EPTToo much time spent on the computer?!
An Examination of the History of the Map Pool - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
geokilla
Canada8244 Posts
Too much time spent on the computer?! | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16006 Posts
On April 06 2016 01:15 Aocowns wrote: Great read, great perspective, solid opinions. Let's see if blizzard does more than acknowledge it's existence! "we saw this TL thread and disagree with it" | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
And even standard maps could be open to incredibly creative cheeses like Polar Night where Has 7 pylon rushed Jaedong—back when pylons didn't even shoot lasers. stuchiu -.- As pointed out in the article the term "standard map" is pretty vague to begin with, in the end it probably comes down to maps where "standard builds" can be used successfully (aka macro oriented builds) from every race in every matchup. That doesn't mean that every map plays out the same no matter what though, it just gives the players the option to fall back to "standard play" if they so desire. One big problem in sc2 and map design always were features (and the lack of features) which make it hard to have a "balanced" map. For most of sc2 forcefields pretty much denied a lot of possibilities because mapmakers simply couldn't do anything about it. The lack of a stronger high ground feature, the general pathing (blob) and the basically 3 base cap (at any given time) also add to this somewhat. LoTV tackled the economy a little bit, so i think there is definitely potential for mapmakers there, but personally i would like blizzard to go a step further and open up the possibilites even more. In the end it's pretty hard to say that balance determines maps or the other way around though, both things are too closely related. Do you want to balance the game around maps? Or the maps around the game? | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
That being said I hate the idea of splitting the map pools on ladder, since it leads to splitting the playerbase as well as a ton of logistical (matchmaking for example) problems. Having tournaments run different map pools is of course fine, but players who get most of their practice from ladder are of course resistant to that idea. | ||
CynicalDeath
Italy3478 Posts
 | ||
|
OSCEWiNtER
Hungary19 Posts
 Iron Fortress Expedition Lost Vaani Research Station Cactus Valley Coda Terraform Echo | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 06 2016 01:08 Charoisaur wrote: I see I didn't articulate myself accurately enough. my point is that although you can do the same build on every map there is still a huge variety of builds you can do. It's not like in every overgrowth game we see the same build. In fact the numbers of different viable build orders is higher than on most unique maps. On prion for example you have to open 3 rax reaper every game if you don't want to play from behind, on ulrena you have to open with an early tank in tvz etc... On any HotS map zerg had to open 3 hatch against Protoss. Terran had to open 3 CC/hellions against Zerg. Protoss had to open 2 base colossus on any map against Terran and so on. The variations you are talking about are adjustments or metagames to these builds that come after you have studied them for months or years and that will naturally arise in any strategy. "3 rax reaper" is not the end of the build order evolution if this build stays good. At some point it may split into variations like "2 rax 5 reaper" or "3rax 8 reaper" or "3 rax reaper until you die". In the same manner that 3 CC/hellion evovled into various builds like 3CC hellion/banshee-->Mech or Bio or 3CC hellion double ebay or even the metagaming "he won't baneling bust me because it's bad against 3CC/hellion" gasless 3CC Bomber build. But the skeleton opening was always the same and very similar. Radically new maps have the potential to spawn radically new builds to call standard on these maps. The prerequisite for this is a robust balance and design of the races so that you don't have to rely on the gimmicks-that-have-become-standard like a 9-wide ramps and X-rush distance. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
Makes me sad though... because Blizzard's statements are not anything other than PR. They are going to keep doing what they are doing regardless of beautiful posts like this. They obviously know their own statements are BS anyway. From their own words they state if they added 4 standard maps, they know people would veto all the others and you would never see them in play. They know people are not happy with their "creative" maps. They just don't care and are posting PR statements to cover the truth. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20319 Posts
"Standard" IMO is just a map style where you can reasonably play aggressively, economically or anything in between. If you put a map where you spawn next to your opponent, aggression will always win out. If you have 3 bases and your opponent is in the next country over, you'll always want those 3 minute thirds unless there is some kind of crazy proxy everything all in. Standard is the middle ground between that, and we have many great examples of it. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16006 Posts
Terran had to open 3 CC/hellions against Zerg. reactor hellion 3CC, hellion banshee, 2 base tank allin, hellbat timing, 3 rax stim + hellion timing, wm drops, Polt-style marauder drops. Protoss had to open 2 base colossus on any map against Terran proxy oracle, dt drop, blink pressure, immortal allin | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 06 2016 01:48 Cyro wrote: Long read! "Standard" IMO is just a map style where you can reasonably play aggressively, economically or anything in between. If you put a map where you spawn next to your opponent, aggression will always win out. If you have 3 bases and your opponent is in the next country over, you'll always want those 3 minute thirds unless there is some kind of crazy proxy everything all in. Standard is the middle ground between that, and we have many great examples of it. Most people seem to consider maps that favour easily turtling on four bases "standard" though. Additionally there are several maps most people would call non-standard where you can play aggressively, economically, or anything in between, though the games play out very differently. So your definition falls short in several respects. | ||
|
Linear
60 Posts
I think for certain tournament styles off the wall maps that require unique thinking in how to approach them create some interesting and memorable games, not that this would translate well to the ladder map pool. I liked Gwangali Beach it was one of those maps that made the game very frantic and action packed lots of posturing and fighting. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20319 Posts
On April 06 2016 01:53 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Most people seem to consider maps that favour easily turtling on four bases "standard" though. Additionally there are several maps most people would call non-standard where you can play aggressively, economically, or anything in between, though the games play out very differently. So your definition falls short in several respects. You need relatively fast bases in LOTV for any map style that's not aggressively biased, at least for some matchups. 3 hatch before pool is a standard opening. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 06 2016 01:51 Charoisaur wrote: reactor hellion 3CC, hellion banshee, 2 base tank allin, hellbat timing, 3 rax stim + hellion timing, wm drops, Polt-style marauder drops. proxy oracle, dt drop, blink pressure, immortal allin Sry, but I find your argumentation pretty unfair. You comenout saying how you have to do build X on map Y nowadays or you will be behind and then refer to garbage like 2 base tank allins as viable on HotS maps. I give examples of how builds can be varied, and then you basically hold all examples I didnt give (like protoss oracle or dt openings before colossus turtle) as an argument against me. Those are obviously included in my argumentation about evolving builds around skeleton builds. Furthermore I don't see how there aren't similar builds for today's maps. A 2 base tank hellbat timing isnt overly map dependant for example. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 06 2016 02:02 Cyro wrote: You need relatively fast bases in LOTV for any map style that's not aggressively biased, at least for some matchups. 3 hatch before pool is a standard opening. To take a concrete example Dusk Towers heavily favours economic play over aggression moreso than most standard maps, but is still a very standard map. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
| ||
|
Aron Times
United States312 Posts
I disagree with the opinions expressed in the article, especially the part about embracing the hardcore aspects of the game. Dark Souls is primarily a singleplayer game, which means that people can have fun with it despite not having anyone else to play with. Starcraft is primarily a multiplayer game which is dependent on a large and healthy player pool. I'm firmly in the camp that believes that different maps should have different gameplay. Most of us aren't good enough to make a living through esports, so why can't we have fun and silly and weird maps to make things more interesting? Starcraft isn't just about showing how much better you are than your opponent; it's also about a three-war space war between three different spacefaring species. The terrain on Earth is much more varied than what you would expect in Starcraft, which is set far away from the Blue Planet. Also, I really don't understand how you can call the maps bad when it's only been a short time since their addition to the ladder. They're different and non-standard, I'll give you that, but that mostly means that you cannot play the same way on them as you would on older, more standard maps. I feel like the community is pretty much proving David Kim right (wow that feels weird to say) when he says that people just want to play the same way they're used to. The point behind adding these non-standard maps is that they force you to play in a different way. If you're unable to secure a third, or even your natural, then why don't you adapt to the map and do a 1-base or 2-base all-in? I know TL.net hates all-ins but they are part of the game. If all-ins weren't viable, no one would use them. It's like this community is married to a specific way of playing and dismiss other ways of playing as less skilled or gimmicky. Back in my day, you adapted to the map. You didn't force mapmakers to adapt to the popular ways of playing. Eventually, some map types were retired because they were too difficult to balance, but players were much more open to alternative map styles back then. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 06 2016 02:51 Eternal Dalek wrote: I liked the factual, informative bits. I disagree with the opinions expressed in the article, especially the part about embracing the hardcore aspects of the game. Dark Souls is primarily a singleplayer game, which means that people can have fun with it despite not having anyone else to play with. Starcraft is primarily a multiplayer game which is dependent on a large and healthy player pool. I'm firmly in the camp that believes that different maps should have different gameplay. Most of us aren't good enough to make a living through esports, so why can't we have fun and silly and weird maps to make things more interesting? Starcraft isn't just about showing how much better you are than your opponent; it's also about a three-war space war between three different spacefaring species. The terrain on Earth is much more varied than what you would expect in Starcraft, which is set far away from the Blue Planet. Also, I really don't understand how you can call the maps bad when it's only been a short time since their addition to the ladder. They're different and non-standard, I'll give you that, but that mostly means that you cannot play the same way on them as you would on older, more standard maps. I feel like the community is pretty much proving David Kim right (wow that feels weird to say) when he says that people just want to play the same way they're used to. The point behind adding these non-standard maps is that they force you to play in a different way. If you're unable to secure a third, or even your natural, then why don't you adapt to the map and do a 1-base or 2-base all-in? I know TL.net hates all-ins but they are part of the game. If all-ins weren't viable, no one would use them. It's like this community is married to a specific way of playing and dismiss other ways of playing as less skilled or gimmicky. Back in my day, you adapted to the map. You didn't force mapmakers to adapt to the popular ways of playing. Eventually, some map types were retired because they were too difficult to balance, but players were much more open to alternative map styles back then. You (and much of the community) are conflating two ideas: how good the map is, and how non-standard it is. You are right to say that part of the backlash against the new maps is that they force people to play in ways that they don't like, and that to keep the game fresh it is necessary to do that. Players are way too attached to maps that allow them to safely macro no matter what. However that isn't the only issue. The other issue is that the maps we've seen so far mostly aren't that good. The complaints that some of the maps are grossly imbalanced are accurate, and that some of the maps force similar playstyles ever game are also correct (though even that is tainted by the fact that the playstyles they force are very sharp playstyles on the agressive side of things. There aren't nearly that many complaints (though there should be) when maps force turtly macro play every game). Those issues stem from the fact that the maps are bad though, not that they are creative (though of course maps being creative do result in greater risk that maps are bad). | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
For instantce, KSS was NOT seen as a standard map when it first came out. It had (and still has) some revolutionary features that we had never seen before : the rocks at the natural were just brilliant in the way it changed the map in late game, the forward 4th was pure genius and the general configuration of the map that allowed both ultra agressive proxy (I think the 10 first televised games on KSS must have involved some sort of proxy - reapers, oracles, banshees,...) and ultra long macro games (soO vs Reality anyone?) makes it above any other map in terms of games variety. KSS was just a map too brilliant to be seen as just "standard". I also think it's a bit, too easy when you write this kind of article to pick the best or most favored maps ever and call them "standard" just to prove your point. As a matter of fact many of the maps analysed weren't called standard back in the days. The conclusion of all this is I'm pretty sure the author, the people posting comments, the players, the map makers and blizzard staff all have their own definition of "standard", this word is way overused and hardly means anything anymore. | ||
| ||
