|
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing
|
On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing
Indeed, and Blizzard, who wish to make the game as balanced as it possible is bringing back dead maps from wol to make themselves even further from their goal. Well it's not fun to play when the other guy is already having a big advantage while loadscreen is going.
|
On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing
Nope. I want diverse and balanced maps. As long as blizzard doesn't change a thing about blink, forcefields, zergs lack of ways to combat cliff abuse, turbovacs, and supermutas maps are very pidgeonholed and then you have to live with that. Some extra defenders advantages might go a long way...
+ Show Spoiler +I'm not saying all of them have to be nuked, but it would go a long way if blizzard started doing anything.
|
On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing
sc2: the game where people want to play on maps that aren't long worn out and imbalanced.
|
ahh so im not the only one who hates these maps :D
|
|
|
On November 23 2014 23:19 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing There are 7 maps. Only 1 was "standard" map last season. The #DreamPool is meant to be a goofy map-pool and it has more "standard" maps than last season had. It's a joke. I just want ~50% normal maps. A normal map shouldn't really favour any of the races. We know that such maps can exist because we've had them in the past. I don't want experimental maps. No 3P maps with massive positional imbalance and wonky rotation. No maps where the natural is more exposed to drops than it is to a frontal assault, making your main base as exposed as a natural normally would be. No maps where people can camp on four free bases for 20 minutes whilst tinkering with their super-army composition. More Overgrowth, more Bel'Shir Vestige, more fair and balanced maps. Less Blink maps. Less drop maps. Less over-sized maps. Less tiny maps. You can't have 7 standard maps because then every game would look the same, but 4 standard maps and 3 experimental ones (or vice-versa) would be fine: At least then people can veto the experimental ones if they turn out to be imbalanced, which last season's map pool showed us they often do. A map like Nimbus with a 35% win-rate for one race vs. another race shouldn't exist. Ever.
Wholeheartedly agree.
|
On November 23 2014 23:19 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing There are 7 maps. Only 1 was "standard" map last season.* The #DreamPool is meant to be a goofy map-pool and it has more "standard" maps than last season had. It's a joke. I just want ~50% normal maps. A normal map shouldn't really favour any of the races. We know that such maps can exist because we've had them in the past. I don't want experimental maps. No 3P maps with massive positional imbalance and wonky rotation. No maps where the natural is more exposed to drops than it is to a frontal assault, making your main base as exposed as a natural normally would be. No maps where people can camp on four free bases for 20 minutes whilst tinkering with their super-army composition. More Overgrowth, more Bel'Shir Vestige, more fair and balanced maps. Less Blink maps. Less drop maps. Less over-sized maps. Less tiny maps. You can't have 7 standard maps because then every game would look the same, but 4 standard maps and 3 experimental ones (or vice-versa) would be fine: At least then people can veto the experimental ones if they turn out to be imbalanced, which last season's map pool showed us they often do. A map like Nimbus with a 35% win-rate for one race vs. another race shouldn't exist. Ever.
Please, Pleeeeaaassseeee don't call that standard, the "standard" term you like to throw around is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, and a map being standard is by no means an assurance that the map will end up being balanced. For the sake of the sanity of any mapmaker that dares try to talk to you, don't say "standard" when referring to 2p standard maps because as i said the standard term is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, just say that you are in love of 2P standard maps and be done with it.
|
On November 24 2014 01:20 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 23:19 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing There are 7 maps. Only 1 was "standard" map last season.* The #DreamPool is meant to be a goofy map-pool and it has more "standard" maps than last season had. It's a joke. I just want ~50% normal maps. A normal map shouldn't really favour any of the races. We know that such maps can exist because we've had them in the past. I don't want experimental maps. No 3P maps with massive positional imbalance and wonky rotation. No maps where the natural is more exposed to drops than it is to a frontal assault, making your main base as exposed as a natural normally would be. No maps where people can camp on four free bases for 20 minutes whilst tinkering with their super-army composition. More Overgrowth, more Bel'Shir Vestige, more fair and balanced maps. Less Blink maps. Less drop maps. Less over-sized maps. Less tiny maps. You can't have 7 standard maps because then every game would look the same, but 4 standard maps and 3 experimental ones (or vice-versa) would be fine: At least then people can veto the experimental ones if they turn out to be imbalanced, which last season's map pool showed us they often do. A map like Nimbus with a 35% win-rate for one race vs. another race shouldn't exist. Ever. Please, Pleeeeaaassseeee don't call that standard, the "standard" term you like to throw around is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, and a map being standard is by no means an assurance that the map will end up being balanced. For the sake of the sanity of any mapmaker that dares try to talk to you, don't say "standard" when referring to 2p standard maps because as i said the standard term is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, just say that you are in love of 2P standard maps and be done with it.
I think you are exaggerating what he said. I think Sated is aware that a 3P map could be standard too and that there were some rather standard 4P maps around already. The point he is making is (I think) that the 3-4player maps we had all kind of played around having some wonky features on top of 3-4p maps already playing out a little wonky. (rotational imbalances, bigger size, early scouting issues)
I can really connect to his commend. I'd love it if we just had a certain set of 3-4 good standard maps (make it old ones, I don't mind playing on Daybreak for the next 100years for as long as it is fun) and then 3-4 experimental ones. I don't see the point in making 5-6 of 7 maps semi-wonky when the balance for such features just isn't really there.
I'd like a mappool like:
1) Current standard 2p map
2) Current standard >3p map
3) New map that looks very standard
4) Current map that plays differently and may have small imbalances
5) New map that looks like it will play out differently
Then fill the last two spots with maps like these:
*) New Blizzard map
**) Community/Popularity Contest Winner
***) Nostalgia map
*) Blizzard sometimes has interesting mapdesigns and though people might not like them as much, e.g. Alterzim produced some of the best PvZs we have ever seen.
**) Many good maps result from those, for as long as we don't force each and every popularity contest winner into the mappool we have a good pool to choose from.
***) Many old maps were only retired because they were played so much. Having them return for a season gives many players good memories and isn't all that problematic because those have already been tested so much.
|
Canada13395 Posts
On November 24 2014 00:58 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 23:19 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing There are 7 maps. Only 1 was "standard" map last season. The #DreamPool is meant to be a goofy map-pool and it has more "standard" maps than last season had. It's a joke. I just want ~50% normal maps. A normal map shouldn't really favour any of the races. We know that such maps can exist because we've had them in the past. I don't want experimental maps. No 3P maps with massive positional imbalance and wonky rotation. No maps where the natural is more exposed to drops than it is to a frontal assault, making your main base as exposed as a natural normally would be. No maps where people can camp on four free bases for 20 minutes whilst tinkering with their super-army composition. More Overgrowth, more Bel'Shir Vestige, more fair and balanced maps. Less Blink maps. Less drop maps. Less over-sized maps. Less tiny maps. You can't have 7 standard maps because then every game would look the same, but 4 standard maps and 3 experimental ones (or vice-versa) would be fine: At least then people can veto the experimental ones if they turn out to be imbalanced, which last season's map pool showed us they often do. A map like Nimbus with a 35% win-rate for one race vs. another race shouldn't exist. Ever. Wholeheartedly agree.
Nimbus became a problem. It wasn't originally a problem. This kind of map is bound to exist and happen when we start exploring more and more deviations from what is "standard" and "normal". Catallena, Nimbus showed us just how much air space is too much air space for drops. Likewise, the mine buff did not help either.
Also some of the maps which were chosen were terran favoured in TvP and that was okay when they were chosen. Why? Because PvT was horribly protoss favoured for a very long time at that point. With the terran buffs and more terran favoured maps it should have balanced out but the maps were 1) too good for drops 2) mines got a big buff.
With this in mind you scale back a bit of the drop space (just like how we have scaled back blinkable space and its position in relation to the natural and main-nat ramp) and it should make for a better map.
Dreampool was fun for a little bit but honestly I don't like it as much as I was hoping to. I was hoping my initial reaction was wrong, and while its not AS bad as it could be it certainly has begun to overstay its welcome - for me anyway.
Also the talk of standard is bad. Standard changes over time. Daybreak used to be standard, its not now. Its horribly imbalanced in favour of heavy siege compositions like swarmhosts or broodlords back in WoL.
Metal was once standard, and lots of maps followed its design and it was in the pool forever.
Whirlwind, Tal'darim - standard at one point.
Daybreak was super turtle macro oriented yup. But it was the only super macro oriented map in the pool.
Also who remembers when overgrowth was vetoed a bunch a few months back because it had a gold base? Now its considered standard?
Sejong was not liked at the beginning because it was too different, and yet now its standard? Standard changes. Pushing the maps and seeing what they do is really important.
|
On November 23 2014 22:54 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing Well it's not fun to play when the other guy is already having a big advantage while loadscreen is going.
You must not like playing vs. Random I presume?
|
On November 24 2014 03:35 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 00:58 [PkF] Wire wrote:On November 23 2014 23:19 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing There are 7 maps. Only 1 was "standard" map last season. The #DreamPool is meant to be a goofy map-pool and it has more "standard" maps than last season had. It's a joke. I just want ~50% normal maps. A normal map shouldn't really favour any of the races. We know that such maps can exist because we've had them in the past. I don't want experimental maps. No 3P maps with massive positional imbalance and wonky rotation. No maps where the natural is more exposed to drops than it is to a frontal assault, making your main base as exposed as a natural normally would be. No maps where people can camp on four free bases for 20 minutes whilst tinkering with their super-army composition. More Overgrowth, more Bel'Shir Vestige, more fair and balanced maps. Less Blink maps. Less drop maps. Less over-sized maps. Less tiny maps. You can't have 7 standard maps because then every game would look the same, but 4 standard maps and 3 experimental ones (or vice-versa) would be fine: At least then people can veto the experimental ones if they turn out to be imbalanced, which last season's map pool showed us they often do. A map like Nimbus with a 35% win-rate for one race vs. another race shouldn't exist. Ever. Wholeheartedly agree. Nimbus became a problem. It wasn't originally a problem. This kind of map is bound to exist and happen when we start exploring more and more deviations from what is "standard" and "normal". Catallena, Nimbus showed us just how much air space is too much air space for drops. Likewise, the mine buff did not help either. Also some of the maps which were chosen were terran favoured in TvP and that was okay when they were chosen. Why? Because PvT was horribly protoss favoured for a very long time at that point. With the terran buffs and more terran favoured maps it should have balanced out but the maps were 1) too good for drops 2) mines got a big buff. With this in mind you scale back a bit of the drop space (just like how we have scaled back blinkable space and its position in relation to the natural and main-nat ramp) and it should make for a better map. Dreampool was fun for a little bit but honestly I don't like it as much as I was hoping to. I was hoping my initial reaction was wrong, and while its not AS bad as it could be it certainly has begun to overstay its welcome - for me anyway. Also the talk of standard is bad. Standard changes over time. Daybreak used to be standard, its not now. Its horribly imbalanced in favour of heavy siege compositions like swarmhosts or broodlords back in WoL. Metal was once standard, and lots of maps followed its design and it was in the pool forever. Whirlwind, Tal'darim - standard at one point. Daybreak was super turtle macro oriented yup. But it was the only super macro oriented map in the pool. Also who remembers when overgrowth was vetoed a bunch a few months back because it had a gold base? Now its considered standard? Sejong was not liked at the beginning because it was too different, and yet now its standard? Standard changes. Pushing the maps and seeing what they do is really important.
Let's take a look at King Sejong and Overgrowth, why they became a "standart" maps?
Simply due to a strange and shitty design of Merry Go Round, Catallena and Nimbus :D Players evolved and choosed best of the worst. And still, even horrible Foxtrot is times better than Xelnaga/Metalopolis.
Everybody liked Frost, everybody liked Neo Planet, Belshir Vestige and Whirlwind, but no, our community voted for a ton of Z favored maps, for a ton of soul trains, one base all-ins and cheeses.
|
On November 24 2014 03:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 01:20 Uvantak wrote:On November 23 2014 23:19 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing There are 7 maps. Only 1 was "standard" map last season.* The #DreamPool is meant to be a goofy map-pool and it has more "standard" maps than last season had. It's a joke. I just want ~50% normal maps. A normal map shouldn't really favour any of the races. We know that such maps can exist because we've had them in the past. I don't want experimental maps. No 3P maps with massive positional imbalance and wonky rotation. No maps where the natural is more exposed to drops than it is to a frontal assault, making your main base as exposed as a natural normally would be. No maps where people can camp on four free bases for 20 minutes whilst tinkering with their super-army composition. More Overgrowth, more Bel'Shir Vestige, more fair and balanced maps. Less Blink maps. Less drop maps. Less over-sized maps. Less tiny maps. You can't have 7 standard maps because then every game would look the same, but 4 standard maps and 3 experimental ones (or vice-versa) would be fine: At least then people can veto the experimental ones if they turn out to be imbalanced, which last season's map pool showed us they often do. A map like Nimbus with a 35% win-rate for one race vs. another race shouldn't exist. Ever. Please, Pleeeeaaassseeee don't call that standard, the "standard" term you like to throw around is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, and a map being standard is by no means an assurance that the map will end up being balanced. For the sake of the sanity of any mapmaker that dares try to talk to you, don't say "standard" when referring to 2p standard maps because as i said the standard term is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, just say that you are in love of 2P standard maps and be done with it. I think you are exaggerating what he said. I think Sated is aware that a 3P map could be standard too and that there were some rather standard 4P maps around already. The point he is making is (I think) that the 3-4player maps we had all kind of played around having some wonky features on top of 3-4p maps already playing out a little wonky. (rotational imbalances, bigger size, early scouting issues) I can really connect to his commend. I'd love it if we just had a certain set of 3-4 good standard maps (make it old ones, I don't mind playing on Daybreak for the next 100years for as long as it is fun) and then 3-4 experimental ones. I don't see the point in making 5-6 of 7 maps semi-wonky when the balance for such features just isn't really there. I'd like a mappool like: 1) Current standard 2p map 2) Current standard >3p map 3) New map that looks very standard 4) Current map that plays differently and may have small imbalances 5) New map that looks like it will play out differently Then fill the last two spots with maps like these: *) New Blizzard map **) Community/Popularity Contest Winner ***) Nostalgia map *) Blizzard sometimes has interesting mapdesigns and though people might not like them as much, e.g. Alterzim produced some of the best PvZs we have ever seen. **) Many good maps result from those, for as long as we don't force each and every popularity contest winner into the mappool we have a good pool to choose from. ***) Many old maps were only retired because they were played so much. Having them return for a season gives many players good memories and isn't all that problematic because those have already been tested so much.
He's not actually, he does not consider 3P standard maps to be Standard maps because his view on what standard means when talking about maps is skewed.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/470241-dreampool-finalised?page=4#76
I fully agree with you that there needs to be a mix of standard maps, along with other maps that are less so, but that's not what i'm arguing here at all.
Also i disagree with you Zeromuss on that standard changes over time, the standard is based mostly on the flow of the map more than a certain feature, a map with a gold base can be standard, a map that has a island base can be a standard map, a standard map means that the natural is can be walled off with ~3 3x3 buildings that are near the creep edge of a hatchery that's placed on the natural base, meanwhile the main base has a 1x sized ramp that leads to the natural and both base cores(mineral lines+vespene+townhalls) are around ~30 units of distance, meanwhile the third base(s) will find itself(s) at around ~40 units of distance from the natural base core, without falling onto a place that can be considered wide open, it will usually be bordering with the main base perimeter, and a highground/lowground will be in front of it to reduce the exposed area so it will be exposed only by ~two lanes, one of which can be used to park your army.
Daybreak, CloudKingdom, Whirlwind, TDA, and Pantanal are all standard maps if you measure them with the same pole i just gave, Metalopolis could also be considered standardish if you alter the layout to correct the open natural because the distances between the bases correspond to those on a standard map.
One of the issues we have on the community/mapmakers is are the terms we use, standard is one of them, and i consider it to be very important that such terms should be standardized as much as possible.
|
On November 24 2014 04:11 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 03:01 Big J wrote:On November 24 2014 01:20 Uvantak wrote:On November 23 2014 23:19 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing There are 7 maps. Only 1 was "standard" map last season.* The #DreamPool is meant to be a goofy map-pool and it has more "standard" maps than last season had. It's a joke. I just want ~50% normal maps. A normal map shouldn't really favour any of the races. We know that such maps can exist because we've had them in the past. I don't want experimental maps. No 3P maps with massive positional imbalance and wonky rotation. No maps where the natural is more exposed to drops than it is to a frontal assault, making your main base as exposed as a natural normally would be. No maps where people can camp on four free bases for 20 minutes whilst tinkering with their super-army composition. More Overgrowth, more Bel'Shir Vestige, more fair and balanced maps. Less Blink maps. Less drop maps. Less over-sized maps. Less tiny maps. You can't have 7 standard maps because then every game would look the same, but 4 standard maps and 3 experimental ones (or vice-versa) would be fine: At least then people can veto the experimental ones if they turn out to be imbalanced, which last season's map pool showed us they often do. A map like Nimbus with a 35% win-rate for one race vs. another race shouldn't exist. Ever. Please, Pleeeeaaassseeee don't call that standard, the "standard" term you like to throw around is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, and a map being standard is by no means an assurance that the map will end up being balanced. For the sake of the sanity of any mapmaker that dares try to talk to you, don't say "standard" when referring to 2p standard maps because as i said the standard term is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, just say that you are in love of 2P standard maps and be done with it. I think you are exaggerating what he said. I think Sated is aware that a 3P map could be standard too and that there were some rather standard 4P maps around already. The point he is making is (I think) that the 3-4player maps we had all kind of played around having some wonky features on top of 3-4p maps already playing out a little wonky. (rotational imbalances, bigger size, early scouting issues) I can really connect to his commend. I'd love it if we just had a certain set of 3-4 good standard maps (make it old ones, I don't mind playing on Daybreak for the next 100years for as long as it is fun) and then 3-4 experimental ones. I don't see the point in making 5-6 of 7 maps semi-wonky when the balance for such features just isn't really there. I'd like a mappool like: 1) Current standard 2p map 2) Current standard >3p map 3) New map that looks very standard 4) Current map that plays differently and may have small imbalances 5) New map that looks like it will play out differently Then fill the last two spots with maps like these: *) New Blizzard map **) Community/Popularity Contest Winner ***) Nostalgia map *) Blizzard sometimes has interesting mapdesigns and though people might not like them as much, e.g. Alterzim produced some of the best PvZs we have ever seen. **) Many good maps result from those, for as long as we don't force each and every popularity contest winner into the mappool we have a good pool to choose from. ***) Many old maps were only retired because they were played so much. Having them return for a season gives many players good memories and isn't all that problematic because those have already been tested so much. He's not actually, he does not consider 3P standard maps to be Standard maps because his view on what standard means when talking about maps is skewed. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/470241-dreampool-finalised?page=4#76I fully agree with you that there needs to be a mix of standard maps, along with other maps that are less so, but that's not what i'm arguing here at all. Also i disagree with you Zeromuss on that standard changes over time, the standard is based mostly on the flow of the map more than a certain feature, a map with a gold base can be standard, a map that has a island base can be a standard map, a standard map means that the natural is can be walled off with ~3 3x3 buildings that are near the creep edge of a hatchery that's placed on the natural base, meanwhile the main base has a 1x sized ramp that leads to the natural and both base cores(mineral lines+vespene+townhalls) are around ~30 units of distance, meanwhile the third base(s) will find itself(s) at around ~40 units of distance from the natural base core, without falling onto a place that can be considered wide open, it will usually be bordering with the main base perimeter, and a highground/lowground will be in front of it to reduce the exposed area so it will be exposed only by ~two lanes, one of which can be used to park your army. Daybreak, CloudKingdom, Whirlwind, TDA, and Pantanal are all standard maps if you measure them with the same pole i just gave, Metalopolis could also be considered standardish if you alter the layout to correct the open natural because the distances between the bases correspond to those on a standard map. One of the issues we have on the community/mapmakers is are the terms we use, standard is one of them, and i consider it to be very important that such terms should be standardized as much as possible.
Hm, I see. Personally I wouldn't call MGR too standard either due to the very open 3rd base and how it is quite different depending on whether you spawn clock- or counterclockwise. As you say, that comes down to standardization of terms.
Personally I'm measuring how "standard" a map is by how much its features allow for standard gameplay without your opponent being able to blindcounter you. E.g. on MGR a commited timing against a standard timed Protoss 3rd should usually succeed when those builds collide blindly, not so much on Overgrowth or Frost cross positions. I'm open for that to change if someone would make a complete definition of "standard map". 
|
On November 24 2014 04:11 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 03:01 Big J wrote:On November 24 2014 01:20 Uvantak wrote:On November 23 2014 23:19 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing There are 7 maps. Only 1 was "standard" map last season.* The #DreamPool is meant to be a goofy map-pool and it has more "standard" maps than last season had. It's a joke. I just want ~50% normal maps. A normal map shouldn't really favour any of the races. We know that such maps can exist because we've had them in the past. I don't want experimental maps. No 3P maps with massive positional imbalance and wonky rotation. No maps where the natural is more exposed to drops than it is to a frontal assault, making your main base as exposed as a natural normally would be. No maps where people can camp on four free bases for 20 minutes whilst tinkering with their super-army composition. More Overgrowth, more Bel'Shir Vestige, more fair and balanced maps. Less Blink maps. Less drop maps. Less over-sized maps. Less tiny maps. You can't have 7 standard maps because then every game would look the same, but 4 standard maps and 3 experimental ones (or vice-versa) would be fine: At least then people can veto the experimental ones if they turn out to be imbalanced, which last season's map pool showed us they often do. A map like Nimbus with a 35% win-rate for one race vs. another race shouldn't exist. Ever. Please, Pleeeeaaassseeee don't call that standard, the "standard" term you like to throw around is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, and a map being standard is by no means an assurance that the map will end up being balanced. For the sake of the sanity of any mapmaker that dares try to talk to you, don't say "standard" when referring to 2p standard maps because as i said the standard term is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, just say that you are in love of 2P standard maps and be done with it. I think you are exaggerating what he said. I think Sated is aware that a 3P map could be standard too and that there were some rather standard 4P maps around already. The point he is making is (I think) that the 3-4player maps we had all kind of played around having some wonky features on top of 3-4p maps already playing out a little wonky. (rotational imbalances, bigger size, early scouting issues) I can really connect to his commend. I'd love it if we just had a certain set of 3-4 good standard maps (make it old ones, I don't mind playing on Daybreak for the next 100years for as long as it is fun) and then 3-4 experimental ones. I don't see the point in making 5-6 of 7 maps semi-wonky when the balance for such features just isn't really there. I'd like a mappool like: 1) Current standard 2p map 2) Current standard >3p map 3) New map that looks very standard 4) Current map that plays differently and may have small imbalances 5) New map that looks like it will play out differently Then fill the last two spots with maps like these: *) New Blizzard map **) Community/Popularity Contest Winner ***) Nostalgia map *) Blizzard sometimes has interesting mapdesigns and though people might not like them as much, e.g. Alterzim produced some of the best PvZs we have ever seen. **) Many good maps result from those, for as long as we don't force each and every popularity contest winner into the mappool we have a good pool to choose from. ***) Many old maps were only retired because they were played so much. Having them return for a season gives many players good memories and isn't all that problematic because those have already been tested so much. He's not actually, he does not consider 3P standard maps to be Standard maps because his view on what standard means when talking about maps is skewed. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/470241-dreampool-finalised?page=4#76I fully agree with you that there needs to be a mix of standard maps, along with other maps that are less so, but that's not what i'm arguing here at all. Also i disagree with you Zeromuss on that standard changes over time, the standard is based mostly on the flow of the map more than a certain feature, a map with a gold base can be standard, a map that has a island base can be a standard map, a standard map means that the natural is can be walled off with ~3 3x3 buildings that are near the creep edge of a hatchery that's placed on the natural base, meanwhile the main base has a 1x sized ramp that leads to the natural and both base cores(mineral lines+vespene+townhalls) are around ~30 units of distance, meanwhile the third base(s) will find itself(s) at around ~40 units of distance from the natural base core, without falling onto a place that can be considered wide open, it will usually be bordering with the main base perimeter, and a highground/lowground will be in front of it to reduce the exposed area so it will be exposed only by ~two lanes, one of which can be used to park your army. Daybreak, CloudKingdom, Whirlwind, TDA, and Pantanal are all standard maps if you measure them with the same pole i just gave, Metalopolis could also be considered standardish if you alter the layout to correct the open natural because the distances between the bases correspond to those on a standard map. One of the issues we have on the community/mapmakers is are the terms we use, standard is one of them, and i consider it to be very important that such terms should be standardized as much as possible.
While I agree with your definition of standard, I feel like most people don't think of that when they think of "standard". I believe that for the majority of the playerbase a "standard map" is a map that is not broken/does not heavily favour a particular race or strat in a given matchup. This leads to the conception of the "standard" as evolving with time, since a map like CK was perfectly standard for its time but would be considered broken and non-standard if it was introduced as a new map now.
|
On November 24 2014 05:10 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 04:11 Uvantak wrote:On November 24 2014 03:01 Big J wrote:On November 24 2014 01:20 Uvantak wrote:On November 23 2014 23:19 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing There are 7 maps. Only 1 was "standard" map last season.* The #DreamPool is meant to be a goofy map-pool and it has more "standard" maps than last season had. It's a joke. I just want ~50% normal maps. A normal map shouldn't really favour any of the races. We know that such maps can exist because we've had them in the past. I don't want experimental maps. No 3P maps with massive positional imbalance and wonky rotation. No maps where the natural is more exposed to drops than it is to a frontal assault, making your main base as exposed as a natural normally would be. No maps where people can camp on four free bases for 20 minutes whilst tinkering with their super-army composition. More Overgrowth, more Bel'Shir Vestige, more fair and balanced maps. Less Blink maps. Less drop maps. Less over-sized maps. Less tiny maps. You can't have 7 standard maps because then every game would look the same, but 4 standard maps and 3 experimental ones (or vice-versa) would be fine: At least then people can veto the experimental ones if they turn out to be imbalanced, which last season's map pool showed us they often do. A map like Nimbus with a 35% win-rate for one race vs. another race shouldn't exist. Ever. Please, Pleeeeaaassseeee don't call that standard, the "standard" term you like to throw around is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, and a map being standard is by no means an assurance that the map will end up being balanced. For the sake of the sanity of any mapmaker that dares try to talk to you, don't say "standard" when referring to 2p standard maps because as i said the standard term is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, just say that you are in love of 2P standard maps and be done with it. I think you are exaggerating what he said. I think Sated is aware that a 3P map could be standard too and that there were some rather standard 4P maps around already. The point he is making is (I think) that the 3-4player maps we had all kind of played around having some wonky features on top of 3-4p maps already playing out a little wonky. (rotational imbalances, bigger size, early scouting issues) I can really connect to his commend. I'd love it if we just had a certain set of 3-4 good standard maps (make it old ones, I don't mind playing on Daybreak for the next 100years for as long as it is fun) and then 3-4 experimental ones. I don't see the point in making 5-6 of 7 maps semi-wonky when the balance for such features just isn't really there. I'd like a mappool like: 1) Current standard 2p map 2) Current standard >3p map 3) New map that looks very standard 4) Current map that plays differently and may have small imbalances 5) New map that looks like it will play out differently Then fill the last two spots with maps like these: *) New Blizzard map **) Community/Popularity Contest Winner ***) Nostalgia map *) Blizzard sometimes has interesting mapdesigns and though people might not like them as much, e.g. Alterzim produced some of the best PvZs we have ever seen. **) Many good maps result from those, for as long as we don't force each and every popularity contest winner into the mappool we have a good pool to choose from. ***) Many old maps were only retired because they were played so much. Having them return for a season gives many players good memories and isn't all that problematic because those have already been tested so much. He's not actually, he does not consider 3P standard maps to be Standard maps because his view on what standard means when talking about maps is skewed. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/470241-dreampool-finalised?page=4#76I fully agree with you that there needs to be a mix of standard maps, along with other maps that are less so, but that's not what i'm arguing here at all. Also i disagree with you Zeromuss on that standard changes over time, the standard is based mostly on the flow of the map more than a certain feature, a map with a gold base can be standard, a map that has a island base can be a standard map, a standard map means that the natural is can be walled off with ~3 3x3 buildings that are near the creep edge of a hatchery that's placed on the natural base, meanwhile the main base has a 1x sized ramp that leads to the natural and both base cores(mineral lines+vespene+townhalls) are around ~30 units of distance, meanwhile the third base(s) will find itself(s) at around ~40 units of distance from the natural base core, without falling onto a place that can be considered wide open, it will usually be bordering with the main base perimeter, and a highground/lowground will be in front of it to reduce the exposed area so it will be exposed only by ~two lanes, one of which can be used to park your army. Daybreak, CloudKingdom, Whirlwind, TDA, and Pantanal are all standard maps if you measure them with the same pole i just gave, Metalopolis could also be considered standardish if you alter the layout to correct the open natural because the distances between the bases correspond to those on a standard map. One of the issues we have on the community/mapmakers is are the terms we use, standard is one of them, and i consider it to be very important that such terms should be standardized as much as possible. While I agree with your definition of standard, I feel like most people don't think of that when they think of "standard". I believe that for the majority of the playerbase a "standard map" is a map that is not broken/does not heavily favour a particular race or strat in a given matchup. This leads to the conception of the "standard" as evolving with time, since a map like CK was perfectly standard for its time but would be considered broken and non-standard if it was introduced as a new map now.
why?
|
It seems we kinda agree a good map pool should have more maps that don't present "extreme" features (huge maps like Deadwing or Alterzim, huge ramps like Daedalus, plenty of air space like Nimbus, Catallena). 4-5 reasonable maps + 2-3 trying to push the limits sounds good, even though this repartition runs the risk of nearly never seeing the 2-3 experimental ones played in bo3/5s.
On November 24 2014 05:15 Big J wrote:
why?
I think the answer would involve the word blink.
|
Yeah i can see why using gameplay to create a baseline for standard maps could be useful, the issue happens when you realize that the gameplay evolves, which would alter the baseline for what can be considered a standard map, that's why Zeromus says the standard maps change overtime, because he's using the gameplay to judge maps instead of judging the maps by themselves (or at least that's what i get out your comment Zero), and since maps can be so extremely varied, it is very hard to achieve a definition of what is standard and what isn't.
One heavy example of these views colliding is King Sejong Station, from my definition the map can't be considered standard, nonethless from a players perspective the map CAN be considered standard because it does allow many different styles of play.
Other example could be my own Foxtrot, from the map view the map CAN be considered standardish, but from a player perspective the map is not because it strengthens certain styles of play and it does not really allow for extremely greedy play.
As i said, this is one of the things that need discussing, because it is an important topic, specially for the playerbase.
/edit, your answer is here Otherworld, i wrote this comment while you were writing yours and it clearly explains what you are talking about, in the differences between how mapmakers view maps, and how players view them.
/edit2 forgot to bold the first edit >.<
/edit3 i also forgot to mention that this whole post was supposed to be an answer to this + Show Spoiler +On November 24 2014 04:29 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 04:11 Uvantak wrote:On November 24 2014 03:01 Big J wrote:On November 24 2014 01:20 Uvantak wrote:On November 23 2014 23:19 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 23 2014 22:50 brickrd wrote:
sc2: the game where people want to be hand-delivered only the maps that best suit their race and their playstyle or else they have hissy fits and quit playing There are 7 maps. Only 1 was "standard" map last season.* The #DreamPool is meant to be a goofy map-pool and it has more "standard" maps than last season had. It's a joke. I just want ~50% normal maps. A normal map shouldn't really favour any of the races. We know that such maps can exist because we've had them in the past. I don't want experimental maps. No 3P maps with massive positional imbalance and wonky rotation. No maps where the natural is more exposed to drops than it is to a frontal assault, making your main base as exposed as a natural normally would be. No maps where people can camp on four free bases for 20 minutes whilst tinkering with their super-army composition. More Overgrowth, more Bel'Shir Vestige, more fair and balanced maps. Less Blink maps. Less drop maps. Less over-sized maps. Less tiny maps. You can't have 7 standard maps because then every game would look the same, but 4 standard maps and 3 experimental ones (or vice-versa) would be fine: At least then people can veto the experimental ones if they turn out to be imbalanced, which last season's map pool showed us they often do. A map like Nimbus with a 35% win-rate for one race vs. another race shouldn't exist. Ever. Please, Pleeeeaaassseeee don't call that standard, the "standard" term you like to throw around is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, and a map being standard is by no means an assurance that the map will end up being balanced. For the sake of the sanity of any mapmaker that dares try to talk to you, don't say "standard" when referring to 2p standard maps because as i said the standard term is irrelevant to the amount of spawns a map has, just say that you are in love of 2P standard maps and be done with it. I think you are exaggerating what he said. I think Sated is aware that a 3P map could be standard too and that there were some rather standard 4P maps around already. The point he is making is (I think) that the 3-4player maps we had all kind of played around having some wonky features on top of 3-4p maps already playing out a little wonky. (rotational imbalances, bigger size, early scouting issues) I can really connect to his commend. I'd love it if we just had a certain set of 3-4 good standard maps (make it old ones, I don't mind playing on Daybreak for the next 100years for as long as it is fun) and then 3-4 experimental ones. I don't see the point in making 5-6 of 7 maps semi-wonky when the balance for such features just isn't really there. I'd like a mappool like: 1) Current standard 2p map 2) Current standard >3p map 3) New map that looks very standard 4) Current map that plays differently and may have small imbalances 5) New map that looks like it will play out differently Then fill the last two spots with maps like these: *) New Blizzard map **) Community/Popularity Contest Winner ***) Nostalgia map *) Blizzard sometimes has interesting mapdesigns and though people might not like them as much, e.g. Alterzim produced some of the best PvZs we have ever seen. **) Many good maps result from those, for as long as we don't force each and every popularity contest winner into the mappool we have a good pool to choose from. ***) Many old maps were only retired because they were played so much. Having them return for a season gives many players good memories and isn't all that problematic because those have already been tested so much. He's not actually, he does not consider 3P standard maps to be Standard maps because his view on what standard means when talking about maps is skewed. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/470241-dreampool-finalised?page=4#76I fully agree with you that there needs to be a mix of standard maps, along with other maps that are less so, but that's not what i'm arguing here at all. Also i disagree with you Zeromuss on that standard changes over time, the standard is based mostly on the flow of the map more than a certain feature, a map with a gold base can be standard, a map that has a island base can be a standard map, a standard map means that the natural is can be walled off with ~3 3x3 buildings that are near the creep edge of a hatchery that's placed on the natural base, meanwhile the main base has a 1x sized ramp that leads to the natural and both base cores(mineral lines+vespene+townhalls) are around ~30 units of distance, meanwhile the third base(s) will find itself(s) at around ~40 units of distance from the natural base core, without falling onto a place that can be considered wide open, it will usually be bordering with the main base perimeter, and a highground/lowground will be in front of it to reduce the exposed area so it will be exposed only by ~two lanes, one of which can be used to park your army. Daybreak, CloudKingdom, Whirlwind, TDA, and Pantanal are all standard maps if you measure them with the same pole i just gave, Metalopolis could also be considered standardish if you alter the layout to correct the open natural because the distances between the bases correspond to those on a standard map. One of the issues we have on the community/mapmakers is are the terms we use, standard is one of them, and i consider it to be very important that such terms should be standardized as much as possible. Hm, I see. Personally I wouldn't call MGR too standard either due to the very open 3rd base and how it is quite different depending on whether you spawn clock- or counterclockwise. As you say, that comes down to standardization of terms. Personally I'm measuring how "standard" a map is by how much its features allow for standard gameplay without your opponent being able to blindcounter you. E.g. on MGR a commited timing against a standard timed Protoss 3rd should usually succeed when those builds collide blindly, not so much on Overgrowth or Frost cross positions. I'm open for that to change if someone would make a complete definition of "standard map".
|
Foxtrot is definitely standard to my mind, it was one of my favorite maps on the last pool with Overgrowth. Which styles would you say are favored on it ?
|
Aggressive styles, but i wouldn't say that it really favors those styles, i would better word it as it hinders overly greedy gameplay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
