EPTTeam Liquid Map Contest #20 - Presented by Monster Energy
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
OmniSkepticSC
5 Posts
| ||
|
sidasf
61 Posts
3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating. Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating. How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto. Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game. I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game). If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines. I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality. | ||
|
CommanderChp
United States3 Posts
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote: So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"? 3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating. Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating. How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto. Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game. I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game). If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines. I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality. You're missing the point, Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's automatically good/finalist. If there's a fantastic 3p map, then maybe it will get finalist (but historically 3p maps are downvoted, which is fine. it's just nice for mappers to have an option to try it if they want) same with all map feautres, if a map uses healing shrines in a well balanced and interesting way, then I don't see why it can't be finalist or go on ladder. | ||
|
OmniSkeptic
Canada64 Posts
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote: So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"? 3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines. Could you try not shitposting just for one time, that would be great 3+ Starting Positions have been in the rules as viable submissions for years already. Notice they haven't been picked like ever If the last map pool didn't cause you to quit, healing shrines won't either given healing shrines are not nearly as ubiquitous as the design flaws in that one. We'd be lucky to get a single map with a shrine on it, which even means it's perfectly veto-able. | ||
|
Gemini_19
United States1216 Posts
| ||
|
KillerSmile
Germany82 Posts
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote: So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"? 3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating. Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating. How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto. Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game. I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game). If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines. I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality. That these things are allowed does not mean they are required. Many of the TLMC judges in the past have agreed with your sentiment on 3+ spawn maps and categorically tanked those map's rating. All I know is that in Broodwar 3 and 4 player maps are consistently the most balanced ones statistically and provide a certain variance desired by the viewerbase. SC2 mapmakers have experimented reducing the possible spawn positions you have to scout on 4 player maps from 3 down to 2 to mitigate the downside of what you describe, which is largely a result of the faster snowballing economy in SC2 compared to Broodwar. I'm personally not a big fan of healing shrines either, but you vasty overstate their impact. Last TLMC we've had plenty of maps with healing shrines on them, they didn't get used on purpose a single time even tho to the end of the tournament Wardi set out a bounty to whoever uses one. They are usually out on the map away from other strategically important areas. People tend to not conserve units at low HP to bring them back to base with the exception of maybe Battlecruisers and other harassing flying units to repair them at home. If you do that they can immediately serve to defend a counter attack. If you use a healing shrine instead, your unit might be full HP again, but it's out in the middle of nowhere. The scenario you describe where you were otherwise outplaying somebody and then lose because the opponent was smart enough to get into a position where they get healed and you don't means you are the one that is being outplayed. You deserve to lose. That would actually be an intended and desired outcome for healing shrines, problem is we've never seen it. There is a version of the current ladder map Whispers of Gold that had a healing shrine on it. The powers that be chose the shrine-less version for ladder over it, despite the one with the shrine being a TLMC finalist(called Gold Dust in TLMC 19). Being allowed to use a feature does not automatically represent an upside to the mapmaker. The TLMC just likes to signal that that we can do all sorts of things, whether it's wise for mapmakers to do them is separate. Arguably the best strategy will again be to submit a completely standard map with maybe a slight inoffensive twist or two. | ||
|
PtyBisKuit
France13 Posts
With 9 maps in the cureent map pool, I wish at least 1 (or 2?) would have 3 or 4 starting positions, both as a viewer and a player. Diversity in the map pool may be source of balance issues or personal frustration but I also believe it is also a component in the fun I have while playing or watching Stacraft 2. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1003 Posts
I used to feel this way, but at this point in SC2's lifespan ie the dwindling years, I think having some maps with a bit of RNG in them is okay. Maps over the last few years have reached kind of a meta level where all the maps start blurring together, they are too safe in their design, it just leads to repetition. Having a viable threat of proxy or 12 pool is not inherently bad for the game, god forbid anyone has to play with an actually safe opener and maybe micro in the early game vs. playing the most standard greedy macro builds. | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3089 Posts
| ||
|
Cygnus
United States839 Posts
On January 02 2025 01:17 Beelzebub1 wrote: "3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating." I used to feel this way, but at this point in SC2's lifespan ie the dwindling years, I think having some maps with a bit of RNG in them is okay. Maps over the last few years have reached kind of a meta level where all the maps start blurring together, they are too safe in their design, it just leads to repetition. Having a viable threat of proxy or 12 pool is not inherently bad for the game, god forbid anyone has to play with an actually safe opener and maybe micro in the early game vs. playing the most standard greedy macro builds. There might be creative ways though map design to have 3+ starting position maps while still reducing RNG (without the lazy option of showing position on minimap at game start). Not sure if all these concepts have been explored to their maximum potential but some idea's that MIGHT work. - Modify the map layout with something like a outward spiral and have senor towers in range of main bases through scouting path (likely need to utilize air block zones to still have balanced mid-game from air attacks and drops). - Backdoor speed zones and/or WOPs for direct scouting. - 2 semi-islands layout for 4 starting zones so each player either scouts or doesn't (potentially use air blockers as well due to overlords and floating buildings). - This might be really out there and not even allowed but make a "special watchtower" in centralized location on map that reveals opponents location. - Just embrace the RNG and work with larger maps that have some built-in defenders advantage. With so many cheese options and warp in as mechanic this might be tough. Maybe have a large ring of "no building zone" outside of mains. | ||
|
OmniSkeptic
Canada64 Posts
- Backdoor speed zones and/or WOPs for direct scouting. I believe Hyper actually did have a map at one point that did something like this so you could scout by sending a probe along the outside of the map through speed zones even though the main bases were islands. Theoretically you could bypass the 4 spawn issue by allowing workers to traverse super quickly to opponent's mains | ||
|
Vision_
837 Posts
My suggestion to improve repeatability of SC2 : Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg) but they only produce workers in X seconds (let s say 18 sec), bases have no spells, it only produce workers slowly. Their building time is reduced to 50 seconds (approximately), you can upgrade bases to their original in paying difference : Terran : orbital command cost now 300, forteress cost now 300/150 (build time : 45) Zerg : If queen inject, this starting base only produce two larva (and no automatic production of larva). Hatchery upgrade cost 150 minerals (it can produce queen for 150 mineral as usual), (build time : 20) Protoss : Advanced Nexus cost 200 mineral (build time : 20) With this tweak and in creating small bases with 4 minerals field (and maybe with 1500 / 900 minerals amount) i think you can improve : - Speed base developpement (original idea of 12 workers) - Avoid boring repetitive shape of three bases patterns - Vary build orders - More freedom for mapmakers - Small bases (you can even create mineral field which are nearest distance to the base by two cases instead of three, at this moment small bases are done with three minerals field instead of 4) I m sorry, i haven t time to do such mod, in the best world you have to reduce workers start at 10 and give 100 minerals instead of 50. You will also have to revert the modification of supply in bases which have been the consequence of 12 workers. Kinds regards, | ||
|
CharactR
Canada96 Posts
On January 02 2025 16:21 Vision_ wrote: Hey guys My suggestion to improve repeatability of SC2 : Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg) but they only produce workers in X seconds (let s say 18 sec), bases have no spells, it only produce workers slowly. Their building time is reduced to 50 seconds (approximately), you can upgrade bases to their original in paying difference : Terran : orbital command cost now 300, forteress cost now 300/150 (build time : 45) Zerg : If queen inject, this starting base only produce two larva (and no automatic production of larva). Hatchery upgrade cost 150 minerals (it can produce queen for 150 mineral as usual), (build time : 20) Protoss : Advanced Nexus cost 200 mineral (build time : 20) With this tweak and in creating small bases with 4 minerals field (and maybe with 1500 / 900 minerals amount) i think you can improve : - Speed base developpement (original idea of 12 workers) - Avoid boring repetitive shape of three bases patterns - Vary build orders - More freedom for mapmakers - Small bases (you can even create mineral field which are nearest distance to the base by two cases instead of three, at this moment small bases are done with three minerals field instead of 4) I m sorry, i haven t time to do such mod, in the best world you have to reduce workers start at 10 and give 100 minerals instead of 50. You will also have to revert the modification of supply in bases which have been the consequence of 12 workers. Kinds regards, Idk why you're posting this here. This is a thread about a starcraft melee map contest, not the balance of the starcraft economy. | ||
|
Vision_
837 Posts
On January 02 2025 20:39 CharactR wrote: Idk why you're posting this here. This is a thread about a starcraft melee map contest, not the balance of the starcraft economy. Balance is not concerning by my suggestion, it s a question of flexibility, improve repeatability in giving more tools to mapmakers for adjust economy speed depending on how mineral fields are setup (numbers of minerals field would be an option to mix gameplay and variety on map) Why shouldn t i post here if my intention are to suggest variations in SC2 ? I guess mapmaking become repetitive with this 20th map contest, and i have freedom to suggest in this thread something new (which can become positive if some of members have time to work on). As long as it s not a full redesign of features with a tons of values modifications i think it s not a problem if i talk of this here. I know you can answer that it would be a part of modification of the game but i m pretty worried about SC2 future so i want to post the idea if some members are interested and where there is more viewers concerning the suggestion | ||
|
Mutaller
United States1034 Posts
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote: So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"? 3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating. Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating. How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto. Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game. I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game). If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines. I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality. Say what you will about maps being "imbalanced" for having creativity. 12 pool is an annoying strat, but some of my favorite games played have been on creative or 3p maps like Catallena, King Sejong Station, and Golden Wall. A unique map pool would bring me back from AoE2 and BW. The state of maps being clones of each other is just as concerning to me as having imbalanced maps is to you. | ||
Mizenhauer
United States1775 Posts
On January 03 2025 07:43 Mutaller wrote: Say what you will about maps being "imbalanced" for having creativity. 12 pool is an annoying strat, but some of my favorite games played have been on creative or 3p maps like Catallena, King Sejong Station, and Golden Wall. A unique map pool would bring me back from AoE2 and BW. The state of maps being clones of each other is just as concerning to me as having imbalanced maps is to you. Yeah, Catellena, the map with asymmetrical creep spread so spawning in certain bases is automatically better than spawning in the other spots (refer to Rogue vs soO at Blizzcon 2017). | ||
|
CharactR
Canada96 Posts
On January 02 2025 23:49 Vision_ wrote: Balance is not concerning by my suggestion, it s a question of flexibility, improve repeatability in giving more tools to mapmakers for adjust economy speed depending on how mineral fields are setup (numbers of minerals field would be an option to mix gameplay and variety on map) Why shouldn t i post here if my intention are to suggest variations in SC2 ? I guess mapmaking become repetitive with this 20th map contest, and i have freedom to suggest in this thread something new (which can become positive if some of members have time to work on). As long as it s not a full redesign of features with a tons of values modifications i think it s not a problem if i talk of this here. I know you can answer that it would be a part of modification of the game but i m pretty worried about SC2 future so i want to post the idea if some members are interested and where there is more viewers concerning the suggestion "Balance is not concerning by my suggestion,... Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg)" Whether you want to admit it or not that changes that balance of the economy You can't mod the game in your submissions... and even if you could blizzard would not put a map that changes the balance of the economy on ladder unless they entirely just made a new update that revamped the economy for every map. if i submitted a map like this it'd be insta dq'd. so no, it's not the place for it. if you read the part of the post that says "No custom data which modifies units. Maps must meet Melee mode requirements: Triggers can't be edited, and Data needs to comply with Melee, legibility and QA requirements." you would know that. | ||
|
sidasf
61 Posts
On January 01 2025 09:42 OmniSkeptic wrote: Could you try not shitposting just for one time, that would be great 3+ Starting Positions have been in the rules as viable submissions for years already. Notice they haven't been picked like ever If the last map pool didn't cause you to quit, healing shrines won't either given healing shrines are not nearly as ubiquitous as the design flaws in that one. We'd be lucky to get a single map with a shrine on it, which even means it's perfectly veto-able. I am not shitposting and I don't appreciate you accusing me of doing so. In fact I think your insulting use of the term only weakens your argument. Which, really, it seems you don't have any kind of argument or rebuttal to my points at all, in this case it's you who is shitposting. On January 01 2025 16:36 KillerSmile wrote: I'm personally not a big fan of healing shrines either, but you vasty overstate their impact. Last TLMC we've had plenty of maps with healing shrines on them, they didn't get used on purpose a single time even tho to the end of the tournament Wardi set out a bounty to whoever uses one. They are usually out on the map away from other strategically important areas. People tend to not conserve units at low HP to bring them back to base with the exception of maybe Battlecruisers and other harassing flying units to repair them at home. If you do that they can immediately serve to defend a counter attack. If you use a healing shrine instead, your unit might be full HP again, but it's out in the middle of nowhere. I appreciate your post. The fact is that healing shrines are just a very, very powerful game mechanic-much more meaningful than increasing disruptor aoe removing queen transfuse off creep. It's a very big change that changes defenders advantage (since you now get a huge artifical advantage by attacking and being out in the map). It will be problematic to the point where maps with healing shrines will have OP/abusive strats, but we can't nerf those lest they become useless on non shrine maps. If you use a healing shrine instead, your unit might be full HP again, but it's out in the middle of nowhere. Just look at ghost river, where the healing shrine spot was about a ten second walk to the enemy base. That map would have been horrifying with healing shrines. Just 2 base all in w/ terran or roaches, retreat, heal, attack again=game over. The scenario you describe where you were otherwise outplaying somebody and then lose because the opponent was smart enough to get into a position where they get healed and you don't means you are the one that is being outplayed. You deserve to lose. That would actually be an intended and desired outcome for healing shrines, problem is we've never seen it. Technically, yes. In the same way that in Smash Bros Brawl, if you dash to try to take control but end up tripping, you were outplayed and lost. Point being, it's an awful mechanic. We've had 14 years of SC2 where if you outmacro the opponent, but also outmicro them, don't fall victim to multiprong/harass/unit switch, you will win. Now all of a sudden there might be an artifical objective in the middle of the map that turns everything we know from winning into losing. Ultimately every mapmaker, judge, pro player, and map picker must ask themselves this, lest harm the SC2 game and community: If this new mechanic creates an abusive/unfun/broken strategy that hurts ladder or competitive play, what is the solution to fixing it when blizzard says 'you don't get to patch the game for another 12 months'? Is it worth the risk introducing shrines? I do not see why is it even necessary or beneficial to put this game mechanic in 14 years into the game's life span. | ||
|
Vision_
837 Posts
On January 03 2025 10:23 CharactR wrote: "Balance is not concerning by my suggestion,... Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg)" Whether you want to admit it or not that changes that balance of the economy Ideally if you are playing a race it s because you think the race is competitive and efficient. In term of balance it means that if the game works out so every unit is worth it, and if every unit is worth it so the mining rate doesn t matter. I wonder what you are going to argue now.. (then as all bases are affected, there is no effect on balance ) As you said there s data modification and so there s no place for this kind of map but if i m talking of this here it s only because i can ask to community to think about this idea. I agree on the fact data modification could prevent the map of being part of the contest, i m sorry if people haven t understand the goal of my post. | ||
|
CharactR
Canada96 Posts
On January 03 2025 18:06 Vision_ wrote: Ideally if you are playing a race it s because you think the race is competitive and efficient. In term of balance it means that if the game works out so every unit is worth it, and if every unit is worth it so the mining rate doesn t matter. I wonder what you are going to argue now.. (then as all bases are affected, there is no effect on balance ) As you said there s data modification and so there s no place for this kind of map but if i m talking of this here it s only because i can ask to community to think about this idea. I agree on the fact data modification could prevent the map of being part of the contest, i m sorry if people haven t understand the goal of my post. At best I honestly think this just isn't the thread for the people you want to see it to see it, and at worst it's just offtopic for the thread. "I wonder what you are going to argue now.. (then as all bases are affected, there is no effect on balance )" That is a dumb as hell argument, if every unit cost 1 mineral it would affect balance, doesn't matter if it's a building or an army unit. Sure it's an extreme example, but I hope you see the point. I'm not going to engage this further. | ||
| ||
