EPT[Star Hangshow] Balance in SC2 - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tzyx
Northern Ireland281 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 30 2014 21:35 SatedSC2 wrote: What do expansive cliff-faces offer to the game other than making Blink really powerful? Why should Blizzard bend over backwards to accommodate such maps when they don't give us anything drastically different or interesting? They don't offer anything else to the game unless you consider the viability of multiple-Barracks Reaper builds as important. Maybe have one in the map-pool for the sake of variety (Terran players can veto it if they want), but don't have a map-pool consisting entirely of such maps. It makes blink really useful outside of blink allins, e.g. for harassment purposes against Swarm Hosts. It allows for elevator pushing. It allows for highgrounds protecting the pathes/bases below them. (e.g. protect your third from your main by cliffwalking colossi, positioning tanks there or having stalkers blinking down). These sorts of cliffs have had al sorts of interesting strategic value since the days of Metalopolis/Shattered Temple/Shakuras. Not to mention that it forces a mapmaker to waste space around a base for no purpose. It's not an accident that Cloud Kingdom or Heavy Rain or Yeonsu could keep the rush distances short, while allowing for macro play. Those maps used space very efficiently while still being small. The problem is if the map-pool contains more extreme/wonky/interesting maps than standard maps then you can't judge balance properly because the maps are influencing balance more than unit design is, which leads to bad unit design changes like the Widow Mine change. You want Blizzard to "fix balance", but Blizzard cannot possible know what they need to fix with map-pools like those we've had recently. Why? Because the maps are so fucking shit that any conclusions drawn from them are completely meaningless. Yeonsu was in no way an experimental map. Heavy Rain was completely standard. Cloud Kingdom defined standard. Polar Night allowed for play as standard as could be, despite it's experimental backdoor setup. Frost might have been the best 4p map that we ever had (until the WM nerf at least), the first one that made a very standard mirrored setup work on all spawn combinations. None of those maps was experimental. For 3years we never had a problem with these kinds of maps. The introduction of the Mothership Core broke blink rushes in comparison to WoL. That's the thing that changed. Not maps. What I want is that the game should be patched/designed to be more robust towards these kinds of differences in maps. That whole part that you bolded is exactly what I want to avoid. But since I know I'm talking to someone who calls a map broken if his Nexus Canon cannot reach over his wall-in, despite admitting that it's in no way needed balancewise, I'm gonna stop here. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 01 2014 00:11 SatedSC2 wrote: Your whole post is acting as if Blink Stalker all-ins weren't also strong in WoL, which is cute given that 4 Gate Blink/Obs all-ins were actually incredibly strong on any map with an exposed cliff-face. Maps specifically mentioned in that guide include Cloud Kingdom. That's plainly not true and you know that it is a strawman. Not once did I write (or think) that blink allins weren't strong. All I wrote is that they weren't a balance problem before the MsC. Ohana seemed to manage to have a long cliff-face without it all being completely exposed to Blink Stalker play. Elevator play, Blink harassment etc. were all still possible using the small amount of space available for such things, but the map didn't cater to full on all-ins using said space. Nor was the "space wasted" to prevent Blink bring broken as significant as you'd like to make out. You could very well blink allin on Ohana. Given how exposed the ramp is, the map would have probably played out very similar to Yeonsu in the age of 14sight MsC. I'm not saying that it is impossible to use space properly with that. But it's another piece in the puzzle that dictates how you have to setup bases, for no other reason as to prevent one specific rush in one matchup. | ||
|
Disciple7seveN
France28 Posts
But Terran's micro can be overwhelmingly powerful. Zerg macro (queens) and lack of infrastructure costs make them always ahead. Storms, mobile siege units, free permanent cloak, and ridiculous DPS all across the board make Protoss the ultimate A-move race. The fact is that these advantages and disadvantages wreck the balance of the game differently at different skill levels. For instance, as soon as Z learns how to hit injects at anywhere they boost up out of Bronze and into silver and gold whereas Terrans are stuck there until they learn how to split constantly in every single engagement (miss one and you just lost the game). On the other end of the spectrum [namely the Korean side] Top kespa Terrans and their god-like micro (while still macroing like beasts) prove to be worlds more powerful than P and Z who do not get as high of a benefit from highly skilled and consistent micro. We will never have a fair game as long as Terrans are balanced with correct micro being a given and are the only race that has to deal with friendly fire (storm doesn't really count), zergs don't have to spend any money on infrastructure (or units SH have to go. come on...) in order to flood the map with whatever unit they choose at the drop of a hat. And protoss have such overwhelming dps advantages and a 't' button that can selectively erase an opponent's units from the map. Simply put: if the game were ever balanced then blizz could have just relaxed and let things unfold naturally. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Based on my win-rate and the amount of whining I received using that build, I'd say that it was most definitely a problem. Some of the Terran posts in the thread I posted are testament to that. The only reason it wasn't a massive problem is because it wasn't something that became popular until the very end of WoL, but the fact that it was becoming popular towards the end of WoL meant that it was picked up on very quickly during the early stages of HotS. The MSC made 4 Gate Blink all-ins stronger and there's no denying that (especially during the beta when the MSC was also capable of granting detection) but pretending as if a large cliff-face isn't brilliant for Blink all-ins in the absence of the MSC is an absolute fallacy. You're really good at this strawman stuff, aren't you. I didn't say that a large cliff isn't brilliant for blink all-ins. But instead of having maps with no cliffs - where blink is unuseable and little cliffs - where blink is strong it would be better for the game to have maps with no cliffs - where blink is unuseable little cliffs - where blink might be possible, but weak large cliffs - where blink is good Blink all-ins are all about mobility because in a straight up fight Stalkers are trash. On maps like Ohana, where there is only one place to get up into the opponent's main, it is very hard to exploit the mobility of Blink Stalkers. This is why Ohana was always seen as one of the maps were Blink openings were bad in PvP. I'm not talking PvP. No matter how the units are balanced, there will always be a standard set-up of bases that produces the most balanced win-rates. This is unavoidable. We already know how the units are balanced and we know that Blizzard is loathe to change them, so making bad maps (relative to current unit design) and then demanding Blizzard fix the game so that those maps are usable is completely backwards. You got it backwards. First blizzard should fix the units. Then we create the maps. Noone demands bad maps to be used. And no, there is not just one standard possible. We can play a decent TvZ on Yeonsu and another one on Overgrowth. The first one allowing for all forms of cutsie elevator stuff, the other one allowing for all forms of turtle play. We just cannot do the same in TvP. So obviously, it is possible to have more loose standards than we currently have by fixing certain strategies instead of limiting mapmaking. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
StatixEx
United Kingdom779 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
He meant that the amount of combinations of heroes means there is unique micro for an infinite number of situations. Every 5 hero comp vs 5 hero comp will have ridiculously different ways you have to micro vs the other team because of the different abilities which adds a lot of depth to team fights and a lot of things to consider. When you look at SC2 right now, a lot of the time it's going to be exactly the same micro in every single situation. You kite back. You 1A your deathball. There isn't that depth of micro like in current Moba team fights or like there was in brood war where 10 vultures vs 10 dragoons could end up with either player being the victor. 10 vultures vs 10 dragoons, both players could actually win that depending on who micromanaged better with spider mine surrounds or dragoon kiting/target firing. In SC2, look at hellion vs stalker. It's a very bad hard counter system that was discussed a hell of a lot more on teamliquid when SC2 was first released. 10 hellions just will never ever win versus the 10 stalkers - there is no micro opportunity there, it's just a matter of "oh, he made this unit, and my unit doesn't counter it, i cannot win this ever." So yah...if blizzard is willing to tweak things like the hard counter system to produce more unique micro scenarios and such...that level of micro could come back. But with the way blizzard balances, they will never do this because they are very stuck in one set way of doing things and unwilling to change things imo. Just looking at patches, they are too afraid to break the game in any way shape or form or experiment. The SC2 community really has to push blizzard to do things like this, otherwise they will never ever get implemented, let alone even tested on the test server. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 01 2014 01:50 SatedSC2 wrote: Not possible. If Blink exists then maps with large, exposed cliffs will always be a bad idea. The only way to make such maps balanced would be to remove Blink (or to nerf it into irrelevance, which would be the same thing) and that would be an awful idea. Stalkers with Blink are very mobile units, as a map-maker that is your problem to deal with. It isn't Blizzard's job to make map-making easier for you when the units themselves work fine in absence of blatantly awful map features. No. Plainly no to your "always". Only if blink exists as fast as it exists now and getting highground vision is as easy as it is now and blink exists as strong as it is now. A lot of "ifs" for an always-statment. It's the exact same as when people argued that fungal growth will always be broken as long as it roots... No, it is not as HotS has shown. These always-arguments always stink, because you can always balance things so that they are less strong. If a map is bad for Blink in PvP then it is also bad for Blink in PvT because you're trying to exploit the exact same map advantages. My 4 Gate Blink guide mentions how maps that are good for that build are the same as those good for Blink in PvP. I thought the connection was obvious but I guess not. Every map is OK for blink in PvP, as far as I have seen from professional play. There is no map where blink is not a standard build. So the implication blink bad for PvP --> blink bad for PvT is worthless. However, there are maps where blink is bad in PvT. So there is not a 1-to-1 relationship between blink builds in these two matchups. It can be good in one and bad in the other. So I don't see why you bring PvP up when talking about PvT. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 01 2014 01:50 SatedSC2 wrote: (Blink is a map problem whether you like it or not; none of Blizzard's unit changes had a bigger effect on Blink Stalker all-ins than the maps changing did) Must be why Blink attacks are no longer an issue in PvT despite the map pool still being Blink-friendly with Catallena, Deadwing, King Sejong and Foxtrot top left vs bottom right... | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
But lately, it seems that SC2 just keeps getting patched whenever Blizzard hears cries from the community. See this seems silly to me, it doesn't really get patched very often. Key point in this case though is that this game is NOT Brood War, so the same rules don't necessarily apply. In addition, even if we tried to believe that it would be able to reach the same level of apparent near-perfect balance, who is to say that this game is up to Brood War's level of patching yet? Why would NOW have to be the time to have stopped patching? I also believe that if the professional players felt the game had become stale (not saying they have though), there should be patching to try to fix that, as we all want entertaining but balanced play. On July 02 2014 00:30 evilCursor wrote: I like the idea to constantly patch the game. It is an extra nudge to think out of the meta. I wouldn't agree with constantly but I agree with the general sentiment. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3397 Posts
I like the idea to constantly patch the game. It is an extra nudge to think out of the meta. This is the way of DotA, it's about who's best at analyzing the patches, hide strats and then suddenly pull it out. In Starcraft I expect more, I want players to overcome imbalances, with great skill. Like MarineKing splitting his Marines vs Banes and making it the new standard. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
On October 01 2014 01:50 SatedSC2 wrote: Map-makers know how the units work when they start making a map and so they should cater their maps towards that. If Blizzard make big changes to the game in the future then map-makers should cater their future maps towards those changes. Well it's not like we got a choice or anything. On October 01 2014 01:50 SatedSC2 wrote: What map-makers should not do is make maps that don't fit how the game is currently played by top professionals and then complain that Blizzard have fucked up. Blizzard have not fucked up, you have fucked up. I'm sorry for introducing the mothership core to the game On October 01 2014 01:50 SatedSC2 wrote: Sometimes things like Blink Stalker all-ins aren't foreseeable and that's fine, people are allowed to make mistakes, but when such issues crop up and are clearly down to the maps themselves (Blink is a map problem whether you like it or not; none of Blizzard's unit changes had a bigger effect on Blink Stalker all-ins than the maps changing did) gee it's not like we had to design a gigantic chasm next to every main since. On October 01 2014 01:50 SatedSC2 wrote: then map-makers should hold their hands up and admit they got something wrong. I suppose Blizzard should also recognise that the problem is map-based and not make a secondary map-pool containing even more problematic maps, but it's a lot easier to hate on Blizzard so whatever. This argument is pointless. we did, and blizzard didn't listen, so now we're stuck with extreme limitations on maps, and so we designed maps with extreme limitations, and everybody seems to be cool with that we're gonna run super similar maps til LotV. seriously why the fuck would you even try to argue on a ground that you have no knowledge off. | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
The state of balance in HoTs is very good nothing is glaringly broken I think the only area which should be switched around a bit more is the maps. According to Aligulac the leading race balance wise is Terran by 2% and Protoss is lacking by 1%. When it comes to LotV I think a lot of the problems can be addressed, mainly micro potential on units and the comment "I that when they win against their opponents, they win way too easily and it looks like they're just fighting with the attack command" 41:04 in the video. Micro potential should be addressed, part of why Terran is the most played/popular race is because of their insane micro potential whereas the other races don't have as much blatant micro moves. edit- Love the show, hope the english translations can be done at a faster pace though  edit2- You can tell the date when they say about Hyun posting today on his twitter about recent tournament results, I checked Hyuns twitter found the picture and that's how I got the date. edit3- 53:43-54:40 can not agree more, the main change they need in LotV. | ||
| ||
