|
What if tournaments/ladder had two map pools, one for ZvX (lump RandomvX into that pool as well) and one for the rest of the matchups? At first it sounds stupid, until you realize how incredibly easy it would be to implement AND how much it could help the game.
PvP/PvT/TvT map pool could have - maps with crazy thirds of differing distances, really wide-open naturals (such as Dual Sight, a pretty decent map when zerg isn't involved), mains with weird entrances.. all sorts of awesome, creative layouts that just aren't possible because of the existence of zerg.
ZvX/RvX would have - maps with more standardized nats and 3rds, such as what we have now.
I know what you're thinking - the reason these problems exist is because of the core design of the game, which is quite flawed (such as Protoss' over-reliance on FFs). Well guess what, Blizz has already made it clear that they aren't going to change SC2 -that- fundamentally for HOTS. So this is a possible plan B.
Yes, with HOTS the maps will get a little more interesting due to P's slight better defense with MSC, and little fun things like collapsible rocks (and health ponds, it looks like). But we will still be held back soo much from where we could be.
(I don't think Blizz will ever do something like this for ladder, because it would be tantamount to the balance team admitting defeat, but that doesn't mean tournaments couldn't do it.)
|
Never going to work. Tournement organizers can't even agree among themself what the single good map pool should be so how exactly should they start talking together on having multible map pools? Metropolis is a good example of this. Blizzard trashed it mid-season for terrible lag. GSL trashed it after one season for terrible balance. Yet alot of tournements still play it. If a terrible maps in one matchup is releashed in a tournement that allows its veto then after some time a tournement without that option is going to pick up same terrible map. It is not going to end well.
I still think some map concept are heavely unexplored even in WOL, such as island maps. Now i know that counts as the extreme but it just seems like people gave up on this before trying.
I also think you should be careful to underestamate what Blizzard is willing to do to fix current WOL problems through. 4 months is still quite a while to go. And they have proven to be aware of the issue.
|
I am pretty sure this whole 'protoss needs a close third versus Zerg' type of reasoning and other similar things are a complete myth started by some protoss players who just can't properly split their army if I'm going to be frank. I never experienced it myself. Korhal Compound was a map where I had a pretty high winrate versus Zerg, Abyssal City in the GSL is currently slightly protoss favoured with not a lot of games played.
|
On November 21 2012 21:52 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I am pretty sure this whole 'protoss needs a close third versus Zerg' type of reasoning and other similar things are a complete myth started by some protoss players who just can't properly split their army if I'm going to be frank. I never experienced it myself. Korhal Compound was a map where I had a pretty high winrate versus Zerg, Abyssal City in the GSL is currently slightly protoss favoured with not a lot of games played.
I'd like some citations for your expertise on the matter, are you a pro player or something?
|
what do you mean by health ponds btw?
also i just got the idea, has blizzard (they probably have, but anyone got any ideas why they may have decided against it?) considered buffing gateway units so that p can defend easier, but the compensation obviously being that the maps are more open/harder to defend (so there's more variety), and then nerf lategame units like colossus? I guess it would just change too much
|
On November 23 2012 16:33 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
what do you mean by health ponds btw?
also i just got the idea, has blizzard (they probably have, but anyone got any ideas why they may have decided against it?) considered buffing gateway units so that p can defend easier, but the compensation obviously being that the maps are more open/harder to defend (so there's more variety), and then nerf lategame units like colossus? I guess it would just change too much
Health ponds are a new terrain feature in HotS (AKA Xel'naga healing shrine).
They are as of yet unused in any maps and are graphically bugged a little, but otherwise heal all types of units.
|
|
|
whoa wait, where did you find this health pond stuff? I haven't seen it on TL nor bnet forums, nor any interviews or announcements or such... is it just in the editor? i'm guessing it'll just be for the campaign, it doesn't feel like it fits in sc2
|
Warcraft 3 had fountains of healing too, but i can't recall it ever being used on multiplayer maps.
|
i have actually been thinking about this before. and maybe it could even be taken further, into some kind of scenario type of map. you could make completely asymetric maps, designed to balance each race best as possible, and maybe even start with a couple more units/small army to skip the first 5 minutes of every game :D
|
On November 23 2012 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
whoa wait, where did you find this health pond stuff? I haven't seen it on TL nor bnet forums, nor any interviews or announcements or such... is it just in the editor? i'm guessing it'll just be for the campaign, it doesn't feel like it fits in sc2
On November 23 2012 19:23 Sumadin wrote:
Warcraft 3 had fountains of healing too, but i can't recall it ever being used on multiplayer maps.
You can see it here in my bug write-up to the dev's about the graphics issue. It reminds me of the helipads from CC: Red Alert (the first one... dunno about others as I never played them).
It is a melee asset (meaning it is usable in straight melee non-custom maps). It is graphically bugged at the moment. And it heals all units (as far as I know thus far in my testing for my current WIP map) at 10HP per second during the time a damaged unit stands on the XNH. The XNH is approximately 4x4 in size. So you cannot heal your ENTIRE army without taking up significant time -- and the heal is low enough over time I think that it is not overpowered but this is conjecture at this point until I can get my map up on the HOTS servers and begin full play-testing.
-Link to Battle.net thread-
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7179908440
|
On November 24 2012 01:16 SigmaFiE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
whoa wait, where did you find this health pond stuff? I haven't seen it on TL nor bnet forums, nor any interviews or announcements or such... is it just in the editor? i'm guessing it'll just be for the campaign, it doesn't feel like it fits in sc2 Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 19:23 Sumadin wrote:
Warcraft 3 had fountains of healing too, but i can't recall it ever being used on multiplayer maps. You can see it here in my bug write-up to the dev's about the graphics issue. It reminds me of the helipads from CC: Red Alert (the first one... dunno about others as I never played them). It is a melee asset (meaning it is usable in straight melee non-custom maps). It is graphically bugged at the moment. And it heals all units (as far as I know thus far in my testing for my current WIP map) at 10HP per second during the time a damaged unit stands on the XNH. The XNH is approximately 4x4 in size. So you cannot heal your ENTIRE army without taking up significant time -- and the heal is low enough over time I think that it is not overpowered but this is conjecture at this point until I can get my map up on the HOTS servers and begin full play-testing. -Link to Battle.net thread- http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7179908440
Hm that's quite a fast heal if your opponent doesn't act, though yea 4x4 isn't huge. I wonder how this will affect the gameplay... maybe it will create a slightly bigger defender's advantage, so that games don't swing too quickly unlike BW?
Thanks for the link and explanation :D
|
The issue with the 3rd for protoss in PvZ is not hard to understand purely analytically with minimal game knowledge. The fact that imperfect play produces certain statistics doesn't really matter when you're talking about what happens given nearly perfect play from both sides. The question is whether that's a reasonable expectation, or if it matters in an interim period before players are that good.
[edit] On topic: That's a fine idea but it's not quite elegant and I'm not sure you get that much benefit. You might as well make maps for every matchup at that point.
The only way I could see it being used is in a special format like the later rounds of a major tournament where the players are playing bo5+ series, and one of the middle maps is a special map just for that matchup. This would provide some flair and make the whole affair a special occasion and therefore acceptable.
|
United States10182 Posts
just bring back fighting spirit and all will be well in the world.
|
On November 24 2012 03:39 EatThePath wrote:The issue with the 3rd for protoss in PvZ is not hard to understand purely analytically with minimal game knowledge. Okay? So where are you on the ladder if we're going to talk about 'game knowledge', my game knowledge and experience as an 900 pts master random namely tells me that it's nonsense.
I believe protoss benefits from chokes first and foremost against zergs, not distance or lack thereof which is largely irrelevant in my experience. In fact, conventional knoweldge dictates that the further _anything_ the better for protoss because they have instance re-enforcemnts, re-enforcing a third that's a year away takes just as long as re-enforcing to your main.
The fact that imperfect play produces certain statistics doesn't really matter when you're talking about what happens given nearly perfect play from both sides. The question is whether that's a reasonable expectation, or if it matters in an interim period before players are that good. Oh yes, the vaunted 'my gut feeling is better than cold hard statistics' argument. Well, my gut feeling disagrees with yours and my gut feeling has stats on its side.
I have had no problem whatsoever defending a far third as protoss, just split your army properly, have observers in play and anticipate attacks, sure it's harder to defend a far third with any race, just as it's harder for Zerg to respond to a couple of zealots walking in to his third from a warpin pylon or some rambo stalkers focussing down a hatch and blinking out afterwards.
|
|
|
Although I understand why such an idea would be considered -- I disagree with the concept based on the fact that it is disadvantageous to all the players. The T and P players are forced into committing extra practice time on a secondary set of maps specifically for one matchup that they may or may not even need to be prepared for. Secondly, the zerg players would be disenfranchised from participating by being relegated to a special subsect of tournament players -- furthermore the utilization of a secondary map pool that specifically targets zerg players in order to make it more difficult decreases the incentive of a zerg player to participate in a tournament with such a system as opposed to another equally rewarding tournament with only 1 map pool.
As for ladder? Unfortunately it just won't happen I don't think.
Personally -- I think we're fine for now. The metagame will likely shift many more times based on patches, HotS, and the eventual LOV (assuming we're still around then  ). While we have the power to create maps that are advantageous to one or 2 races to the other(s) -- it is still the responsibility of the tournament organizer to choose a map pool that operates in that sense (in which case they better have a map for each race a'la BW tournament pools). Go forth and conquer with the maps for each race -- just don't hold your breath.
|
On November 24 2012 07:17 SigmaFiE wrote:Although I understand why such an idea would be considered -- I disagree with the concept based on the fact that it is disadvantageous to all the players. The T and P players are forced into committing extra practice time on a secondary set of maps specifically for one matchup that they may or may not even need to be prepared for. Secondly, the zerg players would be disenfranchised from participating by being relegated to a special subsect of tournament players -- furthermore the utilization of a secondary map pool that specifically targets zerg players in order to make it more difficult decreases the incentive of a zerg player to participate in a tournament with such a system as opposed to another equally rewarding tournament with only 1 map pool. As for ladder? Unfortunately it just won't happen I don't think. Personally -- I think we're fine for now. The metagame will likely shift many more times based on patches, HotS, and the eventual LOV (assuming we're still around then ). While we have the power to create maps that are advantageous to one or 2 races to the other(s) -- it is still the responsibility of the tournament organizer to choose a map pool that operates in that sense (in which case they better have a map for each race a'la BW tournament pools). Go forth and conquer with the maps for each race -- just don't hold your breath. You could just designate each map specifically for each matchup though and in fact even lock spawn positions based on races?
|
Yeah the idea really isn't fair to Zergs (they have to play on the same boring maps while other players get new interesting maps) or legitimate, it was just something I thought of at 4 a.m. (or w/e it was) when I couldn't sleep and I felt like sharing and seeing where the discussion led.
I think some of the ideas you guys mentioned are pretty interesting. I think there is a METRIC SHITTON of unexplored possibilities with map objects such as the healing pools. Here's a couple ideas I had
- energy-regen pools inside the mains (might allow multiple entrance mains to be more common)
- speed boost shrines inbetween the nat and 3rd to allow for more distant 3rds
- a shrine that places a guardian shield on you in a location that would normally be very hard to defend
|
On November 24 2012 09:39 Fatam wrote:
Yeah the idea really isn't fair to Zergs (they have to play on the same boring maps while other players get new interesting maps) or legitimate, it was just something I thought of at 4 a.m. (or w/e it was) when I couldn't sleep and I felt like sharing and seeing where the discussion led.
I think some of the ideas you guys mentioned are pretty interesting. I think there is a METRIC SHITTON of unexplored possibilities with map objects such as the healing pools. Here's a couple ideas I had
- energy-regen pools inside the mains (might allow multiple entrance mains to be more common)
- speed boost shrines inbetween the nat and 3rd to allow for more distant 3rds
- a shrine that places a guardian shield on you in a location that would normally be very hard to defend
I've been thinking of an area that when you stand on it you take damage. Just think of the usefulness, you could put it around Watchtowers, or as a backdoor, so ling runbys would have weakened lings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
