On November 05 2013 02:49 Plexa wrote: Speaking for map imbalances that I specifically look for in maps (and probably other judges as well) it's pretty much only Blink Stalkers and cannon rushes. Cannon rushes are obvious, don't place minerals in dumb locations and this isn't even up for debate. For blink stalkers, the only reason this is the one strategy that we particularly pay attention to is because it's been proven time and time again that Blink Stalkers are exceptionally potent anytime the main is exposed to blink.
I don't think cannon rushes are a problem, people could deal with it on metalopolis and this was when pylons still powered the high ground. Are you telling me that if they could deal with it on metalopolis where a cannon on the lowground can reach the high ground workers they can't deal with this stuff now that you actually need to make a pylon on the high ground before you can start a cannon there?
About blink all ins, yeah, they are potent, good, that means people have to do different openers. I never die to blink all ins ever almost because almost every map that's good for blink all ins is also good for this sweet 2rax reaper+marauder pressure I love doing where you get 2 reapers and marine-marauder, pressure the back with the reapers and the front with the marauders and force protoss to choose a place for photon overcharge. It absolutely crushes any blink all in because:
- It kills a standard blind blink all in that doesn't adapt to it because blink all ins sort of rely on T being passive until the gateways are done, it hits when the council is just about done and you have 2 gate and the pain train is on then, - You got marauders, early conc and early stim of course.
This is just one thing you can do. I'm pretty sure that if my tournament line was on the line I would be churning out 7 more builds which absolutely crush blink all ins and take full advantage of the layout of blink all ins. Maybe some 1base tank drop strategy with a tank providing cover on the low ground, good luck blink all inning me when I'm getting tanks on one base bro.
Normally we're pretty forgiving with this. If there is only some area from which blink stalkers can come in we can normally deal with that (because bunkers/defence can be prepared in that location - example: see Electric Circuit from TLMC2) but if there are two distinct places where blink stalkers can attack that isn't difficult for them to get to, then we have a problem. Your example of path finder has exactly this problem (the whole main is virtually vulnerable to blink). That doesn't make for particularly good games and arguably does more harm to the legitimacy of foreign mapping in the long term than any positive developments to the metagame.
Bunkers? I don't use bunkers to defend blink all ins, I use marauder, see the above.
Again, balance is being tested against the current metagame, the metagame will change if blink all ins become so powerful that it forces a change in the metagame to defend it. I have zero troubles with blink all ins when I do this reaper 2 rax strategy. It scouts it and when it finally hits I have marauders and medivacs out already.
I have a big criticism to make about TLMC3. Every map still feels overly safe apart from New Polaris Rhapsody (which even then is only unique because it re-uses a mechanic from the WoL campaign) and Shrieking Breeze (because the natural is no longer as safe as in most other maps.) The rest still look like the kind of maps that would have been finalists in TLMC or TLMC2.
Also, not gonna hate on Red Bull for this but why will only one of these maps be in the map pool? I feel like this is an ever-so-slight cop-out as at least six maps in the RBBG map pool will likely be the same old ones we see in WCS.
I feel like map design is something that has to change about SC2 in order to make it more interesting for the viewers. Remember in early SC2 when we had maps that would be considered anathema today like Xel'Naga Caverns, Steppes of War, Incinceration Zone, Crossfire, Desert Oasis, Metalopolis, Jungle Basin and Blistering Sands? If they truly were so imbalanced, then how come we saw champions and top tier players representing all three races?
Now remember when every map was macro oriented, huge and massively favored for the Zerg race (on top of various questionable balance changes David Kim decided to/decided not to make) with Infestor Brood Lord Corruptor being the composition that every pro-gamer, even Korean, said was overpowered and unbeatable?
Progamers are then again well known for their aversion to change. Blink all ins are only potent insofar you open up with a quick FE.
Say you just do an oldschool 1-1-1 all in on pathfinder. Except you don't go for the natural which is overcharged. Just park siege tanks out of the main and use banshees for vision. I'm obviously theorycrafting here but I'm pretty sure that such a concept can be experimented with and refined and eventually be made into something that works. Good luck doing a blink all in against a 1-1-1 all in with siege tanks that don't need siege any more.
Also, you neglected to explain how cannon rushes can possibly be broken if they could be fended of on metal without pylons powering up the high ground.
On November 05 2013 03:07 SiskosGoatee wrote: Progamers are then again well known for their aversion to change. Blink all ins are only potent insofar you open up with a quick FE.
Say you just do an oldschool 1-1-1 all in on pathfinder. Except you don't go for the natural which is overcharged. Just park siege tanks out of the main and use banshees for vision. I'm obviously theorycrafting here but I'm pretty sure that such a concept can be experimented with and refined and eventually be made into something that works. Good luck doing a blink all in against a 1-1-1 all in with siege tanks that don't need siege any more.
Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all: make sure that blink stalkers can't easily attack two separate places in a main and we're likely to overlook the power of blink stalkers. I don't think that's too much to ask nor will that stifle creativity?
Also, you neglected to explain how cannon rushes can possibly be broken if they could be fended of on metal without pylons powering up the high ground.
This isn't even debatable. You don't make mineral fields which allow cannon rushes with 1 pylon blocks, even 2 pylon blocks shouldn't happen. Why are you even arguing this rofl.
On November 05 2013 03:07 Clbull wrote: I have a big criticism to make about TLMC3. Every map still feels overly safe apart from New Polaris Rhapsody (which even then is only unique because it re-uses a mechanic from the WoL campaign) and Shrieking Breeze (because the natural is no longer as safe as in most other maps.) The rest still look like the kind of maps that would have been finalists in TLMC or TLMC2.
Also, not gonna hate on Red Bull for this but why will only one of these maps be in the map pool? I feel like this is an ever-so-slight cop-out as at least six maps in the RBBG map pool will likely be the same old ones we see in WCS.
Honestly, that's more to do with the submissions than the judging. I don't blame mappers for submitting standard-ish maps since they tend to perform well in public votes but I hope that they have the confidence to submitted more non-standard maps in subsequent contests.
On November 05 2013 03:07 SiskosGoatee wrote: Progamers are then again well known for their aversion to change. Blink all ins are only potent insofar you open up with a quick FE.
Say you just do an oldschool 1-1-1 all in on pathfinder. Except you don't go for the natural which is overcharged. Just park siege tanks out of the main and use banshees for vision. I'm obviously theorycrafting here but I'm pretty sure that such a concept can be experimented with and refined and eventually be made into something that works. Good luck doing a blink all in against a 1-1-1 all in with siege tanks that don't need siege any more.
Yes, you are just theorycrafting. Then the Protoss scouts your 1-1-1 setup and just expands and what then? Your 1-1-1 setup is shit for the following macrogame and you have to start and build up production for your bio and take an expansion, while the Protoss already has most of his standard production. Also, say you open up this way - and you have to do so blindly, you need to throw down the factory before you can confirm any sort of twilight tech - meanwhile the Protoss just opens normal or with a build that destroys such a setup like a stargate allin (another very powerful build on this map) due to the lack of reactored barracks.
All hail to diversifying stuff, but there is no way that we should buff powerful 1-2 base allins even further. There is so much unseen creativity that can be used for mapbuilding, but making mainbases very exposed is not one of them.
On November 05 2013 03:10 Plexa wrote: Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all:
It poses a great limitation because in making bases saver against blink stalkers you utlimately nullify a large amount of harass options from all races including midgame blink stalker harass. You limit map design severely with this philosophy. If blink stalkers cannot blink into two places in a main at the same time we will never see the awesome of a protoss player attempting double pronged blink stalker harass or a Terran showing of a sick 2rax reaper opener which is microed and controlled in two different places going into the main in two different times.
This isn't even debatable
That's called a dogma.
Why are you even arguing this rofl.
Because I'm arguing it can be dealt with. You could do the most abusive cannon rushes ever on metalopolis and people could deal with it. If a mineral line has a super nasty cannon spot you just put a worker there the moment a scouting worker from Protoss enters or you place your own depot or pylons there, it's not that hard...
Suddenly, T, tends to make their first depot there against protoss thereby delaying their wall and protoss takes advantage by opening up 10gate for a zealot+stalker+mothership core attack and boom, metagame shakeup.
Why isn't it debatable? Would you claim it cannot be dealt with or that it just shouldn't exist because it shouldn't? if it can't be dealt with, yes, then I can see the point if protoss would have a 100% winrate on that map because the strat is unstoppable but I doubt it would be.
On November 05 2013 03:07 SiskosGoatee wrote: Progamers are then again well known for their aversion to change. Blink all ins are only potent insofar you open up with a quick FE.
Say you just do an oldschool 1-1-1 all in on pathfinder. Except you don't go for the natural which is overcharged. Just park siege tanks out of the main and use banshees for vision. I'm obviously theorycrafting here but I'm pretty sure that such a concept can be experimented with and refined and eventually be made into something that works. Good luck doing a blink all in against a 1-1-1 all in with siege tanks that don't need siege any more.
Yes, you are just theorycrafting. Then the Protoss scouts your 1-1-1 setup and just expands and what then? Your 1-1-1 setup is shit for the following macrogame and you have to start and build up production for your bio and take an expansion, while the Protoss already has most of his standard production.
Or it kills a protoss as a 1-1-1 all in has the potential of doing. Especially a protoss who takes a late nexus. A 1-1-1 all in is one of the most deadliest all ins in the history of the game which is only saved by photon overcharge, but guess what, on pathfinder you can siege the main out of reach of that. You can even do a 1-1-1 semi all in if you want and expand behind it while you damage the protoss main.
Also, say you open up this way - and you have to do so blindly, you need to throw down the factory before you can confirm any sort of twilight tech - meanwhile the Protoss just opens normal or with a build that destroys such a setup like a stargate allin (another very powerful build on this map) due to the lack of reactored barracks.
Stargate all ins are very bad vs quick factories in HotS if you see them coming. As it turns out mines > marines when it comes to dealing with oracles.
That aside, there is always some build order poker. I'm just saying there are many ways to deal with a blink stalker all in, this is one of them. I'm personally more of a fan of the 2rax reaper but you have to have multiple builds in your book or you become predictable of course.
All hail to diversifying stuff, but there is no way that we should buff powerful 1-2 base allins even further.
I disagree, we should make them more powerful. This was the thing with early game WoL, people were like 'all ins are too powerful, let's make bases safer' and hoped people would do less all ins, well, what happened was that people would just open up more greedy and the amount of all ins remained a constant.
If we make all ins more powerful people will just be less inclined to FE which has an added bonus of brining more action in the early game which was much more exciting on say XNC.
On November 05 2013 03:10 Plexa wrote: Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all:
It poses a great limitation because in making bases saver against blink stalkers you utlimately nullify a large amount of harass options from all races including midgame blink stalker harass. You limit map design severely with this philosophy. If blink stalkers cannot blink into two places in a main at the same time we will never see the awesome of a protoss player attempting double pronged blink stalker harass or a Terran showing of a sick 2rax reaper opener which is microed and controlled in two different places going into the main in two different times.
You're living in theorycraft land. There's a whole host of other ways to innovate rather than powering up well known strong all ins. There's a whole lot of harm via the map being denounced in the progaming community for this to happen. What happens when a sponsor sees that the map that they sponsored turns out to be complete utter shit because blink stalkers run rampant? Is that one potentially awesome moment of double sided blink stalker control worth it (which is highly unlikely to even happen)? Is it not conceivable that said sponsor would think that sponsoring mapping contests which turn out shit maps a terrible investment?
EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Graveside is a map where this kind of harass is viable. Yet, isn't broken by blink stalkers due to the attack distance being much longer than the defense distance. We're willing to give maps a chance when it comes to blink stalkers, only when the conditions I said earlier are not met is when we have an issue.
Because I'm arguing it can be dealt with. You could do the most abusive cannon rushes ever on metalopolis and people could deal with it. If a mineral line has a super nasty cannon spot you just put a worker there the moment a scouting worker from Protoss enters or you place your own depot or pylons there, it's not that hard...
Suddenly, T, tends to make their first depot there against protoss thereby delaying their wall and protoss takes advantage by opening up 10gate for a zealot+stalker+mothership core attack and boom, metagame shakeup.
Why isn't it debatable? Would you claim it cannot be dealt with or that it just shouldn't exist because it shouldn't? if it can't be dealt with, yes, then I can see the point if protoss would have a 100% winrate on that map because the strat is unstoppable but I doubt it would be.
No you're actually just factually wrong. Cannon rushing Terran is, unless you're Gaulzi, not viable. Any decent Terran player can delay a cannon rush long enough for marines to come out and kill cannons. Against Zerg all you're doing is forcing a patrolling drone (nice handicap). In PvP you basically force weird building placements to make these rushes not viable or the meta becomes cannon rushes. Nice metagame shaekup. There's literally no added value to making cannon rushes easier, and there's a ton of negatives. Including making foreign mapping look like a joke which is a serious long term harm.
On November 05 2013 03:10 Plexa wrote: Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all:
It poses a great limitation because in making bases saver against blink stalkers you utlimately nullify a large amount of harass options from all races including midgame blink stalker harass. You limit map design severely with this philosophy. If blink stalkers cannot blink into two places in a main at the same time we will never see the awesome of a protoss player attempting double pronged blink stalker harass or a Terran showing of a sick 2rax reaper opener which is microed and controlled in two different places going into the main in two different times.
You're living in theorycraft land.
Indeed, that is where I'm sadly living because people are hell bent on not letting me actually experiment with these things on the ladder to see if I can make them work. I sometimes do play customs on some-what more unconventional maps and there I do make these strategies often work. Sometimes they fail miserably, sometimes they work. Would be great if I could just do that on a random ladder game. There was a time when a new map was announced you'd see the layout and instantly the cogs in your head started turning about strategies you'd be able to do on those maps but not any more. If you see a new ladder map announced you can just copy whatever you have on other maps.
There's a whole host of other ways to innovate rather than powering up well known strong all ins.
Yes, and that host of other ways isn't happening because people are phobic about changing the standard out of fear that well known all ins are powered up.
There's a whole lot of harm via the map being denounced in the progaming community for this to happen.
Yah, that is why KeSPA is a dictatorship, progamers are just going to have to swallow that they exist to entertain us not the other way around.
What happens when a sponsor sees that the map that they sponsored turns out to be complete utter shit because blink stalkers run rampant? Is that one potentially awesome moment of double sided blink stalker control worth it (which is highly unlikely to even happen)? Is it not conceivable that said sponsor would think that sponsoring mapping contests which turn out shit maps a terrible investment?
What happens when 80% of reddit is bitching about what a let down Red Bull TLMC was and no one is actually watching Red Bull because they don't give a damn about the maps as the maps are the same as always?
I don't know about you but I stayed up tow atch every GSL came with Icarus in it because I was super excited about how it might play out. I never claimed that it would be balanced, I didn't know, but I wanted to see so badly what people would do on it.
Because I'm arguing it can be dealt with. You could do the most abusive cannon rushes ever on metalopolis and people could deal with it. If a mineral line has a super nasty cannon spot you just put a worker there the moment a scouting worker from Protoss enters or you place your own depot or pylons there, it's not that hard...
Suddenly, T, tends to make their first depot there against protoss thereby delaying their wall and protoss takes advantage by opening up 10gate for a zealot+stalker+mothership core attack and boom, metagame shakeup.
Why isn't it debatable? Would you claim it cannot be dealt with or that it just shouldn't exist because it shouldn't? if it can't be dealt with, yes, then I can see the point if protoss would have a 100% winrate on that map because the strat is unstoppable but I doubt it would be.
No you're actually just factually wrong. Cannon rushing Terran is, unless you're Gaulzi, not viable. Any decent Terran player can delay a cannon rush long enough for marines to come out and kill cannons.[/quote]Unless there is a super abusive cannon spot which allows you to lock a probe inside behind the minerals lines with a single pylon. Which is the situation we were talking about.
Against Zerg all you're doing is forcing a patrolling drone (nice handicap).
Why not, suddenly a Zerg has to respond to a probe scout immediately lest they are cannoned. This means that on this map there is more incentive to probe scout because Zerg has to take it seriously so you can mind game a Zerg hard by sending a probe scout or even faking the rush to force an overreaction in drones pulled.
In PvP you basically force weird building placements to make these rushes not viable or the meta becomes cannon rushes. Nice metagame shaekup. There's literally no added value to making cannon rushes easier, and there's a ton of negatives. Including making foreign mapping look like a joke which is a serious long term harm.
See above for value. It does have an effect on the metagame. Apart from that. The main reason is that it shouldn't serve to automatically disqualify an otherwise good map.
I could not agree more wholeheartedly. I have discussed this a lot with my friends and they all agree the map pool is stale. In BW there were maps with like 70% winrate for a race but it worked out overall because it was just one map out of the whole map pool. We need diversity. And maps are the best way for the meta game to change. Every single map has the same general feel on it. I havent seen a true map specific build since like 2011 gsl.
On November 05 2013 03:10 Plexa wrote: Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all:
It poses a great limitation because in making bases saver against blink stalkers you utlimately nullify a large amount of harass options from all races including midgame blink stalker harass. You limit map design severely with this philosophy. If blink stalkers cannot blink into two places in a main at the same time we will never see the awesome of a protoss player attempting double pronged blink stalker harass or a Terran showing of a sick 2rax reaper opener which is microed and controlled in two different places going into the main in two different times.
You're living in theorycraft land.
Indeed, that is where I'm sadly living because people are hell bent on not letting me actually experiment with these things on the ladder to see if I can make them work. I sometimes do play customs on some-what more unconventional maps and there I do make these strategies often work. Sometimes they fail miserably, sometimes they work. Would be great if I could just do that on a random ladder game. There was a time when a new map was announced you'd see the layout and instantly the cogs in your head started turning about strategies you'd be able to do on those maps but not any more. If you see a new ladder map announced you can just copy whatever you have on other maps.
You seem to think I'm against innovation? Please don't mistake me for that. I'm all for innovation. But innovation =/= powering up well known abusive all ins. Please get this straight and know that you can actually innovate without powering up all ins (which you seem to like as an Icarus fan).
There's a whole host of other ways to innovate rather than powering up well known strong all ins.
Yes, and that host of other ways isn't happening because people are phobic about changing the standard out of fear that well known all ins are powered up.
Again, I'm all for innovation and I hope people become less phobic about this.
What happens when a sponsor sees that the map that they sponsored turns out to be complete utter shit because blink stalkers run rampant? Is that one potentially awesome moment of double sided blink stalker control worth it (which is highly unlikely to even happen)? Is it not conceivable that said sponsor would think that sponsoring mapping contests which turn out shit maps a terrible investment?
What happens when 80% of reddit is bitching about what a let down Red Bull TLMC was and no one is actually watching Red Bull because they don't give a damn about the maps as the maps are the same as always?
80% of Reddit wasn't bitching. It was mostly you and you fanning the flames of hate.
I don't know about you but I stayed up tow atch every GSL came with Icarus in it because I was super excited about how it might play out. I never claimed that it would be balanced, I didn't know, but I wanted to see so badly what people would do on it.
Ultimately, it can swing either way.
I agree that innovative maps can draw an audience. Again, I'm all for innovation.
Because I'm arguing it can be dealt with. You could do the most abusive cannon rushes ever on metalopolis and people could deal with it. If a mineral line has a super nasty cannon spot you just put a worker there the moment a scouting worker from Protoss enters or you place your own depot or pylons there, it's not that hard...
Suddenly, T, tends to make their first depot there against protoss thereby delaying their wall and protoss takes advantage by opening up 10gate for a zealot+stalker+mothership core attack and boom, metagame shakeup.
Why isn't it debatable? Would you claim it cannot be dealt with or that it just shouldn't exist because it shouldn't? if it can't be dealt with, yes, then I can see the point if protoss would have a 100% winrate on that map because the strat is unstoppable but I doubt it would be.
No you're actually just factually wrong. Cannon rushing Terran is, unless you're Gaulzi, not viable. Any decent Terran player can delay a cannon rush long enough for marines to come out and kill cannons.
Unless there is a super abusive cannon spot which allows you to lock a probe inside behind the minerals lines with a single pylon. Which is the situation we were talking about.
Against Zerg all you're doing is forcing a patrolling drone (nice handicap).
Why not, suddenly a Zerg has to respond to a probe scout immediately lest they are cannoned. This means that on this map there is more incentive to probe scout because Zerg has to take it seriously so you can mind game a Zerg hard by sending a probe scout or even faking the rush to force an overreaction in drones pulled.
In PvP you basically force weird building placements to make these rushes not viable or the meta becomes cannon rushes. Nice metagame shaekup. There's literally no added value to making cannon rushes easier, and there's a ton of negatives. Including making foreign mapping look like a joke which is a serious long term harm.
See above for value. It does have an effect on the metagame. Apart from that. The main reason is that it shouldn't serve to automatically disqualify an otherwise good map.
If there was a good map with this feature we would just change the position of the minerals. I'm not sure what deluded world you're living in if you think that making cannon rushes more viable than requiring 3 pylons to execute is a good idea. Cannon rushing is already viable, at least it is balanced by risk/reward. Making it more accessible changes that balance in a way that is detrimental. Simple as that.
EDIT: I'm reviewing the games from TLMC and I'm seeing a whole lot of metagame innovation -- some of it subtle (on Polaris for instance) and some of it not so subtle (shrieking breeze). All without needing mains exposed to blink or cannon rushes!
On November 05 2013 03:10 Plexa wrote: Everything you say would still be relevant if the access of blink stalkers to the main was more limited. Ultimately we're talking about one strategy that imposes hardly a limitation at all:
It poses a great limitation because in making bases saver against blink stalkers you utlimately nullify a large amount of harass options from all races including midgame blink stalker harass. You limit map design severely with this philosophy. If blink stalkers cannot blink into two places in a main at the same time we will never see the awesome of a protoss player attempting double pronged blink stalker harass or a Terran showing of a sick 2rax reaper opener which is microed and controlled in two different places going into the main in two different times.
You're living in theorycraft land.
Indeed, that is where I'm sadly living because people are hell bent on not letting me actually experiment with these things on the ladder to see if I can make them work. I sometimes do play customs on some-what more unconventional maps and there I do make these strategies often work. Sometimes they fail miserably, sometimes they work. Would be great if I could just do that on a random ladder game. There was a time when a new map was announced you'd see the layout and instantly the cogs in your head started turning about strategies you'd be able to do on those maps but not any more. If you see a new ladder map announced you can just copy whatever you have on other maps.
You seem to think I'm against innovation? Please don't mistake me for that. I'm all for innovation. But innovation =/= powering up well known abusive all ins. Please get this straight and know that you can actually innovate without powering up all ins (which you seem to like as an Icarus fan).
I don't think you're against innovation, you're just not willing to sacrifice as much for it as I'm willing to. Powering up all ins is a small price to pay to innovate as far as I'm concerned. Yes, you can innovate without powering them up, but you will innovate less ultimately if you restrict your innovations to rules like 'not power up well known all ins'. Another thing is that I like powering up well known all ins in a lot of cases not as a means justified by an end, but as an end on itself. I'd like to see what terrans would come up with on a map where you will 100% die to a blink all in if you go 1 rax expand. Suddenly the 1 rax expand build is off the table, find something new Terrans.
There's a whole lot of harm via the map being denounced in the progaming community for this to happen.
Yah, that is why KeSPA is a dictatorship, progamers are just going to have to swallow that they exist to entertain us not the other way around.
??????????????
The job of a progamer is to gain sponsor exposure by entertaining fans. Ultimately, winning a tournament is nice but Alex Garfield knows that winning is only one way of giving sponsorship exposure. Another is having the balls to pick a map that is out there and come with a super entertaining and unique strategy on it so people will watch that game that is on top of reddit like 'omg, did you see what TLO just did on that map?' and boom the sponsors are a bit happier.
THe job of a progamer is to be famous and gather attention, winning is only one of the many ways. In fact, losing is another. People still talk about Pokju because he generated the most embarrassing losses ever.
80% of Reddit wasn't bitching. It was mostly you and you fanning the flames of hate
The overwhelming majority consensus of reddit in that thread was dissapointment.Judging the top comments in order:
#1: A huge rant about how dissapointing it was that took over a page, upvoted to the top, it's no secret that people vote based purely on if they agree or not #2 "congrats to the finalists" #3 wax saying that progamers complained a lot #4 "I had expected more" #5 first positive comment about a map "I'm just happy someone made a rising lava map" #6 another huge rant #7 "why does it seem like its the same central group of mappers always being picked for these?" #8 "Graveside and Shreiking Breeze are the only ones that tried something different kind of" #9 "New polaris seems to be the only one that really goes outside the box. Im really tired of the high main base low natural into a second ramp setup." #10 "Man, there's a lot of hate in this thread. I mean, the maps aren't perfect, but I still think they're pretty cool"
The majority consensus is dissapointment on reddit.
If there was a good map with this feature we would just change the position of the minerals.
Why? Why can't a super powerful cannon spot not be part of the metagame of a map if it can be dealt why?
'm not sure what deluded world you're living in if you think that making cannon rushes more viable than requiring 3 pylons to execute is a good idea.
Why not? Why can't we have one map in the pool that does this?
Is this part of this mentality that 'cheese and all in isn't a real game'?
Cannon rushing is already viable, at least it is balanced by risk/reward. Making it more accessible changes that balance in a way that is detrimental. Simple as that.
Yeah, or you just put a depot or a pylon in that one abusive spot before your opponent does. What's the harm if it can be easily dealt with?
It creates a different base layout, there's a pylon there at your minaral line so that's where your gateway is going to be, suddenly it can be hit from the lowground opening it up for all knew kinds of harassments, it shakes up the metagame.
#1 is your rant (which I disagree with but you know, reddit loves to create drama) #2 isn't positive or negative #3 isn't positive or negative (it was actually wax saying unorthodoxy is correlated with progamer complaints) #4 Disappointed mapper that they didn't make the finalists. [But is entirely incorrect about map being excluded for innovation] #5 "I had expected more" sure. #6 Lava mecanic (positive) #7 huge rant (gr9 posters btw) [thanks for bashing me in that comment, btw] #8 Central group of map makers -- factually incorrect. Samro/eTcetRa/meerel only repeat mappers from TLMC2, Samro only mapper from TLMC1 in TLMC3. Winner of TLMC2 wasn't even selected. #9 Graveside/Shrieking/Polaris complement. #10 Comment about WCS and mapping/complement for new polaris
Reddit is generally very negative and loves drama, given your huge rant which helped create negativity, I think that's not too bad for a contest where people were inevitably going to be butthurt about the results (regardless of the finalists selected).
I'm done responding to your metagame complaints. Mostly because we're starting to go around in circles and you've kinda dropped/cherry picked a lot of stuff.
On November 05 2013 04:23 Plexa wrote: Re: reddit.
#1 is your rant (which I disagree with but you know, reddit loves to create drama)
Where the consensus on reddit is that community figures call any amount of criticism on their operations such as Artosis' repeated and blatant defraudation of people 'drama'.
Criticism != drama.
#2 isn't positive or negative
Agreed
#3 isn't positive or negative (it was actually wax saying unorthodoxy is correlated with progamer complaints)
Agreed again
#4 Disappointed mapper that they didn't make the finalists. [But is entirely incorrect about map being excluded for innovation]
That it'' s a disappointed mapper doesn't change it, you could argue that I'm a dissapointed mapper myself and I'm only saying this out of spite. (I am on record on TL though saying similar stuff about a little contest where I did make it to the finals where I still argued it was meaningless and subjective)
#5 "I had expected more" sure.
agreed
#6 Lava mecanic (positive)
agreed
#7 huge rant (gr9 posters btw) [thanks for bashing me in that comment, btw]
agreed.
Also, you seem to continually think I'm 'bashing' you when I'm just saying I find it to be controlled by too few people. I've made my stance on democracy even if it goes against my picks well known in that topic.
[
#8 Central group of map makers -- factually incorrect. Samro/eTcetRa/meerel only repeat mappers from TLMC2, Samro only mapper from TLMC1 in TLMC3. Winner of TLMC2 wasn't even selected.
incorrect as it may be, it's still a negative
#9 Graveside/Shrieking/Polaris complement.
Agreed
#10 Comment about WCS and mapping/complement for new polaris
Agreed
(I left out the comments which did not comment on the contest but other things by the way, you didn't)
Reddit is generally very negative
Or TL is overly positive, who knows. Many people on reddit do complain that the moderation policy on TL has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. You might want to consider if the positivity on TL isn't artificial to some degree.
and loves drama
Or be critical
given your huge rant which helped create negativity
It did not 'create' negativity, it voiced negativity which existed. The results of the contest created the negativity.
I think that's not too bad for a contest where people were inevitably going to be butthurt about the results (regardless of the finalists selected).
People where overwhelmingly more positive about TLMC 1 though and even more negative about TLMC 2. TLMC 1 happened at a time where people weren't yet tired of every map being the same because not every map was the same back then.
I'm done responding to your metagame complaints. Mostly because we're starting to go around in circles and you've kinda dropped/cherry picked a lot of stuff.
Metagame complaints are the raison d'être of this discussion. The entire discussion is in fact about allowing such things as "broken" cannon rushes. In this case there is nothing but to agree to disagree. You think as axiom that it is bad for the game, I think as axiom that it is not bad and might even be good.
I still want to know why you think all the TLMC are standard and won't bring anything to the table. Let's go through them. Also, there are plenty of other things in these maps that I'm not pointing out, but these are some of the main ones.
Blitzkrieg" Two ramps at natural entrance. Backdoor patio. Lots of blink surface. Mirrored Map. Option for 3rds. Option for 4ths. Middle base to fight over end game. Small choke in center middle so maybe not many larger units will be used.
Graveside: Inbase natural. Backdoor rocks. Harassable out of base nat. Plenty of blink surface. No watchtowers.
Habitation Station: Since it's my map I'm not going to point out everything I think it could do.
Jungle Valley: Can't scout by ground. That alone will force a change in the meta game.
Polaris: Same level main / nat. Main is cannonable (parting show us this in the finals and even though San was prepared for it, Parting was still able to pull it off). Lava.
Shrieking Breeze: Double choice of natural. Double ramps. Collapsable rocks. Can't scout through middle. All spawns available. half bases.
Synapse: Base hugging main. Lots of blink surface. Can cannon from lowground from hugging base. Interesting middle bases. Interesting ramps/chokes in middle.
To me, a lot of these maps have features that can force metagame changes. Just because one of these maps doesn't have a 5 mineral base with 0 gas or because it doesn't have a spot that you can use 1 pylon to make a wall behind the mineral line doesn't make them bad. What I'm gathering from you is because a protoss player can forge > FE or gate > FE on every map means the map sucks.
On November 05 2013 05:24 SidianTheBard wrote: I still want to know why you think all the TLMC are standard and won't bring anything to the table.
I never said they were all standard.
Blitzkrieg" Two ramps at natural entrance
Pretty new
Backdoor patio. Lots of blink surface. Mirrored Map. Option for 3rds. Option for 4ths. Middle base to fight over end game. Small choke in center middle so maybe not many larger units will be used.
All done before a thousand time, hardly an innovation.
Graveside: Inbase natural. Backdoor rocks
Unusual, but done before a thousand times
Harassable out of base nat. Plenty of blink surface. No watchtowers.
Nothing unusual or innovative
Jungle Valley: Can't scout by ground. That alone will force a change in the meta game.
The first SC2 map I played in fact used this gimmick. Kulas Ravine Novice edition.It was also done in Arkanoid of course. It's unusual, but not innovative.
Polaris: Same level main / nat.
Again, unusual, but not innovative.
Main is cannonable (parting show us this in the finals and even though San was prepared for it, Parting was still able to pull it off).
Surely not innovative nor unusual
Lava.
Very innovative.
Shrieking Breeze: Double choice of natural. Double ramps.
Unusual but not innvative.
Collapsable rocks. Can't scout through middle. All spawns available. half bases.
Neither unusual nor innovative
Synapse: Base hugging main. Lots of blink surface. Can cannon from lowground from hugging base. Interesting middle bases. Interesting ramps/chokes in middle.
Nothing innovative nor unusual.
The point is that even though these maps feature various quirky features. The features are designed in such a way to still let the standard metagame occur with the exception of Polaris and to some extend Jungle. The topic is about basically rendering the openers that are currently standard worthless and force people to find new openers. These maps are all designed to still allow the current openers and strategies.
To me, a lot of these maps have features that can force metagame changes.
At best allow it if progamers really want to, force it, not really.
Just because one of these maps doesn't have a 5 mineral base with 0 gas or because it doesn't have a spot that you can use 1 pylon to make a wall behind the mineral line doesn't make them bad.
It doesn't make them bad. It just makes a map pool which has them in it lacking variety. CK is obviously a great map but once it's in a map pool where every map is close to CK it gets boring.
Changing the resource layout is the easiest way to force a metagame shift because none of your old builds will contniue to work with a different resource intake.
What I'm gathering from you is because a protoss player can forge > FE or gate > FE on every map means the map sucks.
Yes, exactly, if there is a strategy or openers that can work on every map in the map pool then the map pool needs re-analysation as far as I'm concerned. It means you can be a one trick poney effectively. Which is exactly what happens on the ladder. Many people know 3 strategies, one for each race they play against and do this on every map.
I must be confused because earlier you were saying you wanted maps that were good for cannoning or good for blink stalkers and I just pointed out the maps that would be good for cannoning or blink stalkers and you come back with it's nothing innovative or unusual.
But either way, even though one strategy can work on every single map doesn't mean it is the strategy that should be used. 11/11rax TvZ was amazing on Entombed Valley and you saw that strategy so many times because of how strong it was. It also had the bunker placement spot below the natural ramp that you could park a marine behind. Pretty sure it was MVP who pulled that one out. I thought (i could be wrong on this) but after the MVP game doing that bunker rush, they ended up going back and fixing it so that bunker rush wasn't able to be done anymore. 11/11 was still very strong on the map but now was it the ideal strategy to use?
Same goes for a game on Metalopolis with Nestea vs Alive (not positive if it was alive) but for some reason the version they played on didn't have the rocks at the bottom of the main ramp, Alive figured that out, did the bunker block on the ramp and Nestea was screwed because every other version has rocks at the bottom of the main ramp, but not this one. Again, it was immediately fixed afterwards. If bunker/pylon blocking was still available today on say 10% of the map pool, would that be enjoyable to watch? "Nestea forgot to patrol 2 drones at the bottom of his ramp, he loses 100%!!!"
I think you also don't understand that no matter what map you play on, you will still see the same Gate > FE or Forge > FE gameplay.
Let's theorycraft since you apparently love to do that so much.
You think just because the main only had 5m0g that we still wouldn't see a forge fe? If a base has a low amount of resource nodes Terran and mules play a big role since terran is very mineral heavy. They won't have to expand as often because they don't rely on as much gas. Protoss and Zerg though, will be screwed. So now, it's not a map design problem, it's a unit design problem. Now we have to go in and change mules & marines.
How do you stop a protoss from doing a forge > fe or gateway > fe? If the natural is not safe enough then they have to sit on 1 base for too long so at that point might as well either 1-base all-in or cheese. Well, we already see 1-base all-ins and cheese even on maps where naturals are super safe. So why force a map that will basically require it? Look waaay back in WoL with Xel'Naga Caverns. The natural was very unsafe and protoss finally found a way to make their economy not as far behind by doing the 3gate sentry expand. Only problem is you still had to push out with all your sentries and do some type of damage otherwise you were still very far behind.
Okay okay, well let's make the natural safe, but put a ton of surface area around the natural so you can blink up on any side! Well, now protoss will just do their normal gate > fe into blink. There is too much surface area that it's going to be extremely difficult to defend it. (Then again, if Siskos can defend a blink all-in with no bunkers and just a few marauders apparently everybody can)
You think as axiom that it is bad for the game, I think as axiom that it is not bad and might even be good.
Then your entire argument is pointless, because, given that you believe the thing in question (re: broken cannon rush spots) to be neutral viz. "good" gameplay (whatever that is) in an axiomatic fashion, it is impossible to really offer any (even near) conclusive argument for your position. If I take y as an axiom and you take x as an axiom, then there's really no point in arguing about y or x, because they're axioms. They are granted without justification. What you're doing is trying to ask Plexa to justify his axiom (which is nonsensical because it's an axiom, and is one that virtually everyone is in agreement about) and then reading too much into everything and anything and making critiques you know are ridiculous (seriously, your counter-argument to someone who used the word "impossible" in a clearly hyperbolic (figurative) sense was to debate whether such a thing was actually logically impossible, even though you know, by the conventions of the English language, that that wasn't what the speaker was really trying to assert).
This entire thread is just a series of annoyingly sophistical rants. You generalize things to a universal level when it suits your argument, but go right ahead and retreat into the mere existential qualifier when that's easier. You can't really have it both ways, but you're gonna do it anyway cause that's what you do, here, and on Reddit.
PS: "Drama" just means controversy. People arguing and posting rants obviously implies tension and controversy.
EPT
