EPTOn October 14 2008 06:58 Frits wrote:
I adressed everything you talked about perfectly
I adressed everything you talked about perfectly
You denied even finding what you are supposed to address. Don't contradict youself.
Why does iCCup choose the shittiest maps - Page 4
| Blogs > -orb- |
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
You denied even finding what you are supposed to address. Don't contradict youself. | ||
|
Kula
United States140 Posts
On October 14 2008 06:27 Frits wrote: I don't know why you seem to think that you made a case for andromeda because I can't find it in this thread. Actually the only argument you've used is that strawman. Unless "3 early bases is cool" counts as an argument. Maps where you can get 3 bases early are great for strategy. You can open in more different ways on Andromeda than any other map I know. And because people can do really early FEs this also encourages cheese. Yeah, not all maps should be like that. But there should be maps like that. =O | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
There are dozens of maps where you get 3 bases early, that argument isn't about andromeda in particular, it's about maps with double expansions in general which we weren't talking about. And do I even have to mention why it's bullshit? FE is the only option on andromeda. Seriously since when do macro maps lead to more creativity in players? | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
You have infinite mineral early so you can open in even more different ways ! xDDDDDD + Show Spoiler + this post is a semi-troll :> | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Andromeda is a very good and interesting map. While I'm liking the shift back to maps that encourage one base play, such as Medusa, and Raid Assault (old map they've brought back), I can't deny that a mix of maps that encourage opposite trends is best. The way the minerals at the expos in Andromeda are placed cannot be ignored. That mineral only in-main is quite vulnerable, and encourages some interesting gorilla tactics, while the large mains give ample space for drops. Watching games on Andromeda, I've found they aren't even very slow. There's back and forth battle while both players take all the bases in their mains, especially with Zerg who take them so quickly. The option of not taking the quick expos and simply going a riskier strat that takes advantage of the vulnerable in-main expos makes it equally viable to pure build-up mode. It's also a fact that macro maps are what have allowed us to see units like defilers get mixed in so much more. The army combinations are much more thorough and intriguing in macro maps late game. If you still hate these maps, that's fine, but a lot of people like them. You don't have to play them or watch games on them, but to infer other people are stupid for playing them is absurd. They're good maps. FE is the only option on andromeda. Seriously since when do macro maps lead to more creativity in players? PvZ... Case and point. FE gives so many more options than just 2gate zealots, or one gate tech. FE actually gives you the economy to go a vast array of strategies, ranging from pure ground armies, to pure air, to mixes, and to varying styles of play on the passive spectrum of the game, to the ultra aggressive. It's not impossible to go one base strategies, however. It just takes Nal_Balls PS: Your whole debate about argument is retarded. Neither of you know what you're talking about, and you need to stop. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
PvZ... Case and point. FE gives so many more options than just 2gate zealots, or one gate tech. FE actually gives you the economy to go a vast array of strategies, ranging from pure ground armies, to pure air, to mixes, and to varying styles of play on the passive spectrum of the game, to the ultra aggressive. It's not impossible to go one base strategies, however. It just takes Nal_Balls What are you basing this on? I have seen no creativity since andromeda at all, it's been the same kind of crap as always. This isn't even about andromeda it's about maps with mineral placements similar to andromeda. You hardly make a arguments as to why andromeda in particular is any good, because there isn't anything special about andromeda except for the 2 neutral buildings and the platform which make it kinda cool. Aside from that only boring standard macro games come from andromeda. Also TvP is a nightmare on that map. The guerilla tactics consist of placing some ranged units under the mineral expo and running away. It only discourages dropship shuttle harass and makes the games even more standard macro. PS: Your whole debate about argument is retarded. Neither of you know what you're talking about, and you need to stop. You're so mature!!!! You know, even though this argument has been over for an hour and that I know exactly what Im talking about. Don't be all condescending, I asked a few simple questions that were somehow impossible to answer. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
On October 14 2008 05:48 Boblion wrote: Tbh blue storm is played a lot and very popular but i don't really see the new uber super cool gameplay dynamics. It is a very defensive macro map and i find pvz and especially pvt really boring on it. It the heaven of turtle 3 bases terrans. .. Blue storm's small choke & short distance allows for early attacks such as bunker rush. The close backdoor distance is strong for mass drops and proxy drops. Small units can engage in battle right away if it takes place in the middle of the map or your opponent's territory. The mineral only can be attacked from high ground. | ||
|
ishob
Norway143 Posts
| ||
|
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
On October 13 2008 19:46 r.Evo wrote: Am I the only one who loves Tau Cross as motw? :\ No, I do too! | ||
| ||
