EPTAn open letter on "balance" and maps - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
lulzury
United States236 Posts
| ||
|
EppE
United States221 Posts
On August 03 2010 08:19 xtfftc wrote: Okay, seriously, just because the races are not balanced at the moment that does not mean that we don't have to start thinking of the maps already. The game will change again and again, especially with the two expansions. However, the adjustments will gradually become smaller and smaller. But who gets to decide when the races are balanced? I mean if we JUST look at win/loss and points leaders on ladder then the races ARE balanced and thus maps ARE balanced. The thing is, statistics are deceiving. (maybe not balanced but Terran aren't OP by those stats) The map pools have been rather similiar thus far and I'd be more willing to test new maps rather than new unit nerfs/buffs. If you change a map it isn't seen as a direct nerf to a race, so players accept it easier then if you alter a units ability or stats. Changing maps couldn't hurt at this point, and would have a much smaller cascading impact on the overall game then more unit changes. | ||
|
RandomBS
United States130 Posts
| ||
|
Grend
1600 Posts
| ||
|
k4ppah
United States3 Posts
Blizzard will invariably adjust balance based on statistics they see from their own ladder, so it doesn't matter how many great, balanced maps you make if they never see them played. In fact, it seems as though they might have no option but to nerf terran, and then we'll see zerg/protoss imbalance on the truly balanced maps you describe. | ||
|
Necrosjef
United Kingdom530 Posts
On August 03 2010 08:15 hefty wrote: Necrosjef: People complaining about something doesn't prove that there¨s a problem. people always complain - did you ever visit the strategy section of brood war here on tl.net? Even 6-7 years after the latest balance changes people had all sorts of opinions on the "imbalances" between races, units, and maps. Some were warranted of course, but in time bad maps get wheated out. Of course people complaining about things doesn't prove anything. No one said that. Everything I said is based on hard facts and statistics with the addition of top player testimonials backing up my argument. Tester and IdrA both on record saying Terran is OP being a good example of that. Besides in a situation like this you don't need a unanimous verdict to render your point of view correct you only need more than 50% of people to agree with you and I'm pretty sure more than 50% of people agree with me. | ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
yeah sorry for that last line I'm ashamed of myself | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2010 07:40 Necrosjef wrote: I agree with you. I'm not saying that amateur map makers won't/can't do a better job than Blizzard I'm sure they can. What I am saying is that it will take time. SC2 needs attention now. You're overstating the immediacy required for balance changes. I'd much rather changes be made too late than too soon. Changing things too late just ends up with people being a little disgruntled. Changing things too soon has the potential to lock out legitimately interesting new strategies before people have time to solve them. On August 03 2010 07:44 Necrosjef wrote: Also nothing wrong with asking Blizzard to balance a game they made. I'm pretty upset that after waiting for SC2 for 12 years that this is the best Blizzard have managed to come up with. I don't think I'm alone and I don't think it is wrong to ask Blizzard to improve on something which is quite frankly much worse than the original. Blizzard's map makers are hardy more "professionals" than the community map makers. They put out a map pool once per game, whereas community map makers work on various projects week after week. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On August 03 2010 06:54 jtgizmo wrote: That is simply not true, Desert Oasis is one of the best maps for Protoss...havent played other one as i opted out of it, didnt like it Are you serious? Explain a bit more please? Void rays are pretty strong on DO, but any competent Zerg will scout that a mile away and just get multiple queens to fend it off. Besides, fazing doesn't work anymore so VRs aren't as strong as they were pre-release. Protoss essentially has to win the game on one base when they're playing PvZ on DO. Expanding is ridiculous as it's so easy for Zerg to just 1a a bunch of speedlings straight into you natural expo's mineral line and wreck complete havoc. Additionally, the really long ground rush distance means that 2gate aggressive openings aren't nearly as strong as they need to be. A Zerg can 14pool 15 hatch and be safe with enough spine crawlers against almost any early Protoss aggression and receive minimal losses to their economy. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On August 03 2010 06:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote: The balance in Starcraft 2 seems good, but the maps suck ROFL. Really! Trying to put the blame on something - ONE thing - other than the limited playing skills (adaptability / flexibility) of the players? Apparently whining about the racial balance is out and whining about the maps is in now, so lets focus on that thing now, eh? Not a good idea! You need to look at the whole picture and not one color / corner of it to be able to judge it. Its not that playing Terran is easy and gives you an auto-win button. The whole following arguments really sound like you think that Terran is only one strategy and that maps designed in different ways will stop benefitting Terran in general. Well that is wrong in so many ways as I will try to show below. More or less the whole OP is a disguised "Terran is OP" thread again, but the arguments have shifted from the units to the maps and still are one-sided. Just for reference here are the other threads "in the series": How to fix TvZ Mech Why Zerg is good On August 03 2010 06:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Terrans are the ones which suffer most from unsafe expansions, because they dont even have a cheap (~100 minerals) static defense to help defend against ground forces. Thus they are REQUIRED to sacrifice part of their army as base defense OR spend huge amounts of cash on a Planetary Fortresses which dont cover a whole lot of ground. The range of a PF is rather short with 7 (if you decide to upgrade) and that covers only slightly more ground (due to the size) than a Protoss / Zerg static ground defense IF the range is counted from the edge of the model and not the center! On August 03 2010 06:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Every race benefits from an expanded vision range, not just Terrans. They simply react differently to it. Terrans have the least dependance upon it, because they can always build a sensor tower and "need" to have aerial spotters anyways for the tanks, since you will be out of range of the Xel'Naga tower eventually. On August 03 2010 06:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Large main bases give you space to use Nydus worms or Warp Prisms to make "warp drops", its just that those races have apparently become too lazy to use these tactics. Small and tight bases really really hurt Terrans, because they need LOTS of buildings (more than any other race) and their army is immobile. Just imagine a Thor trying to get through a crowded base to defend against Mutas. Almost impossible unless you use a Medivac, which is relatively easily shot down. On August 03 2010 06:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
There is no one tactic for a race and thus it is close to impossible to make a map which is good for one race and bad for another. I hope this one example will show that most discussions are not taking everything into account and that most of the times it is the PLAYERS who dont want to adapt to the maps. If I want to go to the extreme I sometimes feel like many non-Terrans (especially Zerg) would be building a massive ground army on a pure island map and then whine about the other races being imbalanced or the map being bad. Even Kulas Ravine is not only "Terran favored", because Stalkers with Blink and Colosssi can abuse those ledges too. The thing which makes the map "bad" is the ledges which overlook the naturals and which are closed off by destructible rocks AND which have a Xel'Naga tower on them. Remove both of these things and make the ramp up there easier to reach from the natural and you have the major pain for Zerg removed. The mobility of Zerg and Protoss give them an edge over Terrans on this map as well, since there are several points of entrance into the main base, so the whining about it being Terran favored is not totally true and is simply focusing on one detail of the map. On August 03 2010 06:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote: That brings me to my major point, I believe the balance as in racial balance is at a good point right now players are able to overcome the maps by extreme levels of play but overall we're seeing high Terran statistics because the maps are favoring Terran and the play level on the Ladder isnt quite as high. My proposal on how to fix this is we need the map making community to try and do their best to purposely make zerg and protoss favored maps and have good players play on them. "Wait doesn't this make it worse?" You are prone to ask, in the short term yes but in the long term it will allow us to figure out what map features will make a map good for zerg and protoss and when we are able to combine these features with the terran features that we already know then maybe we can come up with some more truly all around balanced maps. Map making is still in it's infancy and I believe Starcraft 2 will not continue to grow as a whole until we can fix this and get better maps out for the community, we run the danger of hitting stagnation if the maps never evolve and change. That was one of the key features of Brood War was a constantly changing and evolving map pool, the map makers constantly pushing the bounds of what is balanced and what is not. There were some pretty famous examples ie Gorky Park, Demon Forest. But we learned from those mistakes so right now I propose we intentionally try and create some of those disaster maps so we can learn from them. The solution doesn't rely on map making alone, but rather on the players to get used to many different ways to play their race. That is the true reason why Zerg sucks, because there "usually" is a standard tactic in a ZvZ matchup (Zergling/Baneling now? and mass Roaches sometime in the beta?), while Terrans can practically do anything from pure infantry to mech to air in a TvT matchup and win. That's why Terran is so overpowered ... because the Terran players NEED TO get used to all their units while Zerg (and to some lesser degree Protoss as well) players are lazy and stick to "what unit works best" ... until some new best tactic comes up to be used exclusively. It is the PLAYERS which need to change and most importantly the "leaders of the whine" which need to keep a low profile. The game is in its infancy and people should try to make it work before starting to whine. Whenever anyone claims to have "tried everything" I really really dont believe them, because no one is smart enough to see everything and to figure out everything. Everyone has his favorite color of sunglasses and is looking at it from his own - more or less biased - point of view. Threads like these which seem to have a lot of thought behind them arent really good, because they only give an illusion of that as I have shown with my counter-arguments which Raelcun did not give in his OP. Sure the maps made by Blizzard seem imbalanced, but that is only due to the fact that once you dislike something it is hard to "un-dislike" it and try to get used to it on a professional and neutral level. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On August 03 2010 06:27 mahnini wrote: i agree with this and i think as maps begin to get larger (to BW sized maps) people will actually be able to abuse terran immobility more. right now on most ladder maps a mid-game mech army can seige and clamp down half the map which is probably the ONLY reason why it's viable. I really think this has some merit and I am dying for a map pool that is larger on average... I feel so cramped on almost every map. | ||
|
ckw
United States1018 Posts
On August 03 2010 06:37 FuriousJodo wrote: Agree with this - though as a Protoss player I still think Terran have the coolest units. (Reapers and Hellions are just too awesome, seriously). But I don't think the game is unbalanced and I definitely agree with you that the maps seem to be more of an issue than actual game balance. If you like Terran units more, why are you playing Protoss? Not trying to be a jerk, I just think you might be happier with Terran. /End Dr. Phill moment | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On August 03 2010 10:12 Rabiator wrote: Terrans are the ones which suffer most from unsafe expansions, because they dont even have a cheap (~100 minerals) static defense to help defend against ground forces. Thus they are REQUIRED to sacrifice part of their army as base defense OR spend huge amounts of cash on a Planetary Fortresses which dont cover a whole lot of ground. The range of a PF is rather short with 7 (if you decide to upgrade) and that covers only slightly more ground (due to the size) than a Protoss / Zerg static ground defense IF the range is counted from the edge of the model and not the center! If you're expanding, you've either got your army standing in front of it, ready to defend, or you're applying pressure and preventing him from putting pressure on you. The idea of 'poor mistreated terrans' having to plop some bunkers down is nonsense. Bunkers mean you can expand easily by investing some minerals (temporarily, thanks to Salvage) to protect what would be a weak bio force and repair the things when you do get attacked. You can completely crush a much stronger force, just by building some bunkers. Nobody is busting in there without the big guns like Immortals or a full-blown all-in gateway/baneling bust. Meanwhile, a Protoss or Zerg who invests a bunch of minerals on Cannons or Spine Crawlers can get easily stomped by a bog-standard bio ball. Those things aren't cheap and they really do suck if they're not positioned on high-ground where they can get some free shots off. But, then you just COMSAT and rape the thing with your range 5/6 units anyway. The joys of not depending on melee units. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On August 03 2010 10:24 Bibdy wrote: If you're expanding, you've either got your army standing in front of it, ready to defend, or you're applying pressure and preventing him from putting pressure on you. The idea of 'poor mistreated terrans' having to plop some bunkers down is nonsense. Bunkers mean you can expand easily by investing some minerals (temporarily, thanks to Salvage) to protect what would be a weak bio force and repair the things when you do get attacked. You can completely crush a much stronger force, just by building some bunkers. Nobody is busting in there without the big guns like Immortals or a full-blown all-in gateway/baneling bust. Meanwhile, a Protoss or Zerg who invests a bunch of minerals on Cannons or Spine Crawlers can get easily stomped by a bog-standard bio ball. Those things aren't cheap and they really do suck if they're not positioned on high-ground where they can get some free shots off. But, then you just COMSAT and rape the thing with your range 5/6 units anyway. The joys of not depending on melee units. Not to mention that Terrans can lift their buildings to reposition them for a better wall. And they got seige tanks. | ||
|
Saracen
United States5139 Posts
1. Needs much longer rush distances. 2. No natural cliff. Needs less cliffable areas in general. 3. The main-natural choke needs to be close to the natural. 4. Needs less narrow pathways. An example of an "ideal" map would be Desert Oasis if the natural was closer to the ramp and more defendable, and Lost Temple if there was no natural cliff and the map as a whole was bigger. | ||
|
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
On August 03 2010 06:42 iCCup.Raelcun wrote: I loled nice one, but anyways the problem with statistics is you can make them suit whatever purpose you like as I said. If you see that terran is winning a majority on every map there are two conclusions: 1) Terran is fucking imba 2) The maps are bad and people are just as likely to come to both conclusions which causes ragestorms while people argue about it endlessly. there is also 3) people play wrong just the same point people made in phase1 regarding terran being weak P: maps r not balanced for certain matchups, thats no secret but i am getting headaches when i see so much whining everywhere about anything from people who just play awfull. but its always easy to blame anything but himself for being chobo | ||
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On August 03 2010 10:31 Ryuu314 wrote: Not to mention that Terrans can lift their buildings to reposition them for a better wall. And they got seige tanks. Suuure ... and Terrans can always put the Tech Labs and Reactors on the inside of the wall of buildings and once you built these it is totally ok to lift off the main building just to make a wall somewhere else. @Bibdy (the quote from Ryuu) Bunkers are NOT FREE or only a temporary investment, because you always need to defend your bases / entrances. There is always the possibility of harrass. Saying that they are only a temporary investment is kidding yourself. That statement is only true for the "advancing with bunkers" strategy, but defensive structures at your base need to stay. Saying you dont need them when you move out is just plain stupid, because there is ALWAYS more than one way to get to your base and if your army is out you have no defenses. One or two units could sneak in and wreak havoc in your mineral line for almost no cost. If you have no troops at your front a turret wont help you defending against some sneaky burrowing Roaches or cloaked Dark Templars heading into your base. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2010 10:24 Bibdy wrote: If you're expanding, you've either got your army standing in front of it, ready to defend, or you're applying pressure and preventing him from putting pressure on you. The idea of 'poor mistreated terrans' having to plop some bunkers down is nonsense. Bunkers mean you can expand easily by investing some minerals (temporarily, thanks to Salvage) to protect what would be a weak bio force and repair the things when you do get attacked. You can completely crush a much stronger force, just by building some bunkers. Nobody is busting in there without the big guns like Immortals or a full-blown all-in gateway/baneling bust. Meanwhile, a Protoss or Zerg who invests a bunch of minerals on Cannons or Spine Crawlers can get easily stomped by a bog-standard bio ball. Those things aren't cheap and they really do suck if they're not positioned on high-ground where they can get some free shots off. But, then you just COMSAT and rape the thing with your range 5/6 units anyway. The joys of not depending on melee units. Its also worth noting that since BW, Protoss and Zerg have always required a base advantage in order to properly combat Terran. This has carried over in SC2, at the very least, in TvZ. Unsafe expansions hurt zerg and protoss because they have to take more of them. An example of this is Steppes of War--you can reasonably hold 3 games in the midgame, but taking a logical 4th base is nearly impossible because every potential 4th base is both open and far away from your other 3 bases. Terran can be content to sit on 3 bases, but against 3 base Terran, Zerg NEEDS access to 4+ bases. On a map like Steppes, holding that many bases is exceedingly difficult. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
I agree that virtually every map is flawed in some way No one knows how far map balance can go to fix the game before we're stuck with the identical map over and over because there are no other viable map designs that will keep the game 'balanced' So while the maps are terrible, to blame them entirely isn't necessarily good for the game. Ideally you would want a lot of variety in map design and for the game to still be balanced/enjoyable. | ||
| ||
