|
So, I'm a big fan of figuring out design and I love the way the old school broodwar balancers in the community did things. Map size, positioning, stacked destructible stuff, even tournament formats like BoX and circuit groups. I think there's plenty of potential for stuff like that in SC2, but there's one very obvious thing that would take little effort and make huge changes, probably for the better. There's already an example of it on Shakuras plateau- players can't spawn in close positions.
Given that on broodwar 4 player maps rotational symmetry was the norm and even when it wasn't, the 4 positions were generally quite far from each other, even at the closest positions, with SW being roughly equidistant from SE and NW for example, the current pair of 4 player maps in the pool that don't follow that idea are lost temple and metalopolis. both have very close vertical positions compared to horizontal ones or crossmap. Simply do the same thing that's done on Shakuras- make close position spawns impossible.
I don't dislike close positions, the problem I have with them on 4 player maps is that it's random. on metalopolis you *might* be a million miles away from your opponent, or they might be closer to you than on steppes of war. The build discrepancies this forces are just too great. The problem is mostly for Zerg, but even in the case of Protoss and, more rarely Terran the close positions make for a fast, clean and generally easily decided game. Typically whoever has slightly better macro or control, though often the one who does some unexpected bit of secrecy dependent play- which with Terran is basically any current build they possess. On a map like Steppes, designed from the ground up to be short and snappy- but nevertheless amenable to a tense late game as we have so often seen, the problem is less. How many games have you seen on steppes that have gone to three or four bases a side? Plenty. How many close position games on lost temple or metalopolis have gone past 2 bases for more than a few minutes? I think I've seen maybe one or two.
It's not that it gets too hard for any particular race after 2 bases go up, it's that it gets realistically impossible for *any* race to go beyond two bases unless they're already winning by an almost insurmountable margin. The map design just isn't designed to cater for it, unlike steppes or blistering sands. That's bad design, take it from a designer. I can force myself into some weird perspective where it's justifiable, but I have to try so hard and shove my head so far up Blizzard's arse that I can't really see the point. There are dead things up there. They whisper in the darkness.
So what do folks think? Do people ever enjoy games at close positions on Met/LT? Or, more correctly, do you enjoy them more than you would the same game taking place on Steppes? Do you think it's a decent change? It's certainly something that, unlike a lot of balance changes, the community could realistically petition Blizzard to do...
Edit: in response to comments, I'm adding a poll. Please respond. The first letter is the perspective you're viewing the matchup from. ignored ZvP and ZvT since it's pretty obvious the response. Base your answer purely on LT and Metalopolis. Close is vertical positions, far is either cross or horizontal.
Edit 2: bleh, Ignore the poll title, read the options.
Poll: PvT PvT spawn far (70) 84% PvT spawn close (13) 16% 83 total votes Your vote: PvT (Vote): PvT spawn close (Vote): PvT spawn far
Poll: TvPTvP spawn close (30) 51% TvP spawn far (29) 49% 59 total votes Your vote: TvP (Vote): TvP spawn close (Vote): TvP spawn far
Poll: TvPTvT spawn far (33) 70% TvT spawn close (14) 30% 47 total votes Your vote: TvP (Vote): TvT spawn close (Vote): TvT spawn far
Poll: TvPPvP spawn far (36) 69% PvP spawn close (16) 31% 52 total votes Your vote: TvP (Vote): PvP spawn close (Vote): PvP spawn far
Poll: TvPZvZ spawn far (42) 76% ZvZ spawn close (13) 24% 55 total votes Your vote: TvP (Vote): ZvZ spawn close (Vote): ZvZ spawn far
|
the possibility of close position allows more game variety and a more technical early game. having only big maps may induce longer games, but the risk factor of the game may decrease... having a map that you can rush effectively and macro effectively is what should be standard imo.
|
I agree. It's good for the variety and it forces you to think about the particular map and positions and how that should affect your play
|
So every Zerg would say no close position and opposite for the other races
|
On January 09 2011 19:14 UncleTomNZ wrote: So every Zerg would say no close position and opposite for the other races not quite, as the only map which has this close position restriction thing is a very popular, and said to be quite balanced map, Shakuras
|
@Lok and Arta: of course, but is there any reason that distinction cannot be made between maps rather than after spawns. The problem with metal and LT on close is that, sure, you can rush effectively but you *can't* macro effectively in close positions. You can rush effectively in long positions on pretty much every map in the pool at the moment, but you can also macro. The problem with the close position games is there is no late game. Period. Does not happen. So you *don't* have to think about anything else but rushing and counter-rushing.
@UncleTomNZ: in ZvT or ZvP sure, and that's a sign that really the maps aren't that balanced. If one race is guaranteed to not pick and another is to do so, that strikes me as a good indicator of problems. But the question is whether in a TvP, PvP, TvT etc players would select close positions. I don't really see it happening (at least, if polled, I think in these matchups players of all stripes would prefer to spawn cross. It'd actually be quite an interesting poll and I shall add it to OP)
|
they need more maps like scrap and metal imo. Not too far and close. LT is trash
|
At some point the pros will have to decide what is a reasonable distance between each base in order to ensure that the game does not favor a particular race or does not encourage a 1-dimensional style of play.
At this point I believe that the distances between bases should not be no longer than Shakuras Plateau and slightly longer than the closest spawn distance on Lost Temple or Steppes of War. My reasoning for this is that Shakuras has arguably produced the best and most exciting games in the GSL thus far. While close positions on LT or Steppes of War seem to put different races at an advantage/disadvantage.
Of course these values would change as the game evolves.
Remember, most players have adjusted to shorter spawn positions reasonably well. The position of additional expansions is also of large concern when considering map design.
|
I totally agree with everything you said. Metalopolis is only a balanced map when it's not close positions. Lost Temple is more balanced when it's not close positions (hard to call that map balanced as long as the cliff drop exists).
The amount of time Blizzard is taking to remedy things that they undoubtedly realised long ago makes me question their ability to deal with the problem, though. They haven't fixed some of the most obvious things wrong with Bnet2.0 (custom games starting after players leave for e.g.), so I really don't see them getting onto this any time soon.
|
I think in bigger maps Terran will have a harder time competing in the late game (I say this speaking strictly about the competitive scene, excluding a handful of gosu's who are not bound by logic or rules- see SlayerSBoxer).
The power of warp/versatility of zerg reinforce will be so much more powerful than Terran drops. Most notably because Protoss lategame decimates Terran bio (required for drop tech, required for big maps), and Terran has a hard time keeping up with incessant zerg tech switch (see GSL3 Clide v Leenock). Terran drops will be found to be almost exclusively used, since harass with mech/air is much more difficult to do effectively on larger maps.
I think larger maps will lead to much more turtling from Terran into the late game; however the most recent GSL late-game OC strat from the emperor may have changed the overall power of the terran late game "max." Of course, none of this applies to mirrors, where I see it being a great idea.
|
as Terran: Always close, especially against Zerg because I can Tankush his main. If there is a distance like in Junglebasin or Metalopolis/LT cross positions, Tankplay gets weaker and weaker.
|
LT Close positions are going to mostly be 2-base... Zerg will have to stay on 2 base, the other expansions are a long way, easily dropped and killed.
Should be crosspositions or close by air, not close by ground.
|
Was gonna vote zvz spawn close since <10 pool is so easy to defend but remembered those games are short and hence quite boring so went with spawn far.
Rush games can be fun just for the sake of diversity, overall though macro games tend to lead to moments of greatness that you will never see in a rushgame(close or far positions). Short games also get tedious and boring fast since they basically negate the differences between the races, you just get units x and y from one race vs units x and y from another race. All the intricate details that make up each race sort of get lost due to not having a chance to get shown.
|
Games would be so much better if you couldnt spawn close, and on shakuras its already this way so why not.
|
On January 09 2011 21:28 Arcanefrost wrote: Games would be so much better if you couldnt spawn close, and on shakuras its already this way so why not.
On Shakuras it's this way because the positions are ridiculously close and you can hit the opponents natural from your natural with tanks.
|
As Protoss, I prefer spawning non-cp against T, obviously (though I prefer macro games in every matchup). It's so much easier, or perhaps you could even say the push is a lot weaker, if you have the proper time to react and bait -> retreat. Not to mention tank contains in LT are absolutely horrendous. PvZ however, is a different story. There's two reasons for that: zerg macro is a lot better then P's and Z has alot of fast units (esspecially with creep) and therefor mapcontrol. It can, to me, feel often very much like a mini-Desert Oasis. The protoss army is too slow to keep up (and harass). It's why I like to go phoenix.
I prefer cross positions with PvP as well, but that's mainly because i'm a macro player. The cheese and warpins are the same regardless of position, so it doesn't really matter that much.
|
So I don't play terran, but whenever I see TvT on LT close positions = one player sets up all his tanks at the watchtower in between and the other terran can't really do anything against it.
Boring stale games. -_-
|
IMO the build discrepancies are something you just have to take into account, forcing you to open with a more flexible build. EG. maybe in ZvT, you need to scout the close position before you FE, delaying your expansion by a drone or so.
|
On January 09 2011 21:41 Scoop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 21:28 Arcanefrost wrote: Games would be so much better if you couldnt spawn close, and on shakuras its already this way so why not. On Shakuras it's this way because the positions are ridiculously close and you can hit the opponents natural from your natural with tanks.
Like steppes of war.
|
I think that all long position are better than close in any match-up and maps.
|
|
|
|