EPTSPL 10-11 R5 New Maps - Page 5
| Forum Index > BW General |
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
| ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50584 Posts
| ||
|
Yxes2211
United States1587 Posts
Hmmm... Prolly cuz JD was only +3 on that map  But between Icarus/Benzene/CB, I wasn't feeling the who space platform tileset anymore These new maps are more visually pleasing lol | ||
|
hacklebeast
United States5090 Posts
On April 21 2011 23:22 Yxes2211 wrote: Hmmm... Prolly cuz JD was only +3 on that map But between Icarus/Benzene/CB, I wasn't feeling the who space platform tileset anymore These new maps are more visually pleasing lol For me, it just felt like a ;poorly done matchpoint. I think the think the irked me the most was the cliff behind the natural. it seemed like every game that zerg got lurkers, they would stick 2 up there at some point. There was some tank/vulture placement, or some sneaky storms, but they were far less frequent. Terrain that is only there so that one race can do one trick annoys me. Which is why I'm not a fan of the new aztec. steps of my logic: 1. Kespa changed the map, therefor they thought it was imbalanced PvT 2. adjusting mineral values, and allowing building is slightly beneficial to the terran, but far from game changing. 3. because Kespa wanted to balance the maps, and the other two patches do not affect balance too much, kespa wanted to change the balance through the cliff alteration. 4. The cliff is only good for tank drops 5. it is the ability to tank drop is what makes the map balanced 6. terran must tank drop every game, or they will be at a severe disadvantage. That's a problem, and I don't see where I made a mistake in the reasoning. | ||
|
vizhi_j
China50 Posts
| ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66357 Posts
contact me [TL]konadora on iccup now :D | ||
thenexusp
United States3721 Posts
On April 21 2011 23:36 hacklebeast wrote: For me, it just felt like a ;poorly done matchpoint. I think the think the irked me the most was the cliff behind the natural. it seemed like every game that zerg got lurkers, they would stick 2 up there at some point. There was some tank/vulture placement, or some sneaky storms, but they were far less frequent. Terrain that is only there so that one race can do one trick annoys me. Which is why I'm not a fan of the new aztec. steps of my logic: 1. Kespa changed the map, therefor they thought it was imbalanced PvT 2. adjusting mineral values, and allowing building is slightly beneficial to the terran, but far from game changing. 3. because Kespa wanted to balance the maps, and the other two patches do not affect balance too much, kespa wanted to change the balance through the cliff alteration. 4. The cliff is only good for tank drops 5. it is the ability to tank drop is what makes the map balanced 6. terran must tank drop every game, or they will be at a severe disadvantage. That's a problem, and I don't see where I made a mistake in the reasoning. Not sure about your use of the word "severe" ... terran could still win games on old Aztec, just not 50% of them. The cliff doesn't necessarily mean that T always has to tank drop to win, it could be the case that P has to divert resources prepare for a possible tank drop which will balance the map without actually going to a tank drop. | ||
|
VGhost
United States3616 Posts
Beltway PvZ: looks next to impossible. If Zerg goes air, a 3rd base will be very difficult. Alternatively, Medusa/Andromeda style lurker drops + hydras at the front look like almost an auto-win. ZvT: feels like it favors Terran. Zerg can take the 3rd in the middle without too much trouble but any sort of drop play into the main will be difficult to deal with. Alternatively Terran can mech up and the paths are narrow enough to favor that style. On the other hand, Terran is forced to take a side 3rd base since the middle expansions are basically muta heaven. Kind of sucks for everyone, so maybe it will end up even-ish. TvP: Terran can spread out and just take 5 bases and slow push. Protoss... can go carriers? Initial call: T>P, T>Z, Z>P Alternative Of all the maps I've seen, this reminds me most of... Bifrost. An updated, college-educated Bifrost without the ring around the outside, but still. PvZ: Should be really interesting, but probably favors Protoss. Zerg's got no way to take a safe fast third expansion, and a slow one will run into DT/reaver issues. Once the temples are down the 3rd's fairly safe I guess, so we could see some long games - but I predict a bunch of hydra busts to start, and then a bunch of foiled busts because everybody knows it's coming. ZvT: Favors Zerg because... not sure why. It just doesn't look like there are great tank positions anywhere, and while the main's hugely droppable, that means Zerg will be expecting it... right? TvP: Rock's favorite map. Carriers all day long. Carriers carriers carriers. Also arbiters in that huge main. Initial call: P>Z, Z>T, P>T | ||
|
Tadah
Sweden120 Posts
On April 21 2011 15:37 deafhobbit wrote: God i miss that map. So many epic games - for a weirdish map is was pretty balanced overall - each race just had a higher than normal winrate in their favored matchup. I used to (up until about an hour or so ago) think that Match Point was one of the best maps out there - It had an Intricate and original layout, and it was suitable for alot of different playstyles and such - however, I just noticed upon looking at it a bit more that it is actually quite shodily made as far as symetry goes. I can't believe I hadn't picked up on that until just now and I can't let an issue like that slide, even if it's an intended asymmetry, because stuff like that can't be good for balance, and a big part of the aesthetic quality of a map is its ability to synergize appearance and functionality, I think. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States623 Posts
On April 22 2011 08:57 Tadah wrote: One thing that's bugging me about Alternative is the asymetry with regards to the position of the gas geysers in the main bases. Weird that they didn't spot that. But I like the map, it's pure eye candy, but as for its substance... I don't dare speculate. Also, Empire of The Sun just transformed from being the most bland and boring map there is, to perhaps the most interesting out of all of the "old" maps. I think we'll be seeing a great variety of playstyles and builds on that map. I used to (up until about an hour or so ago) think that Match Point was one of the best maps out there - It had an Intricate and original layout, and it was suitable for alot of different playstyles and such - however, I just noticed upon looking at it a bit more that it is actually quite shodily made as far as symetry goes. I can't believe I hadn't picked up on that until just now and I can't let an issue like that slide, even if it's an intended asymmetry, because stuff like that can't be good for balance, and a big part of the aesthetic quality of a map is its ability to synergize appearance and functionality, I think. Maps like Tau Cross are proof that maps don't need to be perfectly symmetrical to be balanced. To be honest I feel sort of the opposite; 100% perfectly symmetrical maps all the time can get kind of bland or boring after a while. Do agree on your thoughts about the new empire of the sun though. That map just got a whole lot more interesting and I think we might see some awesome games on it. | ||
|
Harem
United States11393 Posts
| ||
|
Tadah
Sweden120 Posts
On April 22 2011 09:25 kidcrash wrote: Maps like Tau Cross are proof that maps don't need to be perfectly symmetrical to be balanced. To be honest I feel sort of the opposite; 100% perfectly symmetrical maps all the time can get kind of bland or boring after a while. Do agree on your thoughts about the new empire of the sun though. That map just got a whole lot more interesting and I think we might see some awesome games on it. I suppose my objection to the asymmetry in this instance is due to the fact that it's not a conceptually based one. They simply stick out and there are no justification for them it seems. It might lead to fun games and such, but I was more speaking from an aesthetic point of view and arguing about the basis of what I feel constitute a good map in that sense. The critisism of Match Point basically boils down to the fact that the difference in terrain are small, yet not so small as to be inconsequential in terms of balance. Now, the impact these features has on balance is not the main sticking point for me, what bugs me about the little inconstancies is that they appear arbitrary, as if no well thought out underlying design choice, the logical conclusion of which dictates the that the features in question be included in the map architecture. I hope you get what I'm trying to say here. It's a very subjective thing I suppose but I don't very much like it when I look at a map and I get this overwhelming feeling that whoever designed it just went "Well, let's just stick that in there and see how it pans out.", and Match Point for me, and in small ways Tau Cross as well, just reeks of either creative constipation or downright lazyness to me in some areas. | ||
|
VGhost
United States3616 Posts
On April 22 2011 08:57 Tadah wrote: One thing that's bugging me about Alternative is the asymetry with regards to the position of the gas geysers in the main bases. If you'll note, on most modern maps the geysers on every base are at the top. iirc there's some slight difference in mining time so they do this to equalize things. On your other symmetry issue... well, as long as it's not significantly affecting balance, I prefer a not-quite-perfectly symmetrical map to one drawn with a ruler. | ||
|
thenexusp
United States3721 Posts
On April 22 2011 10:32 VGhost wrote: If you'll note, on most modern maps the geysers on every base are at the top. iirc there's some slight difference in mining time so they do this to equalize things. On your other symmetry issue... well, as long as it's not significantly affecting balance, I prefer a not-quite-perfectly symmetrical map to one drawn with a ruler. Yes, this is right, it was proven that gas geysers on top (or directly to the left) of the CC mine faster than geysers in other positions. There really isn't a way to make a x/y symmetric map perfectly balanced because of weird quirks like that, but modern mappers rather make the main gas mining the same for all bases (something that will affect every game) rather than make the relative gas positions the same, something that might not even matter most of the time. | ||
|
deafhobbit
United States828 Posts
On April 22 2011 08:57 Tadah wrote: I used to (up until about an hour or so ago) think that Match Point was one of the best maps out there - It had an Intricate and original layout, and it was suitable for alot of different playstyles and such - however, I just noticed upon looking at it a bit more that it is actually quite shodily made as far as symetry goes. I can't believe I hadn't picked up on that until just now and I can't let an issue like that slide, even if it's an intended asymmetry, because stuff like that can't be good for balance, and a big part of the aesthetic quality of a map is its ability to synergize appearance and functionality, I think. I don't know, I just miss maps like HBR, Outsider, and Match Point, where it really felt like the map mattered. None of the PL maps this year feel like they really shape the way the game plays, with the exception of Aztec. | ||
|
Craton
United States17264 Posts
| ||
|
c3rberUs
Japan11286 Posts
On April 22 2011 11:51 Craton wrote: First thought when I see all the now-buildable terrain is: great, more siege tank turtling. My thoughts too. ^^ | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + just saying this coz usually everyone whines about terran ive got no idea how things will pan out, hoping they produce some interesting games like monte cristo has | ||
| ||
