|
A couple months ago, In the relative obscurity of the blizzard bug report forum, I posted this thread on the positional imbalance of geysers in ladder maps: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3430939232
Despite including detailed information on which parts of which maps needed to be fixed, and exactly how to place geysers to avoid this imbalance, none of the old maps have been fixed, and the new maps have exactly the same problems. Which leads me to believe this won't get fixed without a push from the community.
Here's an example of problematic geysers on the new ladder map, Entombed Valley, where the rate geysers mine with 3 probes varies by as much as 6%:
http://imgur.com/a/cU59L
Note how all the geysers requiring 4 probes mine at different rates with 3, with the player in the bottom left having a significant advantage.
The good news is that at least 1 gas in every main can be mined w/ just 3 probes, so in the meantime. I suggest everyone learn which geysers can be mined w/ 3, so they don't set themselves behind by taking the wrong geyser first. These are the gasses to avoid taking first in tight openings:
Old ladder maps(these appear unchanged, correct me if they fixed any of them):
Xel'Naga caverns:
top main left geyser 28 gas remaining.
Abyssal caverns:
bottom left main right geyser 176 gas remaining
top right main left geyser 176 gas remaining
Antiga Shipyards:
All mains OK
Metalopolis:
top main top geyser 56 gas remaining
right main right geyser 184 gas remaining
bottom main bottom geyser 96 gas remaining
left main left geyser 176 gas remaining
Nerazim Crypt:
top left main right geyser 64 gas remaining
top right main left geyser 176 gas remaining
bottom left main right geyser 172 gas remaining
bottom right main left geyser 56 gas remaining
Shakuras:
All mains OK
Tal'darim Altar:
top left main right geyser 88 gas remaining
top right main left geyser 28 gas remaining
Shattered Temple:
All mains OK
New ladder maps:
Arid Plateau:
bottom main left geyser 56 gas remaining
top main right geyser 56 gas remaining
Entombed Valley:
top left main right geyser 156 gas remaining
bottom left main right geyser 56 gas remaining
bottom right main left geyser 188 gas remaining
top right main left geyser 148 gas remaining
(all measurements taken at the time a perfectly mined geyser would have just depleted ± 4 gas)
Taken alone I could chalk this up to a failure of communication, but given other indications of the map team's understanding of how design impacts balance(close spawns anyone?), I worry about the quality of future maps. So I think we need better ways to improve and publicize community maps(for example, each tournament could ask the top finishing player of each race to nominate a new community map for the next season, subject to refinement and balance fixes), and we need to pressure blizzard to fix the obvious problems with current and future ladder maps.
Edit: compare to GSL maps here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=296636¤tpage=3#60
|
there's an issue with the placing of geysers. they have a very 'quirky' footprint (from using square grids) and results in not so perfect positioning of geysers. to fix this, you'd need to move the geyser all around the place to find the right distance, possibly spread out minerals even more, but in the end, it messes up with the 'natural look' of the resource line.
i agree they could do a bit better job with it.
at the same time, i wish you people would stop supporting blizzard's maps. time and time again they have proven they make fucking terrible maps. favouring the community made maps can ensure fast resolution of issues like these (if possible), help to get community maps on the ladder, and play less of these imbalanced pieces of crap.
|
I hate this so much. They even do this with mineral patches some maps and positions have 6 far and 2 close and some are 4 close and 4 far
|
On December 20 2011 23:58 a176 wrote:
there's an issue with the placing of geysers. they have a very 'quirky' footprint (from using square grids) and results in not so perfect positioning of geysers. to fix this, you'd need to move the geyser all around the place to find the right distance, possibly spread out minerals even more, but in the end, it messes up with the 'natural look' of the resource line.
Just use a square angles for geysers!
|
Lol, I didn't even know there were gases where 4 workers is more efficient.. being a zerg, that's a punch in the face, would have helped quite a bit when going muta.
|
at the very least the spawn points should be equal (like arids are) =/
id suspected this was happening, especially on metal
|
On December 20 2011 23:58 a176 wrote:
there's an issue with the placing of geysers. they have a very 'quirky' footprint (from using square grids) and results in not so perfect positioning of geysers. to fix this, you'd need to move the geyser all around the place to find the right distance, possibly spread out minerals even more, but in the end, it messes up with the 'natural look' of the resource line.
If the gas would overlap the CC/Hatch/Nex if moved straight vertically or straight horizontally, it will mine perfectly with 3(assuming it's 3 tiles away). If it would touch but not overlap, it will still mine with 3 with the exception of the top 2 possible spots. The rest will all require 4.
|
Wow I didn't realise this... this would make a pretty big difference on ZvZ/PvP I guess
|
Yeah this is not professional and definitely needs to be fixed, having mining consistency across all base and expo mineral & gas patches should really be a no-brainer.
|
Canada13389 Posts
Huh well that is huge for mirror matchups actually. Wow.
This needs to be fixed quickly :x
|
While differences in geysers are evident, the differences in mining rates are probably insignificant. In the most drastic example, in fifteen minutes or so, one player mines 100 more gas overall from one of the geysers. Is this really significant and game changing? I don't think you should feel gimped if u g et the weaker geyser spawn
|
On December 20 2011 23:58 a176 wrote:
at the same time, i wish you people would stop supporting blizzard's maps. time and time again they have proven they make fucking terrible maps. favouring the community made maps can ensure fast resolution of issues like these (if possible), help to get community maps on the ladder, and play less of these imbalanced pieces of crap.
There's this cool tournament in Korea called the GSL, and they employ their own mapmakers to create good maps for tournament play. Maybe, just maybe, Blizzard will wise up and realize that THOSE are the maps that belong in the ladder pool.
|
On December 21 2011 00:15 Kfcnoob wrote:
While differences in geysers are evident, the differences in mining rates are probably insignificant. In the most drastic example, in fifteen minutes or so, one player mines 100 more gas overall from one of the geysers. Is this really significant and game changing? I don't think you should feel gimped if u g et the weaker geyser spawn
1 extra baneling in zvz or 5 seconds on a sentry in pvp can have huge consequences.
|
I think one big mistake with some maps are that even though they seem symmetrical, they're rotationally symmetrical instead of mirrorized symmetrical, which can lead to positional imbalance on some maps in certain matchups with clockwise/counter-clockwise spawns, like TvZ on Tal'Darim.
|
+1 soulwager
User was warned for this post
|
On December 21 2011 00:17 SoulWager wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 00:15 Kfcnoob wrote:
While differences in geysers are evident, the differences in mining rates are probably insignificant. In the most drastic example, in fifteen minutes or so, one player mines 100 more gas overall from one of the geysers. Is this really significant and game changing? I don't think you should feel gimped if u g et the weaker geyser spawn
1 extra baneling in zvz or 5 seconds on a sentry in pvp can have huge consequences.
So can manually forcing workers on specific mineral patches earlier in the game, but we see time and time again that bigger decisions make or break the game. This "bug" is something so insignificant that you people are splitting hairs. Stop nitpicking Blizzard maps and just play the damn game.
|
It's something like a %10 difference in gas income for a farther geyser. It's pretty significant.
Having said that, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing if it appears in all spawn positions. If it only appears in some spawns, it is a huge imbalance and should be fixed for certain.
|
Hmm, never did the math about gas income on each base location, interesting stuff. Good job doing this math, hope to see this changed.
|
On December 21 2011 01:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 00:17 SoulWager wrote:On December 21 2011 00:15 Kfcnoob wrote:
While differences in geysers are evident, the differences in mining rates are probably insignificant. In the most drastic example, in fifteen minutes or so, one player mines 100 more gas overall from one of the geysers. Is this really significant and game changing? I don't think you should feel gimped if u g et the weaker geyser spawn
1 extra baneling in zvz or 5 seconds on a sentry in pvp can have huge consequences. So can manually forcing workers on specific mineral patches earlier in the game, but we see time and time again that bigger decisions make or break the game. This "bug" is something so insignificant that you people are splitting hairs. Stop nitpicking Blizzard maps and just play the damn game.
I agree, more or less. This isn't a huge imbalance or anything. I think the biggest difference was like 188 gas or something, which is a lot, but that's by the time the other gas is mined out (if I'm reading this correctly), which is pretty well into the game; much past the time of 1 bling or 1 sentry saving a push. I think SC2 really allows people to observe it closely, so we notice things like the gasses not taking the same amount of time, or that we can make probes mine faster at the beginning of the game with some right clicking, but they don't make a huge difference.
Mechanics and strategy will be more important than how well your gasses line up until extremely high levels of play. If you played 100% mechanically and strategically correct, and so did your opponent, and you lost by 1 bling or 1 sentry, I'd let this argument suffice as a reason why you lost. But if I can find you getting supply blocked or positioning your army incorrectly, I'm not going to accept this as an excuse.
However, I have noticed this OP. You can see your scvs/probes/drones a little more spaced out on the gasses that are farther away from your main. I've never put much thought into it, but it does remind me of an old BW map where the gas at the main was better mined with 4 workers instead of 3, just because it was placed too far away from the main. Don't remember the maps name, or when it was played on, but I remember watching a female progamer play on it. So I don't really think gas placement needs to be perfect, SC2 just makes it too easy for the average player to find little mistakes like this so they can blame their loses on it.
|
On December 21 2011 01:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 00:17 SoulWager wrote:On December 21 2011 00:15 Kfcnoob wrote:
While differences in geysers are evident, the differences in mining rates are probably insignificant. In the most drastic example, in fifteen minutes or so, one player mines 100 more gas overall from one of the geysers. Is this really significant and game changing? I don't think you should feel gimped if u g et the weaker geyser spawn
1 extra baneling in zvz or 5 seconds on a sentry in pvp can have huge consequences. So can manually forcing workers on specific mineral patches earlier in the game, but we see time and time again that bigger decisions make or break the game. This "bug" is something so insignificant that you people are splitting hairs. Stop nitpicking Blizzard maps and just play the damn game.
Every player at every spawn can manually force workers to closer mineral patches. These gas geysers are random and not player choice. And, insignificant or not, it's part of a larger issue where Blizzard continues to ignore clearly superior maps. Why should we be satisfied with their maps when we can immediately point to better ones?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
