EPTCode S Season 1 - RO10 groups, map adjustment
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
[PkF] Wire
France24238 Posts
| ||
|
EEk1TwEEk
Russian Federation189 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7088 Posts
Rogue, Trap, B/Ryun(g) Group B: Maru, Dark, no idea. Hopefully herO Ro6 Rogue Maru Trap > herO Dark > yun Ro4 Rogue > Dark Maru > Trap Ro2 Maru > Rogue Maru > G5L | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
It’s certainly got to be close now? He took the record for consecutive playoffs when TY was still playing iirc | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1149 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10366 Posts
Shouldn't players have much more time to practice than this? Though I guess it's just 1 new map, and 1 was a returning one. But yeah I'm really excited to see Golden Wall back!! Too bad there's not really any mech Terrans, I would love to see some mech especially TvP on Golden Wall. I'm curious to know why it's back, but I guess they agree it's a great map. It's nice to have a 4 player map as well! On April 06 2022 23:09 SHODAN wrote: I didn't watch much sc2 in 2021. am excited to see why everyone is screaming about Golden Wall :D Here's a memorable game from a great match between TY and Stats, G4. While it isn't the longest game, you might be able to see the interesting kind of ways games on this map can play out, and how this game might have went on for another 20+ crazy minutes if it were just a little bit closer: Golden Wall is a very unique map. It allows for many different 3rd bases and expansion paths from there. You can expand forward to take the gold base, expand upwards to go away from your opponent, or take the closed off route along the bottom of the map, or a mix. It's possible for players to play the map taking the same expansion path as well, or different ones, so a match can potentially be top map vs bottom map. Golden Wall also utilizes something that were very common in BW maps, that are very rare in SC2 maps for some reason that I still don't understand: There are later expansions that are on high ground, or have chokes, or ramps, or a combination. This allows you to defend them easier, or at least make it more cost ineffective for your opponent to attack into. This means that you can spread across the map more while defending with less units, and static defense is more useful when it usually becomes very weak later in the game. Being able to defend easier means players can hold more bases and spread out positions across the map, while not having to dedicate too much supply away from your main army. This can lead to much more dynamic and interesting games with many attack paths, small battles all over, cutting off reinforcement paths, controlling positions, etc. And the stronger defender's advantage (which is also a bit weak in SC2) means you have to spend a little more effort/creativity trying to slowly dismantle a base's defense, rather than just A moving with a large army, which allows for more interesting back and forth. The greater defender's advantage on later expansions also helps address another weakness/imperfection of SC2. Although this depends on the map pool and meta of course, there are many games in GSL in LotV that just end after one big attack. One reason for this is because maps are almost always only 2 player maps now, and with the first 4-5 bases being relatively clumped up and easy to defend. While defender's advantage is something we need more of in SC2, the flaw of closer bases also means that if you are to lose a fight on your side of the map, it often just leads to the game ending immediately. You don't have time to muster a force or counter attack, because all your bases are just grouped up closely and it's easy for the opponent to take them all out at once, or go directly for the heart. Having maps that rely on incorporating a defender's advantage by having the first 4-5 bases be close and easy to take (and little to no options to take far away bases other than hoping that the opponent doesn't find it), also means that base trade situations are much more common. Because if both player's armies are out of position, they will just go take out all of each other's bases, and in a very 1-dimensional fashion. There isn't much depth here because all the bases are close to each other. Now imagine if it's a map where players have spread out expansions; it allows for much more interaction and strategy in regards to which bases to choke out, and because of the increased distance it takes to take all the bases out, it allows players a chance to re-stabilize, and also allows for plays like intercepting reinforcement paths more. Who doesn't remember how some of the most epic GSL games were played on huge maps like Tal'Darim Alter, and Calm Before the Storm, which allowed players to restabilize in another corner of the map after losing a quadrant? And how thrilling it was to see so many different attack paths and angles be used throughout the game? Here's an example game between Creator and MVP, it was just constant fighting and harass all over the map, because the map de-emphasizes attacking with 1 huge army, and allows players many chances to re-stabilize! Having more spread out bases and expansions also increases the variety of play styles. It's more viable to play a high 90-100 worker econ style, since you have the space and time to muster a new force if you lose a fight somewhere. Counter attacks and launching multiple smaller attacks are also more viable, because you don't have to worry as much about the opponent sending 1 big attack that can choke out all your bases immediately. But maps with closer bases or few options to take far bases mean that both players will be more incentivized to keep more similar worker counts and a more similar army size, to try to avoid losing 1 fight too decisively. A map like this also increases the viability of mech, and to a lesser degree Terran in general, as they are known to be slightly weak in MUs like TvP lategame due to their slight immobility disadvantage, all while still allowing the map to be large enough to have epic macro games on. Sorry I just had to write an essay about why Golden Wall is so great - I really do hope that map makers evaluate whether maps need expansions to have such open areas to be attacked, or if they can be playing around with more far away expansion options by incorporating more defender's advantage in the form of high ground, chokes, ramps, etc., which makes games more dynamic, allows more variety in strategy and playstyle, alleviates the issue of weak defender's advantage in SC2 and the 1-dimensional base trade situations, allows mech and positional play to be more viable, helps slow down games so as to not end too quickly and allow players more chance to stabilize and culminate into a greater climax, and allows games to turn more into the "constantly putting fires out all over the map" type of gameplay that people love about BW. (LotV has done a GREAT job of pushing the game a lot more into this direction, heck I far prefer watching LotV to BW now with its gameplay variety, but I think it can be even better with more maps like GW!) | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1149 Posts
jesus christ man. I was not expecting this level of quality response. easily one of the best replies I ever got on the internet. now that you explained it with so much clarity, I remember now a match played on this map (TvT, also feat. Maru). one of them took the gold base and another expanded north. it ended in one of the craziest base-trades. I remember when Whirlwind first appeared in starcraft 2 and completely changed the game, and how the same thing happened with WC3 maps. you're absolutely right. the longevity of sc2 will depend hugely on the mapmakers. I played an absolutely insane amount of 1v1 sc2 until about 2 years ago, when I suddenly dropped it. went on a big hiatus. I logged in about a week ago, started playing again. all the maps are different, but I already knew them like the back of my hand because they are basically identical in concept to the maps I played before. there have been a few slightly quirky ones over the years, like Disco Inferno, which still feels like the TALLEST map I've ever played, and Red City which had those tiny paths going everywhere. there was that one in HotS with a collapsible rock at the natural. other than a few little quirks here and there, I already know my way around all of the new maps without even thinking about it. what's up with that? I think even the most accepted fundamentals of map design should be open to review at this point. a suggestion from a recent thread questioned the overlord at the natural, how it would completely change early game PvZ if the guaranteed early-game scout was removed. sc2 mapmaking became dogmatic. when you come from a game as refined as BW or WC3 and you try your luck on Delta quadrant or Scrap station, it puts the community on the defensive about maps. I wonder how much different sc2 would have developed if the maps were more finely tuned towards competitive macro 1v1 when the game first launched. way too much emphasis on the Xel'Naga tower that revealed 40% of the map, or the destructible rock which unlocked the elusive 3rd base you could never take as terran / protoss. imagine the 2010 open GSL season 2 with NesTea, MKP and BoxeR playing on the current ladder map pool. it would have been amazing to watch the game develop on those terms, with the hyper-standardized map-pool we have today. that's to say nothing of the development of sc2 from a racial balance and unit design perspective! I think DK & team would have done a lot better if the game was more grounded in decent map design from the get-go. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10366 Posts
On April 07 2022 11:08 SHODAN wrote: jesus christ man. I was not expecting this level of quality response. easily one of the best replies I ever got on the internet. now that you explained it with so much clarity, I remember now a match played on this map (TvT, also feat. Maru). one of them took the gold base and another expanded north. it ended in one of the craziest base-trades. I remember when Whirlwind first appeared in starcraft 2 and completely changed the game, and how the same thing happened with WC3 maps. you're absolutely right. the longevity of sc2 will depend hugely on the mapmakers. I played an absolutely insane amount of 1v1 sc2 until about 2 years ago, when I suddenly dropped it. went on a big hiatus. I logged in about a week ago, started playing again. all the maps are different, but I already knew them like the back of my hand because they are basically identical in concept to the maps I played before. there have been a few slightly quirky ones over the years, like Disco Inferno, which still feels like the TALLEST map I've ever played, and Red City which had those tiny paths going everywhere. there was that one in HotS with a collapsible rock at the natural. other than a few little quirks here and there, I already know my way around all of the new maps without even thinking about it. what's up with that? I think even the most accepted fundamentals of map design should be open to review at this point. a suggestion from a recent thread questioned the overlord at the natural, how it would completely change early game PvZ if the guaranteed early-game scout was removed. sc2 mapmaking became dogmatic. when you come from a game as refined as BW or WC3 and you try your luck on Delta quadrant or Scrap station, it puts the community on the defensive about maps. I wonder how much different sc2 would have developed if the maps were more finely tuned towards competitive macro 1v1 when the game first launched. way too much emphasis on the Xel'Naga tower that revealed 40% of the map, or the destructible rock which unlocked the elusive 3rd base you could never take as terran / protoss. imagine the 2010 open GSL season 2 with NesTea, MKP and BoxeR playing on the current ladder map pool. it would have been amazing to watch the game develop on those terms, with the hyper-standardized map-pool we have today. that's to say nothing of the development of sc2 from a racial balance and unit design perspective! I think DK & team would have done a lot better if the game was more grounded in decent map design from the get-go. Thank you for the kind comment T^T. I'm glad you liked my post! I try not to type walls but I just had to for this. I felt if even 1 person would read it, I would be very happy <3 I don't remember if I saw that Maru TvT on GW... but I'll look for it! It sounds very fun. Yeah, base trades on maps like GW can be so crazy, there's so many options to re-expand or attack, and you have to account for attack/reinforcement paths! Also more incentive to create production facilities at bases other than your main/nat. Yeah I was thinking Whirlwind too! And you're right about maps. They do have subtle interesting differences, but the 4-5 base layout almost always feels the same. I haven't been playing much SC2 the last couple years, but I'd love to once I can get some more time. Actually now I look it up, do you mean Inferno Pools? Red City I do remember a little bit, definitely it tried to be a bit more different. I'm remembering that really tall map Crossfire, where Nestea and sC played a really intense game of attrition that went down to the last few units! Even on a map layout like that, there were chances to re-stabilize and try to claw your way back in. Ways to de-emphasize the effectiveness of attacking with 1 big army, and turning it into more of a committal and risky bold option, than your go-to option for attacking. You bring up a really interesting point. That if maps were larger and more macro oriented from the start, the direction of balance and thus design may have ended up being different than how things are today. For example, having to increase Stim duration because maps were too small. Perhaps a bigger map would have meant there wasn't as much a need to nerf Stim rushes. I agree we should always keep an open mind and review even the most accepted fundamentals of map design. There can always be that one new idea that can challenge those fundamentals. I agree that I think if the maps were more macro oriented and better designed early on, the balance/design team would have had a much easier time. It took so long to finally get to the "small fights all over the map" gameplay we see much more commonly in modern LotV. We had to go all the way from those tiny maps to figuring out a decent standard for macro maps. Also holey hell, I would love to see Nestea and Slayers Boxer especially play in modern day SC2, or at least maps similar to what we have now!! There would be so much crazy plays and chaotic base trades. MKP too - since he loved going for ballsy base trade situations. | ||
|
MarianoSC2
Slovakia1855 Posts
Group B has Dark and Maru who I dont ever see not advancing from basically any group so only 1 place left. I think Creator can do it and end up on 3rd. Normally I would favor herO but there arent any Terrans and his PvZ does not seem good at all. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
SC2 maps do a good job facilitating a certain standard metagame, but to a degree they do also force a standard. Something more off-the-wall (pun intended) and we get to see pros come up with sometimes unique strategies for specific maps. Wonky maps can be much more annoying to play than watch for us plebs sometimes, so I think getting some exposure in the prestige prep tournament is a perfect place to try them out. Or alternatively experimentation may see an expansion of the repertoire that can make up a standard map, and we see some evolution there. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16044 Posts
On April 07 2022 18:44 WombaT wrote: Some quality nostalgia-inducing posts up there folks, ah what I come to TL for. SC2 maps do a good job facilitating a certain standard metagame, but to a degree they do also force a standard. Something more off-the-wall (pun intended) and we get to see pros come up with sometimes unique strategies for specific maps. Wonky maps can be much more annoying to play than watch for us plebs sometimes, so I think getting some exposure in the prestige prep tournament is a perfect place to try them out. Or alternatively experimentation may see an expansion of the repertoire that can make up a standard map, and we see some evolution there. Thing is, most experimental maps led to more stale gameplay than standard maps due to certain abusive strategies just becoming dominant on that map. Getting a creative map that doesn't lead to stale gameplay and isn't very imbalanced is just very very hard to do so I wouldn't want to see too many of those attempts in a single mappool. Golden Wall was certainly the best one of its kind though | ||
|
FCHK
202 Posts
| ||
|
MarianoSC2
Slovakia1855 Posts
On April 07 2022 21:08 Charoisaur wrote: Thing is, most experimental maps led to more stale gameplay than standard maps due to certain abusive strategies just becoming dominant on that map. Getting a creative map that doesn't lead to stale gameplay and isn't very imbalanced is just very very hard to do so I wouldn't want to see too many of those attempts in a single mappool. Golden Wall was certainly the best one of its kind though Personally I like non-standard and wonky maps a lot more because a) most of the standard maps are heavily zerg favored b) we have so many standard maps that the gameplay there is a bit stale Of course I wouldnt all the maps to be wonky but a better balance would be good imo. | ||
|
Ellipsesdi
7 Posts
| ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
Would love to see ESL do something similar for the next tournament. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
Don't follow SC2 much these days. Vaguely recall a recent map (not sure what, and whether still in pool) with a mineral patch that can be mined from both sides. So there was a funny game where both players had bases mining the same patch (Rogue and Dark, I think). Not sure about balance. But it's worth exploring tweaking the shape and size of patches and geysers. More double-sided patches! How about one which snakes around like a canyon? Or a spot with 3-4 gas geysers without minerals? | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16044 Posts
On April 08 2022 12:12 RKC wrote: Yes, brilliant insights, Yoshi! Don't follow SC2 much these days. Vaguely recall a recent map (not sure what, and whether still in pool) with a mineral patch that can be mined from both sides. So there was a funny game where both players had bases mining the same patch (Rogue and Dark, I think). Not sure about balance. But it's worth exploring tweaking the shape and size of patches and geysers. More double-sided patches! How about one which snakes around like a canyon? Or a spot with 3-4 gas geysers without minerals? Yes, Blackburn was it and it's still in the pool | ||
|
Edpayasugo
United Kingdom2217 Posts
| ||
| ||
