|
On May 16 2013 15:44 grs wrote:
I don't like this excessive "every map must be the same"-thing going on. In a few months at latest we are going to complain that many games look the same again and again. A big part in this is the permanent complaining about every map that is a bit different (closer distance, hard to take third, etc.).
Could it not be that players will show different strategies on different types of maps, if the tendency would stop to make every map basically the same? Wouldn't that be more interesting to watch?
The problem is that Klontas Mire is the same as every other map. The entire dynamic of bases and armies are exactly the same except attacking is more effective.
If you want actually different maps, take a look at the Proleague map pool, where the maps encourage vastly different play.
|
I think a more interesting change to Klontas would be to make the bridge one tile wide to limit the specific units that can cross.
|
On May 16 2013 09:31 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 08:20 avilo wrote:
They should just remove klontas. It's a nice effort to make a map that's not just "3 base, macro" but klontas is just another one of those idiotic "2 base all-in rush + 3rd base is ONE MILE AWAY" maps.
If they want to implement their concept well it should be maps with multiple attack paths, or special terrain features, like multiple ramps but short attack distance...something, anything other than "i just got to your base in 2 seconds" and "i can't expo past 2 base because my 3rd is all the way at the bottom of the map.
And 2 base rush maps should almost always be diagonal spawns not horizontal or vertical. That way it's more natural taking expansions. This. The game is quite silly for protoss right now. It's basically encouraging 2 base timings so you can avoid 3 base because of how terrible these maps are. They REALLY, and I mean REALLY need to look to old Kespa maps for ideas on maps. I made a really long video on this a while ago and I'm quite sad I didn't highlight it. Maybe I'll make another video on kespa maps in the next week to highlight how amazing they were compared to what we're playing on right now. (attack pathing ramps etc) If you don't understand how big of a deal this is simply think of this: Protoss, Zerg, and Terran are all forced into certain play styles on certain maps. Moreover, these play styles more than likely favor one race over the others. If maps are not balanced well along each races strengths and weaknesses then you just end up with maps that completely favor one race over the other. You then step away from balancing the game and rely on maps to balance it(he lost map 1 so has to win map 2 cuz it favors him). However, blizzard is still here. They should not only be constantly balancing units, but the maps as well. They need to take this much more seriously considering it's some people's life and it matters.
I highlighted the problem here.
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks."
So then they decide to add rocks to the bridge "so that early game rushes are still possible, but all in attacks are delayed in the early mid game." What they don't understand apparently is that the rocks actually delay early rushes far more than early mid game all-in attacks, because the all-ins have a lot more units with them and come a bit later, meaning players will have more time and more firepower to take down the rocks, but the early pressure rushes won't have the time or firepower to take down the rocks, and thus must go the long way. In fact, by doing so Blizzard would make the map more all-in friendly, as early pressure is less likely, and thus won't throw people off their build order.
Maybe I am just crazy, but Blizzard seems wholly incompetent when it comes to balance and map making. They make decisions with reasoning that simply doesn't make any sense, and often makes the issue they seek to resolve worse (see above). Heads have needed to roll at Blizzard for so long.
But maybe I just don't understand, and if that is the case, I'd appreciate if someone could explain.
|
Okay, now seriously. Why the fuck is Star Station hated on so much? Obviously the third is harder to take than some maps...but it's seriously no where close to impossible, easier with structure walls.
What actual fucking facts make the map so bad that everyone hates it for seemingly no reason. Are close spawns 100% without a doubt BROKEN? If the answer is no then shut up already.
(And none of you stupid kids respond with stupid '55/45'ish claims or that it favors certain strategies..that's not broken lmao, 100% acceptable)
edit: Unless of course that's the reason, which I guess I can't get all huffy over, just because I accept such maps doesn't mean everyone does. Honestly just, genuinely curious why everyone hates it so much.
|
United States1968 Posts
,_, klontas might as well be remade with the textures that made antiga shipyard and rebrand it as scrap station 2.
|
I always feel doing this is a band-aid to poor map design. It's better than leaving the map as it was, but the bottom line to me is that the map should never have been considered. I really like 3-4 player (spawn) maps but really dislike forced cross spawns. + Show Spoiler + an exception to this would be Crux Korhal Floating Island which is designed to play out differently depending on starting locations
I also really think KM needs some changes to the rocks/ramp going down into the natural.
|
On May 18 2013 15:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks."
Thank you, I was going to post to ask exactly that. Someone might need to explain it to me (maybe I just fail to see it because I'm just a lowly Plat/Diamond player).
Simply put, it's been more than 2 years since Sc2 came out, and my way of seeing things is that a map "that favors rushes" necessarily has short rush distances, and in turn maps with short rush distances will inevitably lead to strong all-ins. I can't see how it could work otherwise.
In other words, it seems like Blizzards can't get to decide between allowing fast attacks (what they call "rushes" and which they like because it makes bronze players able to attack before the 30 minute mark), and denying systematic all-ins (which is bad because bronze players who die to all-ins get frustrated after a while and stop playing). And, in turn, we end up with odd rush distances (just short of being Steps-of-War-esque), and with gibberish patch notes which look like they have been written by a 15 year old girl whose conscience is torn between staying "pure" until marriage, and having a night of torrid and barely legal sexual activities with her 16 year old lover...
|
On May 18 2013 16:28 Xylocaine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 15:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks." Thank you, I was going to post to ask exactly that. Someone might need to explain it to me (maybe I just fail to see it because I'm just a lowly Plat/Diamond player). Simply put, it's been more than 2 years since Sc2 came out, and my way of seeing things is that a map "that favors rushes" necessarily has short rush distances, and in turn maps with short rush distances will inevitably lead to strong all-ins. I can't see how it could work otherwise.
With collapsable towers, as proposed by blizzard.
|
On May 18 2013 16:28 Xylocaine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 15:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks." Thank you, I was going to post to ask exactly that. Someone might need to explain it to me (maybe I just fail to see it because I'm just a lowly Plat/Diamond player). Simply put, it's been more than 2 years since Sc2 came out, and my way of seeing things is that a map "that favors rushes" necessarily has short rush distances, and in turn maps with short rush distances will inevitably lead to strong all-ins. I can't see how it could work otherwise. In other words, it seems like Blizzards can't get to decide between allowing fast attacks (what they call "rushes" and which they like because it makes bronze players able to attack before the 30 minute mark), and denying systematic all-ins (which is bad because bronze players who die to all-ins get frustrated after a while and stop playing). And, in turn, we end up with odd rush distances (just short of being Steps-of-War-esque), and with gibberish patch notes which look like they have been written by a 15 year old girl whose conscience is torn between staying "pure" until marriage, and having a night of torrid and barely legal sexual activities with her 16 year old lover...
Short ground distances aren't the only way to allow rushes. But that terminology is really unhelpful. What does it mean to "allow rushes"? (As has been pointed out already.)
One thing for sure is that short rush distances are really bad for zerg, especially with otherwise "normal" map features like an easy to defend natural, and especially in zvt. It creates a situation where lots of degenerate strategies are open to one player but not the other, and you have to defend against unfair things that may or may not becoming. Which just amplifies the imbalance. If you try to "fix" this by providing other zerg-friendly features to "balance it out", it often messes up the other matchups, and you're really just creating a scripted environment where players don't get to choose their strategies.
The goal would be to have a situation where attack timings are possible but scoutable and defendable without taking losing amounts of damage, which effectively widens the playing field to let players show more overall interaction. And with more interaction comes more opportunity to gain an advantage through skill. Distance is a pretty blunt instrument for achieving this. (Although combined with other things, as attempted in Klontas, can be useful.)
A crucial point here is that certain map features can make little-used unit compositions more viable at certain timings, which has a cascading effect throughout a game which allows the midgame and lategame transitions to look very different than a standard 3base macro game. This is the most fertile area of "unconventional" map design but it's the hardest as well.
^ As an example, Cloud Kingdom was taken out of the ladder for HotS so it isn't widely seen with today's PvP, but has been used in some tournaments still. That map allows a lot more effective blink stalker pressure, which was a big concern during beta and early days of HotS, but is really a languishing opening these days, usually pulled out as a very specific all-in, mostly chosen blind (before any scouting would trigger it). But given some time, PvP is pretty stable against blink strategies and the early fear about MSC high ground vision + blink isn't as relevant in the matchup now. So on CK, you get games you would never see on the current ladder maps, where a player can use blink to pin their opponent and expand, old school. Going into the midgame when both players have 2 bases, this creates HotS games that play out very differently than what we usually see now because of the much heavier component of stalkers, which affects both players' transitions and engagement decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
