|
I'll try keep this concise. well, that failed... tl;dr at the bottom
In SC2, we all strive for perfect balance in different ways. In this particular sub-forum, we strive for balance in the way we design our maps. We want all races to have equal opportunity to win, assuming equal skill level. This is good.
However, we shouldn't require that every map allow every type of strategy. Map design like this is boring, and renders the terrain ultimately irrelevant.
Many people who make maps read on TL that Macro maps are the best / the current maps are all too small / Zerg needs large spaces / Islands are imba for terran / mains can't have back doors / Droppable naturals are imba for Zerg etc. There is some truth in all of these statements.
- Macro maps are the best - if you enjoy current BW-style games.
- The current maps are all too small - again, for BW style of play on every map.
- Zerg needs large open spaces - if they go ling/bling heavy, otherwise they work just as well as any other race.
- Islands are imba for Terran - Floating a CC is a huge investment of time and minerals, and is easily stopped if scouted; Protoss have the easiest drop ability - warp prism at the same tier as starport, but allows for more than 8 units when you factor in warp gates.
- Mains can't have back doors - for usual strategies to go unpunished.
- Droppable naturals are imba for Zerg - this one I have the biggest problem with. If you're going to fast expand, where theres a cliff, build a spine crawler and float an overlord. Its a small extra investment, and a single crawler will easily buy enough time to react, if not shut down the drop all together. Or build two if you must. Its the price you pay for expanding there. At least you have a flying unit for vision - imagine if a Protoss was on only gateway/robo - he has to wait until an obs (or colossus) is built to get vision. Thats a LONG time.
Most people who give critiques of balance are simply repeating what they hear others say, and are quick to yell "IMBA!". If you've ever recieved private advice from me, you'll now that I never use the word "imbalanced" unless something is really bad. I'll say, oh, this would encourage Tank use, or, a player who wants to FE needs to scout this area early.
What makes a map imbalanced for a race is when the map encourages Player 1 to use a strategy that is countered by a strategy that is also aided by the map. If a player cannot adapt to the map, they don't deserve to win. The landscape has always been, and will continue to be, the most important consideration in battle - both online and irl.
tl;dr: Tailor your strategies to the maps, not the other way around.
|
I would say people who QQ do so about which race they cannot beat. You can always tell who is legit with the evidence they bring with them about why a certain race is balanced or not.
|
I was probably the reason this thread was created hehe...
I'm going to share my beliefs on what makes a map balanced and what doesn't. Also, see my post here.
Droppable naturals are only imbalanced for Zerg if Roaches cannot hit units on it if they back up to the back of the cliff, like on Lost Temple. The cliff is just too large. Small cliffs I'm okay with, and believe are entirely fair, but ranged units have to be able to defend (if they have sight).
Backdoors are fair if and only if the defender's path to that entrance is shorter than the attacker's path. I strongly (and stubbornly) believe that this is one of the only ways to not force one base plays on small maps like Blistering Sands, but rather give then that option (and of course, other options).
Islands are not imbalanced to Terran as long as they aren't positioned super close to the mains, like on Lost Temple. Islands positioned further away from the mains are the way to go, like on Sungsu Crossing by Konicki.
Those are my views.
|
|
I wouldn't say backdoors are unfair if the distance is shorter for the attacker, it just encourages shorter games because the attacker has an advantage, so you usually want to be attacking and not defending. I always believed that maps should restrict strategies, just not too much. If you have strategies A, B, C and D, three of them should still be somewhat viable. If you reduce them too much, it will be boring because matches would get predictable. If you don't restrict the strategies at all, most maps would more or less play the same. EDIT: I knew Barrin would like this one. :-D
|
[*]Zerg needs large open spaces - if they go ling/bling heavy, otherwise they work just as well as any other race.
Disagree, consider roach/hydra for a moment. You have a billion units, if you got open spaces, you get more spread and more units are attacking at the same time. And there's another thing: you get more space to micro against AoE stuff, that is usually the big problem (think storm dodging).
|
On December 15 2010 12:53 rockslave wrote:Show nested quote +[*]Zerg needs large open spaces - if they go ling/bling heavy, otherwise they work just as well as any other race. Disagree, consider roach/hydra for a moment. You have a billion units, if you got open spaces, you get more spread and more units are attacking at the same time. And there's another thing: you get more space to micro against AoE stuff, that is usually the big problem (think storm dodging).
I'm going to refrain from commenting on this thread except to point out misunderstandings. My point was that in tight spaces, roach/hydra is not at any less of an advantage than marine/marauder, or stalker/immortal
|
Go go exploitable terrain! =D
You guys are concise enough, it's just a lot to talk about. You can't compress it into less words without way too much effort, and then you'd probably lose some people by generalizing.
There are some broad concepts that can be useful, but strict views on more specific things (like natural cliffs and destructible backdoor) are just limitations of the toolbox, at this point. Indeed, it's the way things relate, not the things. Consequently, in order to discuss a map, we have to analyze in a mushy idiom with statements that provide wiggle room. The only way to be more specific is to be more exhaustive. This requires talking at length to enumerate and explain. The internet and big speeches don't really mix, but I'm perfectly happy to sift through an overflowing discourse, especially if it helps me understand starcraft better.
tl;dr: i dont believe in tl;dr
|
On December 15 2010 16:27 EatThePath wrote: Go go exploitable terrain! =D
You guys are concise enough, it's just a lot to talk about. You can't compress it into less words without way too much effort, and then you'd probably lose some people by generalizing.
There are some broad concepts that can be useful, but strict views on more specific things (like natural cliffs and destructible backdoor) are just limitations of the toolbox, at this point. Indeed, it's the way things relate, not the things. Consequently, in order to discuss a map, we have to analyze in a mushy idiom with statements that provide wiggle room. The only way to be more specific is to be more exhaustive. This requires talking at length to enumerate and explain. The internet and big speeches don't really mix, but I'm perfectly happy to sift through an overflowing discourse, especially if it helps me understand starcraft better.
tl;dr: i dont believe in tl;dr
This is for you: <3
|
I'm sorry but how is a spine crawler and an overlord supposed to stop a Thor drop?
A Thor like 3-shots a spine crawler and has SCVs to repair so it takes zero damage.
|
So do we all have to play Baskerville's maps?
The funny thing about macro games. In GSL3 for example, tell me how many of them were played? Really a few and when there was one (Leenock vs Clyde Game3) everyone is going crazy. "Omfg this game is epic!" "Best game i've ever seen" (I am one of them)
Do you still think it's boring?
|
|
On December 15 2010 17:25 Superouman wrote:Do you still think it's boring? I never said that I found them boring. I find macro games just as entertaining as a well executed mid-game timing push.
My issue is primarily with people saying macro games are better because they are
|
I think the balance problem comes from, which race can exploit, exploitable map features the best.
And which race benefits from the LEAST or does better with less exploitable features, cliffs, chokes, islands etc.
|
The magic of games like that is that they don't happen like that very often. Macro games let you see more units and fights, but they don't always dance on the knife edge the whole time. That's what we should really be aiming for. I think this can be accomplished to suit various subsidiary style goals, be it macro or aggressive, but I am willing to go out of my way to make sure players aren't forced to all-in on one or two bases.
|
|
Maps with most interesting gameplay (in my eyes): Kulas Ravine Debris Field Worldship Desert Oasis Crossfire
And of course: Fighting Spirit
List your favorites. Maps should have exploitable features, as it makes the game more interesting. But that does not mean a map without exploitable features is boring. Focus should be on doing evenly valuable exploits for every race.
What do you think about a max-size map consisting only of even terrain and resource fields? I think it would provide the most epic game play ever.
|
On December 15 2010 13:33 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 12:53 rockslave wrote:[*]Zerg needs large open spaces - if they go ling/bling heavy, otherwise they work just as well as any other race. Disagree, consider roach/hydra for a moment. You have a billion units, if you got open spaces, you get more spread and more units are attacking at the same time. And there's another thing: you get more space to micro against AoE stuff, that is usually the big problem (think storm dodging). I'm going to refrain from commenting on this thread except to point out misunderstandings. My point was that in tight spaces, roach/hydra is not at any less of an advantage than marine/marauder, or stalker/immortal uhh roach/hydra is slower, bigger, and shorter range than marine/marauder.
with stalker/immortal, you will have way more units of hydra/roach than stalker/immortal
|
|
|
|
|