(new maps)".
Why does Terran have to stay on low tier units? Is there a rule that states that? I mean yeah marauders are good, but so are thors/ghosts/ravens/banshees/bcs. I don't get it, Terrans cry because Toss uses Colossus + Storm, both "higher tier", and then loses battles. There are solutions to those besides m/m/m.
When Toss users were complaining about being under powered, they became creative and found solutions for said problems. Terrans should do the same.
|
i never blame a race for being overpowered or a map really sucking. i like the difficulty of a challenge even if it isnt fair. i jsut try my best to win. i feel like i can relate balance discussion to the miami heat. the heat are 'op' in a sense but beatable.
high masters protoss~
|
On March 20 2012 13:36 ctrlaltleet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 21:01 idonthinksobro wrote: I really think terrans are the worst on huge macro maps just because they often times are forced to stay on low tier units the whole game and then die once protoss have 3bases + ht and or zergs infestor broodlord. The matchup TvZ changed a lot it has gone from "terran needs to mess up so zerg has a chance(steppes of war / reapers) to if zerg denies drops and harass they win for free(new maps)". Why does Terran have to stay on low tier units? Is there a rule that states that? I mean yeah marauders are good, but so are thors/ghosts/ravens/banshees/bcs. I don't get it, Terrans cry because Toss uses Colossus + Storm, both "higher tier", and then loses battles. There are solutions to those besides m/m/m. When Toss users were complaining about being under powered, they became creative and found solutions for said problems. Terrans should do the same.
Toss never became creative- all their solutions have been Blizzard pushing it by buffing Protoss so they can do ________. Examples: Archon range to start zealot/archon, upgrade cost reduced for more double forge play (it was already there, but this really takes over it) Terran has to stay on low tier units because every single one of those units you listed get countered by Feedback. Nothing else works. If there was a different solution besides m/m/m, pros probably would've found it by now- but we get no help from Blizzard unlike Protoss. No, not balance whining, honest -.-
|
I think it is very safe to say Blizzard doesn't forsee anything at all when it comes to sc2. This has actually been backed up by basically every interview they have done in which they usually explain that they just try stuff they think is cool and see what happens.
|
I can remember many instances of blizz saying they wanted shorter games than SC1, so if they saw pool-hatch-hatch coming they did so with the expectation that the game would end promptly afterwards. I feel like this design is the cause of a lot of the hairline margins that Protoss gets to deal with. If you make your Forcefields you win if you miss them you lose. If you lose too many sentries you lose. If you don't get detection you lose. If you blind counter your opponent you win.
As far as big maps, I have generally felt they favor T & Z far over Protoss. While on small maps I feel comfortable saying T > P > Z, there is a sweet zone in between the two where T & P are balanced, and where additional map features might make Z balanced as well. However on big maps, Protoss is simply too immobile to cross the map after surviving a push. You can help this with a proxy pylon but Protoss is reliant on robo tech vs P and Z and so this slows any push.
Meanwhile the distance allows Zerg to expand extra earlygame and late game, to simply spread out expansions so that any push cannot possibly take out all Zerg expos while he counterattacks you. Terran likewise has a very short building cooldown and fast cheap units, which means that he can wait for a timing where his latest wave of units has arrived and protoss is still waiting for his warp gate cooldown and robo units to pop out, and meanwhile, studies show that protoss' mechanics have them floating more resources than any other race.
This is probably the biggest reason for protoss buffs; cheaper upgrades let Protoss hold until a lategame push; Archons being massive let them be saved and run away from marauders; Warp prism buffs mean that you can push out and not have to wait for a pylon to build before you can attack the front.
But this can be balanced with big maps but by controlling the spawn distance. If Protoss can't push towards an opponent's base in a reasonable amount of time, and there's no way to push out in a way that defends your third, the race is too weak and needs a way to increase it's mobility to attack.
|
On March 20 2012 13:51 -orb- wrote: I think it is very safe to say Blizzard doesn't forsee anything at all when it comes to sc2. This has actually been backed up by basically every interview they have done in which they usually explain that they just try stuff they think is cool and see what happens.
Gotta agree with you here! Kind of like they think up "cool shit" and see what happens!
|
Well it's not like we don't see rushing and cheesing on huge maps, right? Tal'Darim is one of the best 7 pool maps against Protoss, if I recall correctly.
Map size is directly proportional to how much I like it, in general. Personally I'm glad we're moving towards bigger ones because it makes the game far more fun, both as a player (albeit a bad one) and a spectator.
|
On March 20 2012 13:42 Cyclone999 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 13:36 ctrlaltleet wrote:On March 19 2012 21:01 idonthinksobro wrote: I really think terrans are the worst on huge macro maps just because they often times are forced to stay on low tier units the whole game and then die once protoss have 3bases + ht and or zergs infestor broodlord. The matchup TvZ changed a lot it has gone from "terran needs to mess up so zerg has a chance(steppes of war / reapers) to if zerg denies drops and harass they win for free(new maps)". Why does Terran have to stay on low tier units? Is there a rule that states that? I mean yeah marauders are good, but so are thors/ghosts/ravens/banshees/bcs. I don't get it, Terrans cry because Toss uses Colossus + Storm, both "higher tier", and then loses battles. There are solutions to those besides m/m/m. When Toss users were complaining about being under powered, they became creative and found solutions for said problems. Terrans should do the same. Toss never became creative- all their solutions have been Blizzard pushing it by buffing Protoss so they can do ________. Examples: Archon range to start zealot/archon, upgrade cost reduced for more double forge play (it was already there, but this really takes over it) Terran has to stay on low tier units because every single one of those units you listed get countered by Feedback. Nothing else works. If there was a different solution besides m/m/m, pros probably would've found it by now- but we get no help from Blizzard unlike Protoss. No, not balance whining, honest -.-
Counter-argument:
Infestor.
|
daybreak is the most boring map ive ever seen, (PLEASE GOD LET IT NOT BE THE FUTURE.) worse than destination or shakuras when split map. i think blizzard has done a good job with the map and map balance but the community is pushing things at a much faster pace.
|
On March 20 2012 13:42 Cyclone999 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 13:36 ctrlaltleet wrote:On March 19 2012 21:01 idonthinksobro wrote: I really think terrans are the worst on huge macro maps just because they often times are forced to stay on low tier units the whole game and then die once protoss have 3bases + ht and or zergs infestor broodlord. The matchup TvZ changed a lot it has gone from "terran needs to mess up so zerg has a chance(steppes of war / reapers) to if zerg denies drops and harass they win for free(new maps)". Why does Terran have to stay on low tier units? Is there a rule that states that? I mean yeah marauders are good, but so are thors/ghosts/ravens/banshees/bcs. I don't get it, Terrans cry because Toss uses Colossus + Storm, both "higher tier", and then loses battles. There are solutions to those besides m/m/m. When Toss users were complaining about being under powered, they became creative and found solutions for said problems. Terrans should do the same. Toss never became creative- all their solutions have been Blizzard pushing it by buffing Protoss so they can do ________. Examples: Archon range to start zealot/archon, upgrade cost reduced for more double forge play (it was already there, but this really takes over it) Terran has to stay on low tier units because every single one of those units you listed get countered by Feedback. Nothing else works. If there was a different solution besides m/m/m, pros probably would've found it by now- but we get no help from Blizzard unlike Protoss. No, not balance whining, honest -.-
I'll take your word that it isn't balance whining.
Toss has become creative with the builds/timings they've got down. Terran can't do the same? I mean when the game came out, Terran relied on m/m/m for TvP. A year and a half later, they're still relying on the same thing. Pretty sure ghosts hard counter Templar, so there can be a mix of ghosts with their army to negate the HT.
In ZvP, Toss complained about how good Zerg was. 'Everyone' said Toss just needs to get creative and find a way to make the match up more favorable. And they did. Same with TvP, Toss got creative.
Archons got buffed because nobody built them because they were a waste of resources. They buffed the range, not the shields or HP, and Archons became more viable.
I think Terran need to use higher tiered units. If Terran don't realize they're getting stomped by higher tired units, I don't see what the problem is. That's what the point is. Don't give me this excuse that X unit costs gas and Terran has to use their gas for ups and Medvacs, every high tiered unit costs gas. Terran needs to go out of the box of the meta game to figure it out is what I think.
|
On March 19 2012 19:11 Pr0wler wrote: Big maps are good but to some extend. For instance Calm before the storm is one of the worst maps ever played on GSL and it's not surprise that they dropped it after just one season. IMO there shouldn't be bigger maps than Tal'Darim Altar. You realize that Tal'Darim Altar is actually bigger than Calm Before the Storm, yes? Calm Before the Storm is 160x160 while Tal'Darim Altar is 176x176. Only thing that keeps Tal'Darim from "feeling" bigger is the fact that the naturals move toward the centre (which causes its own problems, i.e. the cliff abuse), while on Calm Before the Storm they remain along the outer edges of the map.
|
|
On March 20 2012 13:19 Kharnage wrote: I think the biggest tragedy of this is that Blizzard so underestimates their 'lowest common denominator' player base. SC2 is complex shit. I was walking my GF through a co-op game and told her to do a basic bio terran build and sheer amount of crap she had to do was startling. She's played the dawn of war series and is no RTS newbie, but it was quickly obvious that the 'best' thing to do was play the campaign and learn it bit by bit.
Anyone know knows enough to play on ladder is capable of learning to scout the map. Maybe not efficiently, maybe not with any meaningful timings, but they can learn to occasionally shift click a marine around the 'unused' expos. The blunt truth is that Blizzard thinks low level players are stupid, barely able to do more than build and army and 1A it at the enemy, and they are wrong. Players in masters league are barely able to do more than (somewhat efficiently) build an army and 1A it. The other skills are scouting, build/transition instinct or memorization, and maybe minimal micro. Low league (particularly bronze) players can barely build a maxed army if left alone for 30 minutes. Most of them just lose to worker rushes and essentially any semblance of an attack before that point.
Even players in the GSL don't always scout for hidden bases and a recent finals had jjakji sneak a base on tal'darim for the entire game. I'm not really convinced that this is a legitimate reason to be afraid of making maps with a lot of bases, it is simply an increase in the skill gap for the game, which is rather a good thing.
So while I agree that this kind of scouting should be done by anyone and I always make an effort to do it, you are overestimating the vast majority of players. imo if people can't be bothered to watch their own replays to figure out they should be improving their scouting, they should be losing to hidden expansions just like they should lose to anything else they could easily scout but just decided not to.
|
On March 20 2012 14:45 oOOoOphidian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 13:19 Kharnage wrote: I think the biggest tragedy of this is that Blizzard so underestimates their 'lowest common denominator' player base. SC2 is complex shit. I was walking my GF through a co-op game and told her to do a basic bio terran build and sheer amount of crap she had to do was startling. She's played the dawn of war series and is no RTS newbie, but it was quickly obvious that the 'best' thing to do was play the campaign and learn it bit by bit.
Anyone know knows enough to play on ladder is capable of learning to scout the map. Maybe not efficiently, maybe not with any meaningful timings, but they can learn to occasionally shift click a marine around the 'unused' expos. The blunt truth is that Blizzard thinks low level players are stupid, barely able to do more than build and army and 1A it at the enemy, and they are wrong. Even players in the GSL don't always scout for hidden bases and a recent finals had jjakji sneak a base on tal'darim for the entire game. I'm not really convinced that this is a legitimate reason to be afraid of making maps with a lot of bases, it is simply an increase in the skill gap for the game, which is rather a good thing.
To be fair, the base that expansion was in DID get scouted in the jjakji game. It just didn't get scouted on the OTHER SIDE of the minerals because that's fucking ridiculous and nobody would have expected that (especially because it has a lower income rate because of the weird angles and distances from the resources). As Artosis said while casting this game, "This is some seriously meta meta metagame stuff going on here."
|
its not hard to have a few supply patrolling the map for hidden expos...
|
First thing first, don't assume blizzard actually had a real reason not to change the map pool, it was simply them being stupid ( as shown many times before ), they did it in the past and they did it here, lets just be happy they finally pulled the whole of there head out of there butt holes and now we have a top tier map pool. Secondly, i for one am happy with the macro maps vs Z ( as a P ), i know it shouldn't be that way, but whenever i get a Z on say cloud kingdom or antiga ( which is the best "type" of large map for Z ) i fell damn confident. Considering the new maps and the fact that ST is out so i can veto korhal compound i fell like my pvz could be even easier next season. I am only high master tho, and once again, i believe that this is temporary, zergs such as stephano have shown AND stated that if you play it right a toss can't beat you 80% on a "macro" map, still zergs such as Nestea are afraid to play straight up vs players such as naniwa, and with him being likely the best together with our korean killer and drg... i would say theres a long way until all zerg can play well enough so that toss can't get by with the current 2 bases pushes and occasionally risky fast 3rd.
|
If you had 100 drones, you could saturate 5 bases at 14 on minerals and 6 on gas, but those situations always rely on a razor thin maximum army supply of 100, including the queens and when the other races have more supply in army, this "zerg death-ball" becomes increasingly likely to fail, either from toss being able to say, match the army supply in main army as well as having a troupe of stalkers blink about razing zerg structures, or from just "brute-forcing" through with superior army strength. In such a situation though, usually a much larger amount of zerg supply is spent on especially expensive units, so when zerg does have a more typical 110+ army supply, their army is usually of significantly greater value. Some protoss complaints involve their super powerful units losing to this, but usually this seems to occur when protoss actually has (as suggested) a significantly lower cost army. Not sure if that was perfectly on topic, it felt relevant though, but it is possible for any race in the (usually very) late game, terran especially, with mass OCs and 150 army supply -_-, to saturate more than 3 bases pretty well. That said, if the opponent is not just left to do this for themselves, a 3 base army would normally destroy the minimal army of someone who has invested so much into 5 base economy. That said though... :Þ fungal growth and force field more so¹ can delay or even prevent pushes, so 90+ worker situations are possible and BGH mass late game unit compositions have to be considered (and be balanced). Zerg also use workers for every building, so if zerg "just makes spines and drones", they're still having to make a lot more workers than they'll actually get to use to mine, so if you see 130+ workers (drones) created in a post-match screen of ZvP, even when none were killed, it's nothing out of the ordinary and so -before- you have as many as 90 workers, if you place a bunch of static defence to defend a base, you're losing income until they're replaced, which matters when you don't have such high numbers, so there are plenty of inherent drawbacks to large maps for zerg. Other keypoints are creep spread, increasingly more time, effort and queen energy (against an opponent who actively tries to clear the creep tumours) must be invested on larger maps and overlord scouting, especially early on, is obviously much harder and much less likely to provide valuable information on large maps.
¹15 second duration compared to 4, 50 energy compared to 75 energy, please protosses, keep that in perspective >_<
|
On March 20 2012 14:43 Cormath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 18:50 Exigaet wrote:On March 19 2012 18:38 Manit0u wrote:On March 19 2012 18:21 darkscream wrote:The future Is that the SC2 version of Nostalgia? The layout is more similar to Match Point. Tiamat would like to have a word with you. + Show Spoiler +I voted good for the game overall Ah, indeed.
For better reference:
|
if Blizzard would have had foreseen anything regarding zerg they would have removed the roach :p
|
remove collosi, problem solved
|
On March 19 2012 19:12 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 19:11 Pr0wler wrote: Big maps are good but to some extend. For instance Calm before the storm is one of the worst maps ever played on GSL and it's not surprise that they dropped it after just one season. IMO there shouldn't be bigger maps than Tal'Darim Altar. Calm Before the Storm is still played in GSTL, though.
And so is dualsight and crossfire was in forever as well. MLG used Xel Naga cavers till providence. Just because a map is in a pool doesn't mean it's good.
|
On March 20 2012 20:25 Lorch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 19:12 darkscream wrote:On March 19 2012 19:11 Pr0wler wrote: Big maps are good but to some extend. For instance Calm before the storm is one of the worst maps ever played on GSL and it's not surprise that they dropped it after just one season. IMO there shouldn't be bigger maps than Tal'Darim Altar. Calm Before the Storm is still played in GSTL, though. And so is dualsight and crossfire was in forever as well. MLG used Xel Naga cavers till providence. Just because a map is in a pool doesn't mean it's good.
Don't name Dualsight in one sentence with Crossfire. Dualsight is slightly off for PvZ and PvT, Crossfire is just superimbalanced in every MU.
|
On March 20 2012 19:58 RolleMcKnolle wrote: if Blizzard would have had foreseen anything regarding zerg they would have removed the roach :p
Why? The problem clearly was the hydralisk. (Nerf nerf nerf; 1supply 2armor roaches were fine!)
|
On March 20 2012 14:45 oOOoOphidian wrote:
Players in masters league are barely able to do more than (somewhat efficiently) build an army and 1A it. The other skills are scouting, build/transition instinct or memorization, and maybe minimal micro. .
You really think a Terran can get out of diamond with minimal micro?
|
On March 21 2012 04:37 Twistacles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 14:45 oOOoOphidian wrote:
Players in masters league are barely able to do more than (somewhat efficiently) build an army and 1A it. The other skills are scouting, build/transition instinct or memorization, and maybe minimal micro. . You really think a Terran can get out of diamond with minimal micro? Yes. Terran has several all-ins that don't require much micro in any matchup and mech in TvT/TvZ require very little micro. In TvP if you can land EMPs with 10+ ghosts and upgrade your marines/vikings, you don't really have to split, stutterstep, or anything else. This is all particularly true when you have superior macro.
|
I would say TvT requires Micro, but yes, in low leagues, you can win with like only cloaked banshee or 1/1/1 which is quite strong
|
|
As Toss you can´t win anymore without FFE vs Zerg. But I also think bigger maps aren´t the best sollution because it´s just getting onesided. As Stephano said "Zerg has so many options to play vs Toss." Toss has to do always the same shit. And if a Zerg is right positoned and has like 20+ BLs you just can´t win. It´s just boring and it sucks to play Zerg on big maps because you either have to 2 Base all in or get lucky in late game.
Greetings.
|
On March 21 2012 04:37 Twistacles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 14:45 oOOoOphidian wrote:
Players in masters league are barely able to do more than (somewhat efficiently) build an army and 1A it. The other skills are scouting, build/transition instinct or memorization, and maybe minimal micro. . You really think a Terran can get out of diamond with minimal micro? Sure, I was offracing as T vs master Z/P friends and managed to take games off them, and I sure as hell didn't know what I was doing micro-wise. Oh, I was trying to split, but it wasn't effective whatsoever because I'd never tried it before.
Sheer macro/reading a BO did 100x more.
|
On March 21 2012 04:46 How2getMaster wrote: As Toss you can´t win anymore without FFE vs Zerg. But I also think bigger maps aren´t the best sollution because it´s just getting onesided. As Stephano said "Zerg has so many options to play vs Toss." Toss has to do always the same shit. And if a Zerg is right positoned and has like 20+ BLs you just can´t win. It´s just boring and it sucks to play Zerg on big maps because you either have to 2 Base all in or get lucky in late game.
Greetings.
I have 80%+ win PvZ at 600-700 Masters doing the 1 Base Immortal All-in It isn't true that you can't win without FFE
|
This may sound odd, but I'm almost surprised that we haven't seen any tournaments even attempt smaller map pools, but different map pools for each matchup. For instance tal'darim isn't a bad map, but for pvp its absolutely terrible. I don't think the answer is a completely different map pool, but for particular matchups just take maps out entirely. So if there are 7 maps in a pool overall, only 5 would be applicable to pvp for example, but that protoss is still responsible for the other 2 maps because they may be in the other matchups.
I understand that is what veto's are for, but instead of having players waste their veto because of inherent imbalance, it could be used to a more strategic advantages.
|
Actually, Daybreak isn't that bad for Toss-- it's actually one of my favorites. You can very easily posture between the third and natural of the Zerg, and force him to keep his army defending the bases alternately. Then, you just fly a warp prism in his main and do a large warp in/drop of zealot/ sentry respectively (blink stalkers not bad either) and ruin his main. You expand off of that, and it's a 3 base versus a recovering 3 base, exact lead depending on how successful your attack was and when you started your third.
|
On March 20 2012 14:45 oOOoOphidian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 13:19 Kharnage wrote: I think the biggest tragedy of this is that Blizzard so underestimates their 'lowest common denominator' player base. SC2 is complex shit. I was walking my GF through a co-op game and told her to do a basic bio terran build and sheer amount of crap she had to do was startling. She's played the dawn of war series and is no RTS newbie, but it was quickly obvious that the 'best' thing to do was play the campaign and learn it bit by bit.
Anyone know knows enough to play on ladder is capable of learning to scout the map. Maybe not efficiently, maybe not with any meaningful timings, but they can learn to occasionally shift click a marine around the 'unused' expos. The blunt truth is that Blizzard thinks low level players are stupid, barely able to do more than build and army and 1A it at the enemy, and they are wrong. Players in masters league are barely able to do more than (somewhat efficiently) build an army and 1A it. The other skills are scouting, build/transition instinct or memorization, and maybe minimal micro. Low league (particularly bronze) players can barely build a maxed army if left alone for 30 minutes. Most of them just lose to worker rushes and essentially any semblance of an attack before that point. Even players in the GSL don't always scout for hidden bases and a recent finals had jjakji sneak a base on tal'darim for the entire game. I'm not really convinced that this is a legitimate reason to be afraid of making maps with a lot of bases, it is simply an increase in the skill gap for the game, which is rather a good thing. So while I agree that this kind of scouting should be done by anyone and I always make an effort to do it, you are overestimating the vast majority of players. imo if people can't be bothered to watch their own replays to figure out they should be improving their scouting, they should be losing to hidden expansions just like they should lose to anything else they could easily scout but just decided not to.
What Utter BS.
My Bronze level friends lose a game to a hidden expo, then after realising what happened they check for the next bunch of games. Eventually they forget when they focus on some other part of their play, but your statement above is total crap. Most of my Bronze level friends will be maxed around 20 to 22 minutes off 2 bases, will have upgrades and a decent composition of units.
You underestimate everyone.
|
I agree with OP, a few more rock piles at the third bases would help even up the match-up.
Alternative Solution: Protoss players need to begin dissuading zerg from their pool hatch hatch shenanigans. I humbly suggest a greater committment to cannon rushes and 8 gate all-ins :p
|
|
|
|