Did Blizzard forsee modern ZvP? Macro maps + more - Page 2
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
| ||
Garmer
1286 Posts
| ||
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
Map design is much more important than map size, which is why we're seeing a slight reduction in size but with more appropriate design, like Cloud Kingdom for instance but the reason we went straight to larger maps initially was that the main design fault was a small size. We've overcome this now so hopefully we can ditch the whole map size arguement and focus on other things, sure maps like DayBreak are large but they are also well designed, chokes allow Terran to push out and expansion locations are good, there are also smaller maps like Cloud Kingdom which arent so small they're bad but will be good enough for those ladder players Blizzard are so worried about. In summary I think map size will become less relevant as other design elements become the focus, that being said it should still be a consideration, we can't just go big, we need to have some bigger maps and some which strike a nice balance like CK. Maps like Steppes / Xel Naga are a thing of the past, and so are the maps which were designed to combat them like Tal Darim. I see a good future in maps, but I think the size debate is dated. | ||
AnalThermometer
Vatican City State334 Posts
| ||
red4ce
United States7313 Posts
"We make our map pools for the ladder, for ladder players. There are players who like to rush, there are players who like to macro, We do have a system where you can veto maps you don't want to play on.. But I think we're starting to see a lot of the tournament players making these VERY complicated maps, with a LOT of expansions. This is not going to work for a lot our ladder players. A lot of our ladder players are going to fail to scout a lot of those extra expansions - and then its all about hidden expansions. Which is not appropriate - it's not a fun game. So we do want to have a mix of maps. We don't feel like what happens in tournament is appropriate for ladder, and what happens on ladder is not appropriate for tournaments, and we're very comfortable with two separate types of pools happening there. And we're gonna continue with that until we're convinced otherwise." I can't believe Browder actually had the audacity to say something like that. All I have to say is thank God SC2 didn't turn out the way Blizzard originally envisioned it to be. | ||
See.Blue
United States2673 Posts
| ||
lbmaian
United States689 Posts
On March 19 2012 20:05 Garmer wrote: why they can't just copy the BW maps? they are awesome It's a different game? I'm not convinced either way that map sizes favor certain matchups or if that's just the current metagame. Either way, HotS is going to completely change the game again, balance-wise and hence map-wise. | ||
sandyph
Indonesia1640 Posts
bigger map would make it harder for P to defend all the bases | ||
Twelve12
Australia268 Posts
I think large maps make ZvP really interesting, its true zerg has an easy third, but protoss still have so many options out of a FFE | ||
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
The late game protoss army is so strong, it's not a simple issue of big map/macro map = zerg. Heck, in Brood War, which is about as balanced as people could have hoped, I think there's a case (people could disagree though) that with exceptional players and very macro-orientated maps, terran might have the advantage. Most players, especially most professional players, want maps and balance to be centred around reasonably long macro games being more viable at the highest level of play than 1 base all-ins. Blizzard's earlier attempts at maps did not reflect this. EDIT: Close was allowed on Slag Pits, yes and close spawns on both Searing Crater and Shattered Temple had equally close rush distances. Shattered Temple is still in the map pool, although probably not next season (and has been without close spawns for a while now). One thing I'm glad Blizzard seems to be cutting out is BS-length distances from one's main to natural, I think plenty people of all races find that when they're too long, it makes for bad maps. 1 base banshee all-ins, mass mutas, 1 base gateway+void ray all-ins all become too strong really, so that even with the appropriate defence, the defender is at a loss, when they'd be fine on other maps. Arid Plateau was the pinnacle of this nonsense. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
But imo everything comes back to "too much money in the game". Macro mechanisms (especially Mules, Warpgates and injects- to a lesser extend chronoboost and reactors) are so strong, that mass production is probably too strong compared to quality production - which makes low Tier Units the go-to style and units are so expendable, that micro becomes very inefficient in a lot of cases. Blizzard tried to make this game work out like SC:BW (see all their battlereport and gameplay videos from the early days and also how people played the game in the early beta), yet at some point people found out that being all over the place with very few units is not very efficient, due to how fast economy builds up and rebuilds. This absolutly has nothing to do with specific unit designs imo, it is just a question of too much macro, too many workers, not enough important/potent things besides units and macro you have to spend money on. | ||
BadBinky
Finland649 Posts
| ||
empty.bottle
685 Posts
On March 19 2012 20:36 BadBinky wrote: Calm down Bisu is switching over. Who? An OSL Champion maybe? | ||
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
On March 19 2012 20:29 Big J wrote:yet at some point people found out that being all over the place with very few units is not very efficient, due to how fast economy builds up and rebuilds. Multi-pronged attacks as zerg, warp prism play that protoss CAN be bothered doing these days, harassment force warp ins at an expansion while targeting another base with the main force, marine+medivac drop play, all of this is extremely powerful and pretty common in SCII at high level play. Targeting infrastructure and/or workers attempts to deal with the economic build up you talk about. That said, I do think that maps should not be made in a way that encourages Big Game Hunters style ability to sit on so few units before getting many high "tier" protoss units ("sudden deathball") or getting a mass of Hive tech units and support without needing many zerglings, roaches or mutalisks beforehand. Interestingly, I have always liked Antiga Shipyard, which discourages early aggressive play with fairly long rush distances while not actually being as large a map as Tal'Darim Altar (in dimensions), which, by comparison, actually has shorter rush distances by ground (I'm speaking about natural to natural distances, not main to main). Maps should have plenty of bases, but are ideally not set up so that players can sit idle for 14 minutes before any action is close to commencing. Using rocks to stop races expanding is not a good way to solve this. | ||
shadymmj
1906 Posts
awesome dig at bisu fanboys!! | ||
Dhalphir
Australia1305 Posts
On March 19 2012 19:56 Megakenny wrote: Xel'Naga wasn't the greatest, but its definitely not the worst map to ever be on the ladder. Xel'Naga was an amazing map for its time. bear in mind it was introduced roughly around the same era as we were playing on Desert Oasis, and Incineration Zone. Even on its own merits, its not a BAD map. Its just that it was around for SO long. | ||
Kvz
United States463 Posts
they lacked a lot of foresight which i hope they will correct in hots. the avg game length is more 20minutes i hope. | ||
Inex
Bulgaria443 Posts
| ||
Shorty90
Germany154 Posts
ZvP is fairly balanced as is and there is no reason to believe this will change in the near future, other than some stupid out of context quotes from a minority of players. Further more the discussion, that bigger maps will destroy the delicate balance of this game, is going on for a year now and the game is fine as is. Let me tell you something. There is no delicate balance between the races, there is only the metagame. There's really no reason to believe that some small changes will change the balance between the races. There have been so many changes already to the game and players have just adapted and used different units and different builds. So please can we stop predicting the downfall of a matchup everytime some small changes are introduced to the game. | ||
di3alot
172 Posts
at-least that what there internal tests showed them. you should mention that | ||
| ||