|
On December 01 2014 04:48 Clonester wrote:
Season 3 Mappool was made to give Terran a better edge of the game because it was the weakest race. Shortly after this Mappool Blizzard patched the race and to state where it is at the same lvl or maybe ( what needs alot of more games on non terran maps ) a bit better.
So we got a clear "make Terran stronger" mappool with a new balance patch. And because Season 4 has this crappy "old school" mappool we see all Offlineevents using the S3 Mappool. This will lead to a stronger Terran in the MUs.
When we have Season 4 Mappool and we still got MU with clear unproportional victory where the maps arent imba, we can rethink about patching. Since then, ask the turnaments to use a mappool with outboxer, habitation, overgrowth, frost, whirlwind, star station and King Sejong, because they are allowed to use that pool during the offseason and still give WCS Points.
Nitpick: Season 4 pool IS Dreampool. 2015S1 is the first new competitive pool.
|
If a race is underpowered and then becomes balanced, naturally it will have higher win rates for a while in leagues where you qualify (such as WCS) since newly buffed players that are of "equal skill" are at a too low skill level for them. Basically their MMR is too high for challenger league. Same is sort of true for events that had qualifiers that took place before the patch.
What are the stats for the latest say 3 months?
And I feel the maps are a big part of it, especially Nimbus, Catallena and Merry Go Round. Cool to see some stats backing it up!
|
On December 01 2014 04:52 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 04:48 Clonester wrote:
Season 3 Mappool was made to give Terran a better edge of the game because it was the weakest race. Shortly after this Mappool Blizzard patched the race and to state where it is at the same lvl or maybe ( what needs alot of more games on non terran maps ) a bit better.
So we got a clear "make Terran stronger" mappool with a new balance patch. And because Season 4 has this crappy "old school" mappool we see all Offlineevents using the S3 Mappool. This will lead to a stronger Terran in the MUs.
When we have Season 4 Mappool and we still got MU with clear unproportional victory where the maps arent imba, we can rethink about patching. Since then, ask the turnaments to use a mappool with outboxer, habitation, overgrowth, frost, whirlwind, star station and King Sejong, because they are allowed to use that pool during the offseason and still give WCS Points. Nitpick: Season 4 pool IS Dreampool. 2015S1 is the first new competitive pool.
Dreampool is competitive as hell! :D
|
On December 01 2014 04:51 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 04:50 SoulmaN__ wrote:On December 01 2014 04:42 StaN.de wrote:
You better should have a look at the race distribution statistics, they are more reliable & meaningful than winrates from selected tournaments (aka biased/small sample size). Take for example the EU server:
GM:
28,6% Terran
33,2% Zerg
37,8% Protoss
Master:
28,9% Terran
36,3% Zerg
33,0% Protoss
Source: Nios.kr
Given the fact that the player-basis accross all races are/should be equally skilled you can clearly see, that terran is too weak OR harder to play on a relatively high level (master+).
Take the KR server for example: Terran 38.07% Zerg 27.41% Protoss 32.99% Random 1.52% You chose EU, I chose KR, and tbh the KR server is more reliable than both the NA and the EU server combined. Why? I thought foreigners are just as good as Koreans?
I said the 3 foreigners mentioned could make Code S, that doesn't mean your average ladder hero on EU and NA is as good as Code S level. You should know that.
|
On December 01 2014 04:55 DJHelium wrote:
What are the stats for the latest say 3 months?
And I feel the maps are a big part of it, especially Nimbus, Catallena and Merry Go Round. Cool to see some stats backing it up!
I gathered the stats for the last 4 months.
|
On December 01 2014 04:58 SoulmaN__ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 04:55 DJHelium wrote:
What are the stats for the latest say 3 months?
And I feel the maps are a big part of it, especially Nimbus, Catallena and Merry Go Round. Cool to see some stats backing it up! I gathered the stats for the last 4 months.
What is your reason for collecting the stats?
From your responses I mostly sense frustration and a wish to see Terran nerfed.
|
On December 01 2014 04:58 SoulmaN__ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 04:55 DJHelium wrote:
What are the stats for the latest say 3 months?
And I feel the maps are a big part of it, especially Nimbus, Catallena and Merry Go Round. Cool to see some stats backing it up! I gathered the stats for the last 4 months.
Lol I thought July was 6 months ago. Not so good with time apparently 
Well my point still stands. I guess what I'm looking for is stats for tournaments that had no prior qualifications. It's hard obviously since a lot base invites on former results, either tournament placements or WCS pts.
Nice data gather anyway, thank you for this!
|
On December 01 2014 03:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:On December 01 2014 02:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 02:19 ZeromuS wrote:On December 01 2014 01:08 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 00:47 Maniak_ wrote:On December 01 2014 00:29 Nebuchad wrote:
The thread is doing better than expected, honestly. Most people recognize that the path that makes sense involves doing nothing and changing the maps. You would think that's obvious, but history tells us it's not. It would have been the thing to do in july instead of doing both. Doing only one now may not be enough to fix this mistake. Still it'd be a start and we'll see what happens afterwards. No need to rush things, we're already seeing what that accomplishes. In Blizzard's defense, they picked some HUGE maps for last season, which are traditionally the bane of a Terran's existence. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought the open spaces on Catallena and MGR were just balancing out the fact that they're bigger than Whirlwind. No. Maps were chosen that were less "standard" than the maps in Season 2 and offered a little more variation. Here is some insight: TLMC lead to the current map pool through community maps. What TL strat chose for final voting were very much - break away from the norm maps that didn't emphasize blink or easy split map swarmhost strategies. Both of which were big problems in the first half of 2014. I also put an emphasis on maps that would be a little bit terran favoured in TvP when vetting the maps and creating a shortlist from which the finalists were chosen. Thanks for the elaboration. However, I'm not sure what you were saying "no" to. Your point that "we found out how much air space is too much" just furthers mine that Blizzard can't shoulder all the blame for not foreseeing this situation. Agreed about Templar openers. Actually, had they taken into account the new maps when releasing patches most of the issues we are seeing today wouldn't have developed in the first place :/ I have said it previously, as a mapmaker i do not what to do now, because i don't know how will Blizzard balance the game 4 months from now, do i take the balance of the game into my hands and release a map that is not as favorable for terran like foxtrot was? What happens if Blizzard then decides to nerf Terran based on old S3/S4 tournament stats without accounting for the new maps again? Or if i make a map that hinders Terran and in 7 months Blizzard decides to buff them based on 2015 S1/S2 data where Terran underperformed because of my map? A ladder map should be balanced, so i must take the future balance of the game into account and predict how will the metagame change on my map, but this becomes impossible if Blizzard releases balance patches while the map is being played. A map has a limited lifespan where it will be considered balanced and dynamic, the WCS seasons are quite the stretch for nonstandard maps which tend to have around 3 to 4 months of continuous play life span max. Now add to this that you can't make a full standard map because viewers will whine that the map is boring or that players have no incentive to be aggressive in the early game leading to dead time. So guys, honestly, tell me, what do i do? I think your best bet is to do a little bit of everything. Make a very standard 1-2-3 base setup (like Overgrowth), make it just a little bit blink-affine (like KSS), make standard aggression towards 4th bases a little bit more favored (like Merry Go Round) and then just make it very pretty. :D
If so then.
On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:
viewers will whine that the map is boring
|
On December 01 2014 05:03 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 04:58 SoulmaN__ wrote:On December 01 2014 04:55 DJHelium wrote:
What are the stats for the latest say 3 months?
And I feel the maps are a big part of it, especially Nimbus, Catallena and Merry Go Round. Cool to see some stats backing it up! I gathered the stats for the last 4 months. What is your reason for collecting the stats? From your responses I mostly sense frustration and a wish to see Terran nerfed.
Yes, but I also want to raise awareness about this. Terran players always seem to feel like victims when it comes to starcraft 2 balance, and this is simply here to show them that it's not always bad for them.
And of course, I wanna see Terran nerfed. These kinds of stats in a sample size of 300+ games are unacceptable.
|
On December 01 2014 05:19 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 03:45 Big J wrote:On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:On December 01 2014 02:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 02:19 ZeromuS wrote:On December 01 2014 01:08 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 00:47 Maniak_ wrote:On December 01 2014 00:29 Nebuchad wrote:
The thread is doing better than expected, honestly. Most people recognize that the path that makes sense involves doing nothing and changing the maps. You would think that's obvious, but history tells us it's not. It would have been the thing to do in july instead of doing both. Doing only one now may not be enough to fix this mistake. Still it'd be a start and we'll see what happens afterwards. No need to rush things, we're already seeing what that accomplishes. In Blizzard's defense, they picked some HUGE maps for last season, which are traditionally the bane of a Terran's existence. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought the open spaces on Catallena and MGR were just balancing out the fact that they're bigger than Whirlwind. No. Maps were chosen that were less "standard" than the maps in Season 2 and offered a little more variation. Here is some insight: TLMC lead to the current map pool through community maps. What TL strat chose for final voting were very much - break away from the norm maps that didn't emphasize blink or easy split map swarmhost strategies. Both of which were big problems in the first half of 2014. I also put an emphasis on maps that would be a little bit terran favoured in TvP when vetting the maps and creating a shortlist from which the finalists were chosen. Thanks for the elaboration. However, I'm not sure what you were saying "no" to. Your point that "we found out how much air space is too much" just furthers mine that Blizzard can't shoulder all the blame for not foreseeing this situation. Agreed about Templar openers. Actually, had they taken into account the new maps when releasing patches most of the issues we are seeing today wouldn't have developed in the first place :/ I have said it previously, as a mapmaker i do not what to do now, because i don't know how will Blizzard balance the game 4 months from now, do i take the balance of the game into my hands and release a map that is not as favorable for terran like foxtrot was? What happens if Blizzard then decides to nerf Terran based on old S3/S4 tournament stats without accounting for the new maps again? Or if i make a map that hinders Terran and in 7 months Blizzard decides to buff them based on 2015 S1/S2 data where Terran underperformed because of my map? A ladder map should be balanced, so i must take the future balance of the game into account and predict how will the metagame change on my map, but this becomes impossible if Blizzard releases balance patches while the map is being played. A map has a limited lifespan where it will be considered balanced and dynamic, the WCS seasons are quite the stretch for nonstandard maps which tend to have around 3 to 4 months of continuous play life span max. Now add to this that you can't make a full standard map because viewers will whine that the map is boring or that players have no incentive to be aggressive in the early game leading to dead time. So guys, honestly, tell me, what do i do? I think your best bet is to do a little bit of everything. Make a very standard 1-2-3 base setup (like Overgrowth), make it just a little bit blink-affine (like KSS), make standard aggression towards 4th bases a little bit more favored (like Merry Go Round) and then just make it very pretty. :D If so then. Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:
viewers will whine that the map is boring
I know, but you are trying to fix something that isn't in your power.
|
On December 01 2014 05:23 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 05:19 Uvantak wrote:On December 01 2014 03:45 Big J wrote:On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:On December 01 2014 02:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 02:19 ZeromuS wrote:On December 01 2014 01:08 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 00:47 Maniak_ wrote:On December 01 2014 00:29 Nebuchad wrote:
The thread is doing better than expected, honestly. Most people recognize that the path that makes sense involves doing nothing and changing the maps. You would think that's obvious, but history tells us it's not. It would have been the thing to do in july instead of doing both. Doing only one now may not be enough to fix this mistake. Still it'd be a start and we'll see what happens afterwards. No need to rush things, we're already seeing what that accomplishes. In Blizzard's defense, they picked some HUGE maps for last season, which are traditionally the bane of a Terran's existence. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought the open spaces on Catallena and MGR were just balancing out the fact that they're bigger than Whirlwind. No. Maps were chosen that were less "standard" than the maps in Season 2 and offered a little more variation. Here is some insight: TLMC lead to the current map pool through community maps. What TL strat chose for final voting were very much - break away from the norm maps that didn't emphasize blink or easy split map swarmhost strategies. Both of which were big problems in the first half of 2014. I also put an emphasis on maps that would be a little bit terran favoured in TvP when vetting the maps and creating a shortlist from which the finalists were chosen. Thanks for the elaboration. However, I'm not sure what you were saying "no" to. Your point that "we found out how much air space is too much" just furthers mine that Blizzard can't shoulder all the blame for not foreseeing this situation. Agreed about Templar openers. Actually, had they taken into account the new maps when releasing patches most of the issues we are seeing today wouldn't have developed in the first place :/ I have said it previously, as a mapmaker i do not what to do now, because i don't know how will Blizzard balance the game 4 months from now, do i take the balance of the game into my hands and release a map that is not as favorable for terran like foxtrot was? What happens if Blizzard then decides to nerf Terran based on old S3/S4 tournament stats without accounting for the new maps again? Or if i make a map that hinders Terran and in 7 months Blizzard decides to buff them based on 2015 S1/S2 data where Terran underperformed because of my map? A ladder map should be balanced, so i must take the future balance of the game into account and predict how will the metagame change on my map, but this becomes impossible if Blizzard releases balance patches while the map is being played. A map has a limited lifespan where it will be considered balanced and dynamic, the WCS seasons are quite the stretch for nonstandard maps which tend to have around 3 to 4 months of continuous play life span max. Now add to this that you can't make a full standard map because viewers will whine that the map is boring or that players have no incentive to be aggressive in the early game leading to dead time. So guys, honestly, tell me, what do i do? I think your best bet is to do a little bit of everything. Make a very standard 1-2-3 base setup (like Overgrowth), make it just a little bit blink-affine (like KSS), make standard aggression towards 4th bases a little bit more favored (like Merry Go Round) and then just make it very pretty. :D If so then. On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:
viewers will whine that the map is boring I know, but you are trying to fix something that isn't in your power.
I will not cater to players only, Starcraft is an E-Sport and as such i must think of the viewership aspect of the game just as i do of the meta, balance and gameplay, if cater to the big chunk of the western player base, then we wouldn't see earlygame action on maps because early game tactics are "cheap" and "annoying" while playing the game, but they are an important part of the game, they shouldn't be killed by maps because they are incredibly exiting while spectating, this is a huge issue, i have to cater to the player base as well as the spectators, and both have very conflicting views, not to mention all the issues that pop up when you dissect the player base into different skill levels.
|
On December 01 2014 05:19 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 03:45 Big J wrote:On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:On December 01 2014 02:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 02:19 ZeromuS wrote:On December 01 2014 01:08 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 00:47 Maniak_ wrote:On December 01 2014 00:29 Nebuchad wrote:
The thread is doing better than expected, honestly. Most people recognize that the path that makes sense involves doing nothing and changing the maps. You would think that's obvious, but history tells us it's not. It would have been the thing to do in july instead of doing both. Doing only one now may not be enough to fix this mistake. Still it'd be a start and we'll see what happens afterwards. No need to rush things, we're already seeing what that accomplishes. In Blizzard's defense, they picked some HUGE maps for last season, which are traditionally the bane of a Terran's existence. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought the open spaces on Catallena and MGR were just balancing out the fact that they're bigger than Whirlwind. No. Maps were chosen that were less "standard" than the maps in Season 2 and offered a little more variation. Here is some insight: TLMC lead to the current map pool through community maps. What TL strat chose for final voting were very much - break away from the norm maps that didn't emphasize blink or easy split map swarmhost strategies. Both of which were big problems in the first half of 2014. I also put an emphasis on maps that would be a little bit terran favoured in TvP when vetting the maps and creating a shortlist from which the finalists were chosen. Thanks for the elaboration. However, I'm not sure what you were saying "no" to. Your point that "we found out how much air space is too much" just furthers mine that Blizzard can't shoulder all the blame for not foreseeing this situation. Agreed about Templar openers. Actually, had they taken into account the new maps when releasing patches most of the issues we are seeing today wouldn't have developed in the first place :/ I have said it previously, as a mapmaker i do not what to do now, because i don't know how will Blizzard balance the game 4 months from now, do i take the balance of the game into my hands and release a map that is not as favorable for terran like foxtrot was? What happens if Blizzard then decides to nerf Terran based on old S3/S4 tournament stats without accounting for the new maps again? Or if i make a map that hinders Terran and in 7 months Blizzard decides to buff them based on 2015 S1/S2 data where Terran underperformed because of my map? A ladder map should be balanced, so i must take the future balance of the game into account and predict how will the metagame change on my map, but this becomes impossible if Blizzard releases balance patches while the map is being played. A map has a limited lifespan where it will be considered balanced and dynamic, the WCS seasons are quite the stretch for nonstandard maps which tend to have around 3 to 4 months of continuous play life span max. Now add to this that you can't make a full standard map because viewers will whine that the map is boring or that players have no incentive to be aggressive in the early game leading to dead time. So guys, honestly, tell me, what do i do? I think your best bet is to do a little bit of everything. Make a very standard 1-2-3 base setup (like Overgrowth), make it just a little bit blink-affine (like KSS), make standard aggression towards 4th bases a little bit more favored (like Merry Go Round) and then just make it very pretty. :D If so then. Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:
viewers will whine that the map is boring
But KSS is actually an awesome map with a twist that doesn't play out stupid at all.
|
On December 01 2014 05:21 SoulmaN__ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 05:03 SC2Toastie wrote:On December 01 2014 04:58 SoulmaN__ wrote:On December 01 2014 04:55 DJHelium wrote:
What are the stats for the latest say 3 months?
And I feel the maps are a big part of it, especially Nimbus, Catallena and Merry Go Round. Cool to see some stats backing it up! I gathered the stats for the last 4 months. What is your reason for collecting the stats? From your responses I mostly sense frustration and a wish to see Terran nerfed. Yes, but I also want to raise awareness about this. Terran players always seem to feel like victims when it comes to starcraft 2 balance, and this is simply here to show them that it's not always bad for them. And of course, I wanna see Terran nerfed. These kinds of stats in a sample size of 300+ games are unacceptable.
Problem is your stats do not show any trends, divide it into monthly data and then we can make any conlcusions, which im preety sure will be :TvZ ok currently, TvP significantly T favoured
In short data from 4 months ago is not as important as last moth's for CURRENT balance discussion.
Can you at least divide your data for particular tournaments so we can doubcle check your calculations?
|
On December 01 2014 05:21 SoulmaN__ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 05:03 SC2Toastie wrote:On December 01 2014 04:58 SoulmaN__ wrote:On December 01 2014 04:55 DJHelium wrote:
What are the stats for the latest say 3 months?
And I feel the maps are a big part of it, especially Nimbus, Catallena and Merry Go Round. Cool to see some stats backing it up! I gathered the stats for the last 4 months. What is your reason for collecting the stats? From your responses I mostly sense frustration and a wish to see Terran nerfed. Yes, but I also want to raise awareness about this. Terran players always seem to feel like victims when it comes to starcraft 2 balance, and this is simply here to show them that it's not always bad for them. And of course, I wanna see Terran nerfed. These kinds of stats in a sample size of 300+ games are unacceptable.
The tournaments you selected have a population of 112 Protoss, 89 Terrans, and 115 Zergs. When Terran was struggling it wasn't just about win rates, it was about how few terrans there were. A win rate of 50% doesn't matter if terran is only 10% of the population, for instance.
|
On December 01 2014 04:57 SoulmaN__ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 04:51 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 04:50 SoulmaN__ wrote:On December 01 2014 04:42 StaN.de wrote:
You better should have a look at the race distribution statistics, they are more reliable & meaningful than winrates from selected tournaments (aka biased/small sample size). Take for example the EU server:
GM:
28,6% Terran
33,2% Zerg
37,8% Protoss
Master:
28,9% Terran
36,3% Zerg
33,0% Protoss
Source: Nios.kr
Given the fact that the player-basis accross all races are/should be equally skilled you can clearly see, that terran is too weak OR harder to play on a relatively high level (master+).
Take the KR server for example: Terran 38.07% Zerg 27.41% Protoss 32.99% Random 1.52% You chose EU, I chose KR, and tbh the KR server is more reliable than both the NA and the EU server combined. Why? I thought foreigners are just as good as Koreans? I said the 3 foreigners mentioned could make Code S, that doesn't mean your average ladder hero on EU and NA is as good as Code S level. You should know that.
So all players are equal, except some foreigners are more foreign than others. Are Bunny's results relevant to top player balance? Dayshi's? Major's? Kas's? Neeb's? Masa's? KoMA's?
Where do you draw the line? Assuming for a moment that you truly don't understand what's wrong with what you're doing: a lot of Europeans and North Americans who scrape by into ro32 are bad by the standards of top-tier meta. While some top Europeans can play very well, the skill gap between Zest and the worst European who gets into a ro32 is much, much, much wider than the skill gap between Zest and the worst Korean who gets into a ro32.
Cut out every non-Korean, and you lower the risk of ridiculously skewed results. The proof is in the pudding, look at the difference between your results and mine. Which better reflect that Leenock just beat Taeja 2-1? Find me that time Gumiho beat Zest six months ago and we'll talk.
|
On December 01 2014 05:45 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 05:23 Big J wrote:On December 01 2014 05:19 Uvantak wrote:On December 01 2014 03:45 Big J wrote:On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:On December 01 2014 02:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 02:19 ZeromuS wrote:On December 01 2014 01:08 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 00:47 Maniak_ wrote:On December 01 2014 00:29 Nebuchad wrote:
The thread is doing better than expected, honestly. Most people recognize that the path that makes sense involves doing nothing and changing the maps. You would think that's obvious, but history tells us it's not. It would have been the thing to do in july instead of doing both. Doing only one now may not be enough to fix this mistake. Still it'd be a start and we'll see what happens afterwards. No need to rush things, we're already seeing what that accomplishes. In Blizzard's defense, they picked some HUGE maps for last season, which are traditionally the bane of a Terran's existence. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought the open spaces on Catallena and MGR were just balancing out the fact that they're bigger than Whirlwind. No. Maps were chosen that were less "standard" than the maps in Season 2 and offered a little more variation. Here is some insight: TLMC lead to the current map pool through community maps. What TL strat chose for final voting were very much - break away from the norm maps that didn't emphasize blink or easy split map swarmhost strategies. Both of which were big problems in the first half of 2014. I also put an emphasis on maps that would be a little bit terran favoured in TvP when vetting the maps and creating a shortlist from which the finalists were chosen. Thanks for the elaboration. However, I'm not sure what you were saying "no" to. Your point that "we found out how much air space is too much" just furthers mine that Blizzard can't shoulder all the blame for not foreseeing this situation. Agreed about Templar openers. Actually, had they taken into account the new maps when releasing patches most of the issues we are seeing today wouldn't have developed in the first place :/ I have said it previously, as a mapmaker i do not what to do now, because i don't know how will Blizzard balance the game 4 months from now, do i take the balance of the game into my hands and release a map that is not as favorable for terran like foxtrot was? What happens if Blizzard then decides to nerf Terran based on old S3/S4 tournament stats without accounting for the new maps again? Or if i make a map that hinders Terran and in 7 months Blizzard decides to buff them based on 2015 S1/S2 data where Terran underperformed because of my map? A ladder map should be balanced, so i must take the future balance of the game into account and predict how will the metagame change on my map, but this becomes impossible if Blizzard releases balance patches while the map is being played. A map has a limited lifespan where it will be considered balanced and dynamic, the WCS seasons are quite the stretch for nonstandard maps which tend to have around 3 to 4 months of continuous play life span max. Now add to this that you can't make a full standard map because viewers will whine that the map is boring or that players have no incentive to be aggressive in the early game leading to dead time. So guys, honestly, tell me, what do i do? I think your best bet is to do a little bit of everything. Make a very standard 1-2-3 base setup (like Overgrowth), make it just a little bit blink-affine (like KSS), make standard aggression towards 4th bases a little bit more favored (like Merry Go Round) and then just make it very pretty. :D If so then. On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:
viewers will whine that the map is boring I know, but you are trying to fix something that isn't in your power. I will not cater to players only, Starcraft is an E-Sport and as such i must think of the viewership aspect of the game just as i do of the meta, balance and gameplay, if cater to the big chunk of the western player base, then we wouldn't see earlygame action on maps because early game tactics are "cheap" and "annoying" while playing the game, but they are an important part of the game, they shouldn't be killed by maps because they are incredibly exiting while spectating, this is a huge issue, i have to cater to the player base as well as the spectators, and both have very conflicting views, not to mention all the issues that pop up when you dissect the player base into different skill levels.
I was more talking about how it isn't possible to have greatly interesting features given how the game is balanced. It's not in your power to make maps that achieve that, for that you need to use the data editor.
Maps like KSS or Habitation Station are in my opinion the maximum that can be achieved.
|
On December 01 2014 05:03 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 04:58 SoulmaN__ wrote:On December 01 2014 04:55 DJHelium wrote:
What are the stats for the latest say 3 months?
And I feel the maps are a big part of it, especially Nimbus, Catallena and Merry Go Round. Cool to see some stats backing it up! I gathered the stats for the last 4 months. What is your reason for collecting the stats? From your responses I mostly sense frustration and a wish to see Terran nerfed.
Funny. From your responses, I see only a wish to not see Terran nerfed.
See, that argument can go both ways.
One has to be extremely biased at this point not to see that Terran is too strong, especially vs. Protoss.
|
One thing I'd like to discuss a little more about:
Do your really think a change to the mappool will completely balance out the vs.T matchups?
Because I honestly think that the amount of openers Terran can do in TvZ has nothing to do with map balance, and I also think widow mines are so strong against Protoss that, even if a map would be horrible for drops and good for Zealot templar openings, it wouldn't matter, they would still be murdered.
Opinions? Something else than "Wait and see" would be nice...
|
On December 01 2014 06:11 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 05:45 Uvantak wrote:On December 01 2014 05:23 Big J wrote:On December 01 2014 05:19 Uvantak wrote:On December 01 2014 03:45 Big J wrote:On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:On December 01 2014 02:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 02:19 ZeromuS wrote:On December 01 2014 01:08 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 01 2014 00:47 Maniak_ wrote:
[quote]
It would have been the thing to do in july instead of doing both. Doing only one now may not be enough to fix this mistake. Still it'd be a start and we'll see what happens afterwards. No need to rush things, we're already seeing what that accomplishes.
In Blizzard's defense, they picked some HUGE maps for last season, which are traditionally the bane of a Terran's existence. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought the open spaces on Catallena and MGR were just balancing out the fact that they're bigger than Whirlwind. No. Maps were chosen that were less "standard" than the maps in Season 2 and offered a little more variation. Here is some insight: TLMC lead to the current map pool through community maps. What TL strat chose for final voting were very much - break away from the norm maps that didn't emphasize blink or easy split map swarmhost strategies. Both of which were big problems in the first half of 2014. I also put an emphasis on maps that would be a little bit terran favoured in TvP when vetting the maps and creating a shortlist from which the finalists were chosen. Thanks for the elaboration. However, I'm not sure what you were saying "no" to. Your point that "we found out how much air space is too much" just furthers mine that Blizzard can't shoulder all the blame for not foreseeing this situation. Agreed about Templar openers. Actually, had they taken into account the new maps when releasing patches most of the issues we are seeing today wouldn't have developed in the first place :/ I have said it previously, as a mapmaker i do not what to do now, because i don't know how will Blizzard balance the game 4 months from now, do i take the balance of the game into my hands and release a map that is not as favorable for terran like foxtrot was? What happens if Blizzard then decides to nerf Terran based on old S3/S4 tournament stats without accounting for the new maps again? Or if i make a map that hinders Terran and in 7 months Blizzard decides to buff them based on 2015 S1/S2 data where Terran underperformed because of my map? A ladder map should be balanced, so i must take the future balance of the game into account and predict how will the metagame change on my map, but this becomes impossible if Blizzard releases balance patches while the map is being played. A map has a limited lifespan where it will be considered balanced and dynamic, the WCS seasons are quite the stretch for nonstandard maps which tend to have around 3 to 4 months of continuous play life span max. Now add to this that you can't make a full standard map because viewers will whine that the map is boring or that players have no incentive to be aggressive in the early game leading to dead time. So guys, honestly, tell me, what do i do? I think your best bet is to do a little bit of everything. Make a very standard 1-2-3 base setup (like Overgrowth), make it just a little bit blink-affine (like KSS), make standard aggression towards 4th bases a little bit more favored (like Merry Go Round) and then just make it very pretty. :D If so then. On December 01 2014 03:28 Uvantak wrote:
viewers will whine that the map is boring I know, but you are trying to fix something that isn't in your power. I will not cater to players only, Starcraft is an E-Sport and as such i must think of the viewership aspect of the game just as i do of the meta, balance and gameplay, if cater to the big chunk of the western player base, then we wouldn't see earlygame action on maps because early game tactics are "cheap" and "annoying" while playing the game, but they are an important part of the game, they shouldn't be killed by maps because they are incredibly exiting while spectating, this is a huge issue, i have to cater to the player base as well as the spectators, and both have very conflicting views, not to mention all the issues that pop up when you dissect the player base into different skill levels. I was more talking about how it isn't possible to have greatly interesting features given how the game is balanced. It's not in your power to make maps that achieve that, for that you need to use the data editor. Maps like KSS or Habitation Station are in my opinion the maximum that can be achieved.
Oh yes BigJ, and i do not mean to alter the data on my maps, they are melee maps after all, i'm talking about examples such as Foxtrot, the imbalances that can be seen on the data are caused by some very specific design decisions that were aimed to help Terran when the map designed but backfired when Terran got buffed based on old seasons data, the way the center of the map was lay out to help in TvZ with the weak widowmines and hellbat+bio styles vs ling+bling+muta, sacrificing ZvP a bit. The way the main bases are exposed around the edges of the map to help with drops, the ledges on top of the bases so stimmed bio coming from drops on them can be more efficient vs defensive zealot warpins, etc, etc, etc.
KSS and HS are not the maximum that can be achieved by a long shot, there are many many core layouts and main->third set ups that can be stabilized and used for competitive play, nonetheless i have to agree that having the chance to use data editing or at least being able to use nonstandard mineral counts on bases would allow for an even greater variety of possible layouts and maps.
|
Im just going to wait for herO and Rain to destroy IEM and how the Ro8 of Hot6Cup turns out in two days. We have two highest level TvPs there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
