EPT
Daedalus Point: A Lesson in Map Making - Page 5
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
pieroog
Poland146 Posts
| ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
On February 16 2014 02:56 pieroog wrote: WHY every map needs to be technically the same? have this, have that... no wonder SC2 has not many surprises any more I explained in the article why maps need to be follow some constraints.... | ||
|
ImperialFist
790 Posts
| ||
|
ImperialFist
790 Posts
On February 15 2014 16:16 Kon-Tiki wrote: I'm like 90% sure Nazgul is Liquid's coach... I don't thing Nazgul or Nony can coach players like Taeja and Hero. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
On February 16 2014 03:32 ImperialFist wrote: Daedalus Point could have been a way to balance out the balance overall? We saw this in BW, no? Not to the extent of making a matchup completely and utterly unplayable, thus pretty much giving a free win to one player. That seemed to be the case (not saying it was or wasnt, because the whole point of my write-up was that we dont have enough data to know) for the old version of Daedalus. For what it's worth, the map is as open as ever so it's still really good for Zerg anyway, simlarly to Derelict Watcher. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
If TvP has shown us anything, is that the threat of aggression can be nearly as powerful as aggression itself. If say after a long enough period of time Protoss would have not been able to find a build that is both economical and somewhat safe, then they would have been doomed to nearly always lose on the map from one reason or another. On the one hand the threat of early game aggression would always be in the back of the Protoss mind, and to such an extent that they would have to play safe, least they die to some early aggression, regardless if it came or not. However if they played safe enough to expand in such a way to not die on the map, then they still risked falling behind economically later on in the game. This is exactly what is happening now in TvP, Terrans are forced into a extremely safe and standardized build that is forced to take into account any threat, oracles, blink all-ins etc. However, do to the flexibility protoss has in adjusting builds in PvT, they can easily faint aggression and then go into extreme greed, and the terran can't do anything to adjust, they don't have the scouting tools to reliably discern what is happening, and they don't have the tools to adapt as easily as toss now. I think this situation was happening exactly like this but with the protoss being the victim. If they played safe enough to expand then they would have fallen behind economically in the mid game and failed to take a 3rd, if they didn't play safe enough and taking into account every precaution then they risked dying to any number of early game pressures. In a way I'm sorry the map was put into the competitive circuit in this manner, because it would have been interesting to keep the initial version long enough to at least prove this theory. | ||
|
Rasias
Germany51 Posts
But the defender used the collapsible rocks to split the attacking force in half. I'm just someone knows what game it was, i've sadly forgotten it ;_; Anyway: If more players would try to work with unique features of the map, more types of maps would be viable. Daedalus may be a pretty bad map for ZvP, but i think other matchups are lots of fun on it. Especially ZvZ was pretty awesome (I'm a zerg player myself). An other thought about daedalus is, that there are to many unique features of one type: Everything is pretty open. There is nothing in the middle of the map. If it had the giant ramps but a very choky center, i think the map would play out quite differently and maybe not as zerg-favored. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13378 Posts
On February 16 2014 03:55 Destructicon wrote: We might never know now. But I have a small theory that, in time it would have been proven that the map is well and truly broken for the PvZ match up, and here is why. If TvP has shown us anything, is that the threat of aggression can be nearly as powerful as aggression itself. If say after a long enough period of time Protoss would have not been able to find a build that is both economical and somewhat safe, then they would have been doomed to nearly always lose on the map from one reason or another. On the one hand the threat of early game aggression would always be in the back of the Protoss mind, and to such an extent that they would have to play safe, least they die to some early aggression, regardless if it came or not. However if they played safe enough to expand in such a way to not die on the map, then they still risked falling behind economically later on in the game. This is exactly what is happening now in TvP, Terrans are forced into a extremely safe and standardized build that is forced to take into account any threat, oracles, blink all-ins etc. However, do to the flexibility protoss has in adjusting builds in PvT, they can easily faint aggression and then go into extreme greed, and the terran can't do anything to adjust, they don't have the scouting tools to reliably discern what is happening, and they don't have the tools to adapt as easily as toss now. I think this situation was happening exactly like this but with the protoss being the victim. If they played safe enough to expand then they would have fallen behind economically in the mid game and failed to take a 3rd, if they didn't play safe enough and taking into account every precaution then they risked dying to any number of early game pressures. In a way I'm sorry the map was put into the competitive circuit in this manner, because it would have been interesting to keep the initial version long enough to at least prove this theory. But Nony gave us a good point: What if there is a build, that is greedy enough to take a nat, that vs economy play isn't too far behind, but if shut down puts the zerg in a very tough spot. Lets say you did a standard one gate expo and zerg cut drones at 20 to make many lings off one base. Is losing the nat really so bad? Esepcially if you kill a bunch of lings? This kind of dynamic is special to the ZvX matchups and different from T or P v X. In this sense, with enough time, maybe there would be some way to trade so efficiently you can win a war of attrition vs low drone counts. Or if you can force a certain reaction? Its the same dynamic that allows a third base with just one void ray a mama core and one warpgate. Sure Zerg can hurt or cancel the third, but the cost of doing so is so high that if the zerg does it reactively or plans for it they need to cut a lot of workers. Its how Naniwa's Blink fast third in PvZ works from the WCS finals vs Revival. He would take a really fast third, revival cut drones at 50ish to deny it with roach ling, and Naniwa would trade the nexus for a few roaches then counterattack with a huge blink stalker force and 4 sentries to cut off choke points. With good micro Revival had given up too much economy and tech to win a war of attrition with a ton of blink stalkers. And when he was out of gas, Naniwa would take his third with the extra minerals instead of making zealots and win the game. | ||
|
Destructicon
4713 Posts
On February 16 2014 05:36 ZeromuS wrote: But Nony gave us a good point: What if there is a build, that is greedy enough to take a nat, that vs economy play isn't too far behind, but if shut down puts the zerg in a very tough spot. Lets say you did a standard one gate expo and zerg cut drones at 20 to make many lings off one base. Is losing the nat really so bad? Esepcially if you kill a bunch of lings? This kind of dynamic is special to the ZvX matchups and different from T or P v X. In this sense, with enough time, maybe there would be some way to trade so efficiently you can win a war of attrition vs low drone counts. Or if you can force a certain reaction? Its the same dynamic that allows a third base with just one void ray a mama core and one warpgate. Sure Zerg can hurt or cancel the third, but the cost of doing so is so high that if the zerg does it reactively or plans for it they need to cut a lot of workers. Its how Naniwa's Blink fast third in PvZ works from the WCS finals vs Revival. He would take a really fast third, revival cut drones at 50ish to deny it with roach ling, and Naniwa would trade the nexus for a few roaches then counterattack with a huge blink stalker force and 4 sentries to cut off choke points. With good micro Revival had given up too much economy and tech to win a war of attrition with a ton of blink stalkers. And when he was out of gas, Naniwa would take his third with the extra minerals instead of making zealots and win the game. Yes, Nony did make a very good point and I acknowledge that and admit that my own thoughts are just my own theory, I have a strong feeling how it was going to play out but can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I well and truly wish Deadelus 1.0 would have somehow lingered in the competitive scene in some form for enough of a period of time to prove or disprove this theory. Right now we are kind of stuck like spectators at the end of a murder film that ends in a cliffhanger, with more questions then answers. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
I distinctly remember being zerg and dealing with nothing but one base aggression from P and T on the shittiest maps ever (like Metalopolis, XNC, etc) where the natural was wide open and the 3rd was towards the opponent (and also wide open). Imo, protoss just have to man up and figure out how to deal with the maps in the same way zergs did. PS- Despite these anti zerg maps and blatant race imbalances, Zergs still did well. | ||
|
StatixEx
United Kingdom779 Posts
| ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13378 Posts
On February 16 2014 06:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: Am I the only one who doesn't think maps should have to be designed around shitty protoss imbalance (or whatever you want to call it)? I distinctly remember being zerg and dealing with nothing but one base aggression from P and T on the shittiest maps ever (like Metalopolis, XNC, etc) where the natural was wide open and the 3rd was towards the opponent (and also wide open). Imo, protoss just have to man up and figure out how to deal with the maps in the same way zergs did. PS- Despite these anti zerg maps and blatant race imbalances, Zergs still did well. The game was really different in early WoL and zerg builds have adapted over time. There are good 2 base zerg builds but lets consider the following: 7 gate builds used to work so did 4 gate, they don't know, ever, on any map. So its not just the maps but evolution of play as well. While the early maps werent good for Zerg, lets also remember that Cauthonluck beat Idra with an 10/11/11//11 build where he went banshees on one base at 11 supply (up to 13) and with a 10 depot. Idra had 2 queens in this game because at the time, queens were considered terrible, they also made queens later and didnt make a 2nd queen to transfer to the nat and the nat was taken after speed started. So .... | ||
|
fireforce7
United States334 Posts
| ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
On February 16 2014 08:53 ZeromuS wrote: The game was really different in early WoL and zerg builds have adapted over time. There are good 2 base zerg builds but lets consider the following: 7 gate builds used to work so did 4 gate, they don't know, ever, on any map. So its not just the maps but evolution of play as well. While the early maps werent good for Zerg, lets also remember that Cauthonluck beat Idra with an 10/11/11//11 build where he went banshees on one base at 11 supply (up to 13) and with a 10 depot. Idra had 2 queens in this game because at the time, queens were considered terrible, they also made queens later and didnt make a 2nd queen to transfer to the nat and the nat was taken after speed started. So .... evo used to be required as well. My point is that it feels like protoss are just upset that they can't get easy cheap bases like they are used to being spoonfed. What's wrong with letting people try to adapt a while until we change things or decide how maps should be created. I mean isn't that the best aspect of an RTS game? And partially why people say sc2 is dying? People like to see diversity, adaptability, evolution, etc. It keeps things interesting. And the only reason why BW stayed so successful was due to discovered bugs, map tricks/hacks, and map makers just trying out crazy concepts (even if they were terribly imbalanced). Maps like Coulee changed the entire game. | ||
|
xAdra
Singapore1858 Posts
On February 16 2014 16:15 MarlieChurphy wrote: evo used to be required as well. My point is that it feels like protoss are just upset that they can't get easy cheap bases like they are used to being spoonfed. What's wrong with letting people try to adapt a while until we change things or decide how maps should be created. I mean isn't that the best aspect of an RTS game? And partially why people say sc2 is dying? People like to see diversity, adaptability, evolution, etc. It keeps things interesting. And the only reason why BW stayed so successful was due to discovered bugs, map tricks/hacks, and map makers just trying out crazy concepts (even if they were terribly imbalanced). Maps like Coulee changed the entire game. >People complain protoss are cheesy and allin too much >Also want protoss to allin and not take extra bases I get that you want more diversity. Go play protoss 1 base only on the ladder and see how many reliable builds you can come up with. Now halve that amount due to the fact that progamers study their opponents builds beforehand. Unless you want to see really wonky builds like offensive wall-ins every game, no, it's not going to work. Simply theorycrafting here does nothing. The analysis has explained very clearly why this map is not okay. I get that you're still pissed about the early WoL days where everything was anti-zerg (I'd be too), but that's not an excuse for things to be shitty now. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
On February 16 2014 16:15 MarlieChurphy wrote: evo used to be required as well. My point is that it feels like protoss are just upset that they can't get easy cheap bases like they are used to being spoonfed. What's wrong with letting people try to adapt a while until we change things or decide how maps should be created. I mean isn't that the best aspect of an RTS game? And partially why people say sc2 is dying? People like to see diversity, adaptability, evolution, etc. It keeps things interesting. And the only reason why BW stayed so successful was due to discovered bugs, map tricks/hacks, and map makers just trying out crazy concepts (even if they were terribly imbalanced). Maps like Coulee changed the entire game. Again, the point isn't that the map isn't fine per se, it's how it was introduced. Read the article again if you missed that part. This map's (apparent) original imbalances was actually the decider in several series in Code A, which is pretty ridicolous. Also, every race these days expects to be able to fast expand safely in every matchup (except PvP), because that's how the game is played. | ||
|
Arachne
South Africa426 Posts
On February 15 2014 20:47 Teoita wrote: It isn't the only constraint. You need reasonable air space for mutas/drops to be able to do damage, but not be op; you still need a defensible third that's not too wide open for ZvT as well; the natural has to be reasonably defensible for ZvZ and ZvT too, you need a one-ff ramp for PvP, you need reasonable space to make blink builds defensible in PvP and PvT (and the reason Yeonsu is pretty broken in PvT is this very reason), etc. It just so happens that the most relevant constraints for this specific map happen to affect PvZ more than other matchups. The Legend of the Fall isn't just "protoss winning in autumn because of maps"; for instance, every protoss that won a title in the fall beat an SKT1 Terran (the best bw terrans with few exceptions) in the finals too. @poster above me: a) you can't do that wall either on Daedalus because one cannon needs to cover both every building in the wall as well as the entire mineral line, which is not possible on Daedalus. Also, you need to be able to fully wall to hold various slowling or speedling allins (which didn't exist back then) and runbys. You don't need a ramp going to the natural, you need a wallable choke. High ground is just a neat bonus. Ok, I admit my ignorance in the art of SC2 map making. but again, whats stopping something like "This is a P friendly map" "This is a Z friendly map", etc, etc. I realize it would be a lot of work, but on the other hand, it would add new dynamics to the game in that maps could focus entirely on one race/matchup, and you wouldn't become sick of "oh look, aanother daybreak game because guess its the only map that no one actually finds that imbalanced" At one stage, GSL felt like Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom and Antigua every match, every race (I know it wasn't). | ||
|
Lachrymose
Australia1928 Posts
Remember Tears of the Moon? Remember the TL backlash when Bisu publically complained about that map? I think that shows pretty well that fans of opposing races will never accept map criticism as legitimate, articles like this or not. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On February 16 2014 19:09 Teoita wrote: Again, the point isn't that the map isn't fine per se, it's how it was introduced. Read the article again if you missed that part. This map's (apparent) original imbalances was actually the decider in several series in Code A, which is pretty ridicolous. Also, every race these days expects to be able to fast expand safely in every matchup (except PvP), because that's how the game is played. This mentality that you have italicised yourself, is the essential problem with the article. "How the game is played" and what anyone "expects" is completely irrelevant. A proffesional player is supposed to play the game in any way that brings victory. You even went so far to admit that it might have been possible that the map could be figured out by innovating enough, but you completely avoided the right conclusion: if someone is at fault, it is the players for not having done that. Even the analysis of the games clearly shows that the players were confused and all possibilities were not thought through - but that is just not acceptable and thus their loss was justified. Players just did not take the challenge posed by the map seriously enough. Not having enough time is also not a valid excuse - everyone should have identified from the first look at the map that this could be the breaking point and focused heavily on it. What are the teams and coaches for? | ||
|
chris2423
31 Posts
nearly every map blizzard makes it just seems like they are trying to force changes in the meta or something. blizzard posts are always talking about map diversity and new and different strategies and such, but what really happens...casual players veto the map, and pros cheese when it comes up in a tournament. | ||
| ||
