EPTNew Maps for Heart of the Swarm Balance Testing - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
On October 24 2013 17:47 Lorch wrote: I mean it doesn't look as awful as the maps they used to make. But for the love of god have the people who make sc2 maps spent their time doing something productive. If they would have spent all that time adding features to battle.net, working on new additions to the expansions or even just improving the netcode or cross server lag, instead of torturing us with their maps, we'd probably have a way better game right now. You have a huge community full of people making maps for free for you, use those. And please for the love of god stop making maps at blizzard. Other than that nice that they give you 3 maps for what was once a ptr.. People who design maps almost certainly don't have the skillset for working on battle.net features. They are almost certainly separate teams...so no time is being "wasted" here. I do agree, the community maps tend to be made with people who actually have experience with the game at a high level, or at least get lots of input from people who do. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote: that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace If a map has mirror symmetry there is no positional imbalance. It's only the rotational "symmetry" that creates positional imbalances. But yeah, since this one is rotational, there are positional imbalances, however offset by a the big distances everywhere. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On October 24 2013 18:37 Qikz wrote: I completely disagree. You say they can drop in the natural easier, but it means usually they'll have a smaller area to drop so you should be able to defend it much easier, but then if you're in the other position they can drop your main yes, but you can avoid the damage by good building placement and leaving some defending units. There's also the possibility to just not take your in base natural and wall off the one in your base to start with and take it as your third so you can leave/build defenses when you need to rather than at the beginning of the game. Expansion pattern makes a huge difference in defense but thanks to SC2 having such terrible maps since release we've never been able to see it thanks to people comstantly whining there's no easy third/fourth. There's zero issues with the fact you have to double scout, since if you want every map to be forced cross spawn, what's the point in even having anything outside of 2 player maps? What's wrong with it being possible to have cheeses somewhat more viable on the map and what's wrong with people being able to stop you scouting, especially on such a big map. Toss have observers, Zerg have overlords/seers and Terran have scan, which you don't even need an Academy for. It really isn't hard to scout in SC2 and it just means you can't blindly go 14CC or 15 Nexus or 13/14/15 Hatch blindly without a pool and that's a good thing. Build some god damn units to defend your bases rather than building 120 workers and hoping for the best. (yes I realise I'm exaggerating) I would completely agree with you, if it made any sense in relation to this map. First of all, the natural drop was just an example. The point is that any rotational symmetrical map is NOT equal for spawn positions. If their goal was to make it equal just make it mirror symmetric, problem solved. That you can take measures to reduce the issue doesn't change the fact that it is not equal for players. Taking your third as natural leaves you in a much weaker position and I would really consider that a bad idea. You think people whine too much that they should have easy third and fourths. I completely agree! Yet what do we have here, a map where the natural is free, the third is trivial to defend, and the fourth is also very easy to defend. You say the problem is people blindly going for very greedy builds. Again I completely agree. But especially this map heavily promotes that. Which is why I said in the beginning of this post: I would completely agree with you, if it made any sense. The point where I disagree is that it is good it is trivial to stop scouting. Without scouting you cannot even call it a strategy game. I am all for agressive play, I do it myself alot. But I am not in favour of games where winning completely depends on if you happen to guess the correct BO, because you cannot properly scout. | ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
It's a solid condemned ridge level map... + Show Spoiler + it means that it's really bad | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3685 Posts
On October 24 2013 19:14 KrazyTrumpet wrote: People who design maps almost certainly don't have the skillset for working on battle.net features. They are almost certainly separate teams...so no time is being "wasted" here. I do agree, the community maps tend to be made with people who actually have experience with the game at a high level, or at least get lots of input from people who do. Wait they have actual people whos fulltime job it is to only make these maps? Well I always figured they'd have some of their people do it on the side when they have time or have interns do them... Holy crap those poor people working at blizzard only to make shitty maps. Well I guess as I don't want them to loose their jobs, gogo keep up the shitty work! | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12023 Posts
On October 24 2013 19:28 Sissors wrote: I would completely agree with you, if it made any sense in relation to this map. First of all, the natural drop was just an example. The point is that any rotational symmetrical map is NOT equal for spawn positions. If their goal was to make it equal just make it mirror symmetric, problem solved. That you can take measures to reduce the issue doesn't change the fact that it is not equal for players. Taking your third as natural leaves you in a much weaker position and I would really consider that a bad idea. You think people whine too much that they should have easy third and fourths. I completely agree! Yet what do we have here, a map where the natural is free, the third is trivial to defend, and the fourth is also very easy to defend. You say the problem is people blindly going for very greedy builds. Again I completely agree. But especially this map heavily promotes that. Which is why I said in the beginning of this post: I would completely agree with you, if it made any sense. The point where I disagree is that it is good it is trivial to stop scouting. Without scouting you cannot even call it a strategy game. I am all for agressive play, I do it myself alot. But I am not in favour of games where winning completely depends on if you happen to guess the correct BO, because you cannot properly scout. See this is where I think me and you differ on opinions. The very fact the fouth is somewhat easy to defend is offset by how far it is away from the other bases and also from what I can tell the minerals are actually siegable by siege units on the fourth from the cliff behind it. The natural depending on whether you go in base or out is a problem as one of them really should be a mineral only base, but to be honest, the distances between all the bases in general outside of the first three (which thanks to whining/the game design have to be close together) it looks like a relatively solid map past three bases. Part of the issue with SC2 is that people sit in one corner of the map no matter what the positions, where as on this map the large distances between all the bases spread the players out more by proxy of where the bases are which, although fair enough that doesn't lead to Fighting Spirit style taking two corners, but it could lead to a hell of a lot more interesting games which are not just insta counter attacks into death with games hinging on one battle. The biggest thing about this map for me is purely that fact, it may still be somewhat of a broken game, but atleast they can use the macro mechanics to make the games look more interesting and less, oh you lost a battle, better GG! Maps like this also reward small groups of units moving around pressuring which in turn reward splitting your army to defend. | ||
|
]Skyline
Germany3 Posts
However, the bigger the Maps, the more skill you need to win, because to win by an All-In/Cheese is easy. There is no skill behind executing a build and hoping for the best. However if you have to win by: 1. Managing your economy 2. Keep your opponent busy 3. Managing to deal with all distractions that's way more fun. I can see people want to see action-packed Pro-Matches. But remember, it's more fun and rewarding to play the "boring style". (It's not boring at all because you are as occupied as an NASA-Engineer at Rocket-Launch.) Why don't we just make two map pools like "Macro", with huge 16+ Base Maps, and "Action", with rather small 10-16 Base Maps. Reminds me kinda of BW. After writing this I cut out the explanation and thought it would be better to open up a new thread on b.net for this since this is a suggestion. Here is the link: Click me | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12023 Posts
On October 24 2013 19:45 ]Skyline wrote: I LOVE big maps. I don't know why people always bash on long Macro-Games. If you want to have Action, go to Dota or LoL, seriously. However, the bigger the Maps, the more skill you need to win, because to win by an All-In/Cheese is easy. There is no skill behind executing a build and hoping for the best. However if you have to win by: 1. Managing your economy 2. Keep your opponent busy 3. Managing to deal with all distractions that's way more fun. I can see people want to see action-packed Pro-Matches. But remember, it's more fun and rewarding to play the "boring style". (It's not boring at all because you are as occupied as an NASA-Engineer at Rocket-Launch.) Why don't we just make two map pools like "Macro", with huge 16+ Base Maps, and "Action", with rather small 10-16 Base Maps. Reminds me kinda of BW. After writing this I cut out the explanation and thought it would be better to open up a new thread on b.net for this since this is a suggestion. Here is the link: Click me I realise I just made a huge post, but I agree with this. Bigger maps in SC2 lead to more BW style games as the game isn't decided on one battle. | ||
|
S1eth
Austria221 Posts
On October 24 2013 19:30 Lorch wrote: Wait they have actual people whos fulltime job it is to only make these maps? Well I always figured they'd have some of their people do it on the side when they have time or have interns do them... Holy crap those poor people working at blizzard only to make shitty maps. Well I guess as I don't want them to loose their jobs, gogo keep up the shitty work! Who do you think makes the single player campaign maps? On October 24 2013 19:47 Qikz wrote: I realise I just made a huge post, but I agree with this. Bigger maps in SC2 lead to more BW style games as the game isn't decided on one battle. I could maybe agree with this if it wasn't for Protoss. | ||
|
MstrJinbo
United States1251 Posts
On October 24 2013 19:30 Lorch wrote: Wait they have actual people whos fulltime job it is to only make these maps? Well I always figured they'd have some of their people do it on the side when they have time or have interns do them... Holy crap those poor people working at blizzard only to make shitty maps. Well I guess as I don't want them to loose their jobs, gogo keep up the shitty work! Their fulltime job is probably to make maps for Legacy of the Void. The ladder maps are probably a side project for them. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
Also the reason many don't like such large maps is that what some call 'macro games' are in practise NR15-NR20 games which are boring as hell (neither fun nor rewarding) that end in one big battle. Action packed games does not mean it should be over in 10 minutes on tier 1-1.5 units, it means there should happen something. | ||
|
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
| ||
|
S1eth
Austria221 Posts
On October 24 2013 19:52 FFW_Rude wrote: Can tanks shell the inbase natural from the side ? It would be so cool (to watch) See: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=433213 And click on Siege Range spoilers. Answer: no | ||
|
Kasaraki
Denmark7115 Posts
Big maps are nice in theory, but the actual game mechanics in general seem to disfavour them somewhat, both the supply cap, the income mechanics, and the remax mechanics. Big maps would be really cool if things could be a bit more BWesque on them, but it doesn't turn out that way most of the time. | ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
| ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
Tectonic Rift and Star Station are pretty bad too though.. That being said, I hope this map replaces Polar Night. That map is terrible in 1v1. | ||
|
Aeceus
United Kingdom1278 Posts
| ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12023 Posts
On October 24 2013 20:43 Aeceus wrote: Middle of the map is too flat...again. Give us some high variance please. I understand why you'd want it, but since high ground has no meaning in SC2 it's pretty much pointless. When there is highground people complain about forcefields on ramps too. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Still looks good, was some sick games on that map | ||
| ||
