| BWMN Time |
| 04/27/2024 |
| 05:48 |
| News |
| new account |
| list users |
| Login: |
| Replays |
| Map DB |
| ICCup |
| Map Access |
| New map |
| Edit map |
 |
Forum - main
PvZ Fix Idea page: 1 2 3 4 | ||
| Shit I had this all written out and my comp crashed... here we go again. Okay, so recently Blizzard said something like "we don't plan to release any more balance changing patches, we will leave the balance fixes up to the mappers, just as the WarCraft III mappers fixed balance in their maps". Guys, we have the mandate of the Creator (Blizzard). People may argue reasons for the inherent PvZ imbalance (and I'm talking about at the recreational PGT level, not the pro level). They may say: P users don't know how to play PvZ or most P users are beginners etc. I don't care, I'm talking about fixing the stats, not arguing why the stats are there. Here's the basic flow of PvZ: P gets his nat and gets lurk contained. While Protoss is trying to break out with goon/obs/temps, Zerg expands to another main+nat. Once P breaks out, Zerg hits him with ultra/ling which makes his dragoons pretty weak. The Zerg is able to do this because of the two extra gas expansions he obtained while the Protoss was contained. The biggest problem is that when P breaks out, he goes to take out these expansions, but Zerg already has ~5 sunks up, and is able to defend both the main and the nat using those 5 sunks. So essentially, Zerg gets two expansions defended for the price of one, where both expansions have gas. What can we do about that? What is the only type of map that has another main+nat to expand to? Three or Four player maps. What is the only type of map that ever has two expansions that can be defended for the price of one? Three or four player maps. So my theory is that two player maps would give Protoss a better chance in PvZ because Zerg has to defend each expansion, instead of getting a free expansion. So Protoss can take out some of those expansions before Zerg is way too far ahead in economy to ever recover. Any other opinions? Hope I got my idea across because PvZ is messed up. Look at the PGT stats (it's down right now). I think approximately 75% of the maps have Z>P with a 55% to 45% ratio. Look at Azalea, it is one of the most imbalanced maps on PGT for PvZ (I'm only talking about maps with decent games on them, at least 1000). The stats on Azalea are PvZ 41v59. That's a big difference, and I say it's because of all the easily defended expansions on the map. | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 06:11 | ||
| Well most of my games are not as you say and not only that i am Z user, most of my games are ZvP... 80% of the protoss players that i play are going for fast zilots and templars. They don't care if i play for hidras or mutes. If i go mutes he stops is able to stop me whit templars/archons/cannons and go trugh my defence whit 12 zilots and kill my spire. If i go hidras there is a lot of storm and later maybe reavers, because i usually go for queens whit broodlings for the templars and ensair for zilots. (Note that i don't point any other casters then high templars, but they are SO FUCKING USEFULL VS ZERG!). So my point is that 5% vs me go for goons or something. The other 15% are going tech/drops etc... Anyway if we get to your point where zerg players get 2 or 3 expands in the prize of the defence of one, usually drop ships by protoss players are flying all around whit high templars and kill my drones very often whit storm. NOW THIS IS WHAT I AM VERY SICK OF IT! Anyway for me this statstic is because of the players skills. They are so many newbs out there and most of them are playing whit protoss, imo. Maybe thats why most of my games are PvZ. NOTE THAT I DON'T PICK MY MU! I play vs everyone who ask me for 1v1. I even have three games in a row whit ToT)Selector (ZvP again...). As for now i don't have any idea how to change the stastic. | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 08:38 | ||
| Well, on PGT I got great zvz stats (they don't seem to be able to adapt to a fast +1 melee attacks with late mutas), bad zvt stats (I always tried to kill my opponents too early ;) ), and bad zvp stats as well - I am pumping too much eco and don't have enough ultraling when he breaks out :p Well, despite my pgt stats - I am not playing much on PGT, and probably just got the wrong timing - pvz most of the time turns out to be just the way epidion explained. If my opponent is going speedzeal+temps/archs I usually hold them off easily (no spire lost so far), and manage to contain them, so we are back to the same story. And then it's just the way epidion said, toss has to strike with his masses somewhere, because once zerg can charge in repeatedly and prevent him from taking another expansion, the game is over. Utilizing drops would greatly turn the game. Drops hurt a zerg a lot, because he has no oh-so-useful missile turrets, a limited amount of drones, and his bases are spread out a lot. And actually I think the protoss style should change, and there are no balance problems anymore. There always was a back and forth in race strengths caused by strats/styles, and will always be. Imo we just should avoid really striking imbalances such as a azalea-expansion-layout or too few mineral blocks per expansion and such. | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 14:52 | ||
| i beat ToT)selector( 2-1 he's beatable :P anyways i like to play P but mainly random the problem that you said is sort of a problem epidion, but its not feasible to change due to 3-4 player maps being overall more fun because of the starting locations/2v2 capabilities. maps need to present two ways into the nat expo, like nostalgia. thats why it was such a balanced map. gaia had a 2nd extrance , but it had too many expos so zerg still dominated. rush hour is a very complicated map. a lot of protosses cheese here so it could be the reason they lose so much. besides that ppl just have sucky build orders. 2 gate is terrible build | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 15:17 | ||
| "gaia had a 2nd extrance , but it had too many expos so zerg still dominated." gaia is balanced on pgt :P *the main reason for this thread is to discuss how to fix this m/u using map changes, not why b/o or strats lose the games.. so can we plz stick to the subject as Epidion started it :/ me and max talked about this a few weeks ago, but we never came to a real conclusion. ill prolly think of more later but this is what i came up wit: Nats can be less defendable.. now by saying that, i dont mean out in the open, but maybe the geyser is alil misplaced so to speak, or as lnept mentioned about nostalgia and gaia, 2 entrances to the nats. This could def help. Possibly trying some experimental things like min only main? or min only nat or hidden gas in main? these things are frowned upon bc it seems unorthadox, but really, u must expect change, and these ideas could possible change SC and help the imbas in the community! me and max also mentioned that when u look at blizz original maps, they are all unorthadox, geysers are not always with mins, or not symmetric (whatever).. the main idea is, they know the ins and outs of each race, what could balance, imba a match up.. i garuntee thats why they hired/accepted those maps to be included with BW and orignal SC. think about it :) good thread max | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 18:44 | ||
| I doubt Blizzard has more insight in balance than we have. The maps that were brought with SC/BW had some nice ideas, were executed nicely and such stuff, but they definately were not able to make them balanced by intention. Blizzard made this great game, but we, the community, over the time got a deeper insight into it than the creators themselves. | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 20:13 | ||
| u dont think they had balance in mind when making the maps!?!?!? Of course we prolly know just as much as they do about balance, but as the quote from Epidion's post: "..we don't plan to release any more balance changing patches, we will leave the balance fixes up to the mappers, just as the WarCraft III mappers fixed balance in their maps.." edit: obviously they know something that we, us mappers, are lacking in our maps today modified by NastyMarine | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 21:34 | ||
| Yeah I don't care what people think about the reasons for the statistics on PGT. I'm talking about getting those statistics to 50/50. That's all I'm talking about in this thread. Honestly, isn't that our ultimate goal, to have a balanced map? I don't care if every Zerg starts going four hatcheries before spawning pool, if that's what happens, it's our job to balance that out. So maybe it is the Protoss players' fault for not being as good as their opponents, but does that matter to us? We're supposed to balance it. | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 21:51 | ||
| exactly | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 22:55 | ||
| more vulnerable expansions / naturals will likely hurt protoss more than it would help them. forcing the zerg to spread out more in order to make it so when protoss players break out with their army they are better able to dent the zergs expansions or forcing zergs to build a lot of sunkens in a lot of different places also means that in order to defend their own expansions, protoss will need to spread their forces. as the game progresses, some zerg units gain incredible amounts of cost effectiveness, like the introduction of the adrenal glands to zerglings. already you see a lot of protoss resorting to building fields of cannons to defend their expansions, and making expansions more in the open and more out of the way and more vulnerable will only make it harder for the protoss to defend themselves. the protoss tend to have an advantage against zerg players on island maps, and i think this is because island maps limit the amount of aggression the zerg can exert, and allows the protoss to take expansions that they can better defend, allowing them to amass the resources they need to defeat the zerg. i think this is also the principle behind the amount of fast expand strategies that you see today. | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 23:11 | ||
| I'd like to point out R-Point (pun not intended :p ) pvz is quite balanced there from my experience, dunno the recent PGT stats on it, but I remember them being even... This is imo because of the many chokes througout the map which are not too close to any expansion, the spread expansions - but with a choke that is a bit away and still covers 2 expansions - and because of the 12/6 expansions which are almost immune to ultraling. So, the placement of the chokes on R-Point allows protoss to defend properly, but zerg has to build an additional hatchery if he wanted to cover the choke. Also, protoss can use the chokes not to get surrounded by ultraling, and the - for pvz lategame - tight paths make storm very effective. The 6/12 expansions definately are more useful for p than for z. Though a p also won't be able to threaten a z on such an expansion directly, a p-expansion is worth more than a z-expansion, and p can harm the z's eco there better than a z could harm a p's eco. The problem with R-Point is, though, an imbalance in tvz :( | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 23:28 | ||
| good ideas i just remembered me and max also noted something about expo defense for Z.. Z is usually able to mass sunks.. what if we limit the buildable ground around expos? will that help P break thru and balance stuff abit? NOTE the map (2)Rubi is my main example.. was a MOTW and both epidion and I agree that this map may be very balanced b/c of the buildable ground by the expos | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 23:44 | ||
| At least this will stop protosses from building useless masses of cannons, they should put the money into gates/zealots or even some reavers and play more aggressively. Think about it, 3-3 lings take 3 shots of a cannon, and even 20 cannons are pretty useless except for buying some time until the protoss' army arrives. But on the other hand, this will change gameplay drastically. You won't make many friends with such a map. | ||
| 2006, 09, 06 23:52 | ||
| I started an article at gg.net and i am trying to direct some comments from players to this forum. if you'd like to moniter that topic go to: http://sc.gosugamers.net/thread.php?id=42678 I'm sure we'll get lots of responses (hopefully some helpful tips). modified by NastyMarine | ||
| 2006, 09, 07 00:07 | ||
| i think low amount of expansions could fix this zerg-economy-supremacy issue, three easy gas is a bit too great advantage for zerg.. also protoss will need as many gas as the zerg, so geysers in the neutral expansions should be fair in late game but the balance is mainly constructed by the players in my opinion, we cant do so much, only try experimental solutions and place every little thing properly | ||
| 2006, 09, 07 01:08 | ||
| ^ cant ignore other matchups. ZvT low expansions = terran ownage. | ||
| 2006, 09, 07 01:20 | ||
| "obviously they know something that we, us mappers, are lacking in our maps today" LOL not like they've made better! Have you looked at most of the maps they made? >< @Inept, you said 2gate is terrible bo, im not a p player, my p is really noob, why in pvz would that be a bad bo? I think larger mains hurts z, it means more places to fly through with mutas = more chances to be seen and more time for other races to respond; also since z doesn't use much space but the other races do this helps them only, and makes more room for other races to drop on z. | ||
| 2006, 09, 07 01:22 | ||
| Gotta Agree with Antares/SH... PvZ is pretty bad now... Everyone mass cannons{Waste of $} & use very predictable Fotm b/o's... Don't think maps can do anything about that. P users Playstyle vs Z has to change, that's it. I kinda agree with Nightmarjoo tho. =/ {Some maps are really not..."Gates Friendly" ^^} Btw Nightmarjoo, 2gate rush just doesn't cut it vs a Z with half a brain... (Easily microable even when fast expoing[On most maps anyway]) Oh, Distance between Start locs sure has an effect on PvZ... 2gate rush: First zeal done at approx 2m30 but with an "ETA" of 20-40+secs... kinda makes it useless. {Since usualy pool+2nd hatch will both be done at approx 3mins... when expoing} | ||
| 2006, 09, 07 01:42 | ||
| "LOL not like they've made better! Have you looked at most of the maps they made? ><" of course, i know blizz maps lack alot of positional balancing etc.. but simple things like, lone gas nodes, or wild terrain features.. surely some of these ideas could be helpful dontcha think? i think u got to be a fool not to agree (no offense) but why not try some of this? gotta be optimistic since so far, no1 really has come up with a solid tier 1 solution yet | ||
| 2006, 09, 07 01:47 | ||
| Well, large mains don't feel good in game. It's just that you have too much space to cover... 2 gate in pvz is no necessarily a bad bo. No matter what Inept says, if you can hit a zerg hard with it - of course this is most effective on close positions - protoss can have a clear advantage. Of course it's not optimal on maps such as rh3 or gaia (unless you are lucky), but on maps such as luna, a 2 gate build is very strong (unless you got bad luck). As I said: Blizzard is by far worse in mapmaking aspects. The Sandlot even is played on maps such as RoV which obviously are made with a 3rd party editor - and that really surprised me - remember how much Blizzard is/was against any 3rd party programs. And as of the maps that came with the SCBW CDs: True, they offer a certain playability, but Blizzard had no idea of the strategies we use today. They had no chance of making an intentionally balanced map, simple as it is. | ||
| 2006, 09, 07 01:51 | ||
| yea i agree with u, but my main point of bringing up blizz maps was that they are interesting and could be useful after breaking them down.. NOTE not all of the maps have this potential sum of them clearly suck my balls :) modified by NastyMarine | ||
| 2006, 09, 07 01:54 | ||
| page: 1 2 3 4 | ||
Reply:
You have to be logged in to post
 |