EPT
BR#2 Very close to release - Page 14
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
AdunToridas
Germany380 Posts
| ||
|
Ziph
Netherlands970 Posts
On April 13 2009 19:46 404.Nintu wrote: Probably a few hours away. =) Also, for the screenshot hoax.. rofl! The second I saw it, and realized it was fake by the emblems on the page and such, I said outloud to myself "Wow, he is going to get crucified." (That was not meant to be some sort of terrible easter pun.) Lies! I totally fell for it, I went too check sc2.com immediately >.< | ||
|
closed
Vatican City State491 Posts
I hope it is fun to play, but at this point it looks like a warcraft3 map, where players operate 10 units vs 10 enemy units. PvT on this map seems to be unplayable (of course if tanks/vultures are still used TvP). | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
On April 13 2009 21:19 closed wrote: I think that this map looks terrible. It consists of a fast expansion, 2nd expansion and 3 routes to the enemy base (in fact Im not that sure if the north and south routes are even passable, so maybe it's just one route). Also it seems to be very small - Im not sure if there is enough place to build (siege tanks could probably siege the buildings from behind the lakes). I hope it is fun to play, but at this point it looks like a warcraft3 map, where players operate 10 units vs 10 enemy units. PvT on this map seems to be unplayable (of course if tanks/vultures are still used TvP). See this is the thing - people are judging maps based on SC1 play, forgetting that vultures are not even in the game and last I heard, siege tanks cost 3 supply!! | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1613 Posts
First of all Vultures are not exist. Second, What's wrong with WC3 maps? They aren't much smaller than BW maps. Instead of it there are much larger units in WC3 and it seems that WC3 maps are small. Anyway I have a little another feeling of SC2 maps in comparison to BW maps. I think it's because of SC2 maps are more 3D volume. And they seems smaller because of that too. | ||
|
404.Nintu
Canada1723 Posts
On April 13 2009 21:19 closed wrote: I think that this map looks terrible. It consists of a fast expansion, 2nd expansion and 3 routes to the enemy base (in fact Im not that sure if the north and south routes are even passable, so maybe it's just one route). Also it seems to be very small - Im not sure if there is enough place to build (siege tanks could probably siege the buildings from behind the lakes). I hope it is fun to play, but at this point it looks like a warcraft3 map, where players operate 10 units vs 10 enemy units. PvT on this map seems to be unplayable (of course if tanks/vultures are still used TvP). This is a pretty weak post. A: Vultures don't exist. B: TvP will work VERY differently in SC2 than in BW. Why don't people understand this? C: The current pro maps, are they made by Blizzard? Of course not. The balance of maps will be figured out as the game evolves and new maps will be made appropriately. (They're not adding a map editor just for kicks...) As it is, considering Blizzard has constant access to SC2, I'm certain they are more capable of balancing their maps than some random TLer who has never played the game before... (I'm making the assessment based on the fact that you said SC2 might have vultures.) | ||
|
closed
Vatican City State491 Posts
On April 13 2009 21:47 FrozenArbiter wrote: See this is the thing - people are judging maps based on SC1 play, forgetting that vultures are not even in the game and last I heard, siege tanks cost 3 supply!! I judge the complexity of the map. And this map seems to lack complexity. Correct me if Im wrong, but cant I put 3 zerglings to cover the whole map and scout all actions of my opponent? (omg we even have the "watchout towers" to reduce the complexity even more). Maybe if this map had island expansions it would be better... Explain to me how do you expect the battles to happen here? Even on the most boring starcraft 1 map (luna) you can "sneak through"; not sure if this can happen here. On April 13 2009 21:50 Jenia6109 wrote: closed First of all Vultures are not exist. Second, What's wrong with WC3 maps? They aren't much smaller than BW maps. Instead of it there are much larger units in WC3 and it seems that WC3 maps are small. Anyway I have a little another feeling of SC2 maps in comparison to BW maps. I think it's because of SC2 maps are more 3D volume. And they seems smaller because of that too. IMO this map is very claustrophobic and seems not to give much variety of playing. The expansions are very close to each other and there are only 3 TIGHT paths to the enemy base, which makes it very easy to control the actions of the enemy. I never played WC3 competetively, but the few maps I have tried seemed quite small too - mostly due to the fact that the units were very big. I prefer the "Starcraft1" feeling with a big map, with more units on screen.By the way - the same thing happened when I tried playing Red Alert 3. 20 units would fit on screen and it was impossible to "zoom out" to see more. It's sad that I cant write any criticism towards the map, just beacuse Starcraft2 will be great. Sorry guys, the map doesnt look too complex. Yes - the graphics are nice... On April 13 2009 21:54 404.Nintu wrote: This is a pretty weak post. A: Vultures don't exist. B: TvP will work VERY differently in SC2 than in BW. Why don't people understand this? C: The current pro maps, are they made by Blizzard? Of course not. The balance of maps will be figured out as the game evolves and new maps will be made appropriately. (They're not adding a map editor just for kicks...) As it is, considering Blizzard has constant access to SC2, I'm certain they are more capable of balancing their maps than some random TLer who has never played the game before... (I'm making the assessment based on the fact that you said SC2 might have vultures.) It's so funny that you never referred to the complexity of the map, but just some random though about PvT. Maybe in starcraft 2 there will be no possibility to control larger areas of the map, thus the maps can consist of tight corridors? Blizzard controls the ladder maps as far as I know. In Sc1 we still have the terrible blizzard maps - in fact we had to create our own servers just to be able to create a better ladder. Not sure about WC3 - but I thought that all the ladder maps were made/selected by blizzard too. Do you really think that people will play other maps, if they wont get ladder points for it? I hope there will be more open and bigger maps that will allow more diverse play (e.g. island expos; more paths; destructable terrain); hopefully this is just a test map, but Im worried that they are testing the game on such a plain map. This map reminds me of the first blizzard maps like (4)vulcanis, which are completely unplayable. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5472 Posts
In War3, Blizzard at first rotated some maps in and out of the ladder pool, but not very often. Maybe twice a year, and maybe 2-3 maps in or out at a time. In their competitions, however, they have (someone correct me if I'm wrong) used player made maps, such as SecretValley. Blizzard seems to be aware of players' criticisms towards their map pools (I base that off their Q&A's), and I suspect they'll be rotating maps in and out on a much more regular basis in SC2. Don't think of SC2 as a continuation of War3; they will more than likely improve on its mistakes. (I say that because people are using in the argument, "but in War3 they did X ..." As a final thought, this map would be really good with island expos. Ideally with gold minerals! edit: Actually, this is my final thought: War3 maps, in general, aren't small at all. Even some of their previous 2 player maps have been big, such as PlunderIsle. Most of their standard 4 player maps are quite large and can take some time to get across. Units are big in War3, however; you're right there. Although SC2 units seem to "clump" and appear smaller in a much better manner in War3, so I don't think the concern there is valid. | ||
|
Teejing
Germany1360 Posts
I guess Bnet will have tons of "extras", but regarding anti-hack, map-pool and latency i expect iccup still to do better. | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1613 Posts
Interviewer: "What's the largest size of maps in SC2?" Chris Cigaty: "About 256x256. You know it's too boring to go 5 minutes through the large map to reach your opponent." | ||
|
spkim1
Canada286 Posts
) but hey this map should be compared to Challenger. (btw, carthage and byzantium 2 had 128 * 128 size, same as (8)Hunters map)Edit: My bad, Carthage and Byzantium 2 are not 128*128, nevertheless, point made they are huge maps that Blizzard would have been designed to take in more players, not expecting pros to expand so much | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On April 13 2009 21:47 FrozenArbiter wrote: last I heard, siege tanks cost 3 supply!! This is true. However, I don't think siege tanks will be less effective/efficient if they have a 50% increased cost as well as 50% more damage- in terms of minerals, gas and supply, their cost is in fact roughly 50% higher. In siege mode, their damage is 50 + 50 vs. armored, which is pretty much 50% more damage than the 70e damage from Starcraft. The biggest difference (according to the unit stats I can see, anyway) is that the unsieged attack values are now awful, at 15 + 10 vs. armored. That's slightly less damage than a Starcraft tank dealt, for a unit that's 50% more expensive. | ||
|
Hammy
France828 Posts
On April 13 2009 22:54 Teejing wrote: This is a little bit offtopic, but will iccup challenge Bnet? I guess Bnet will have tons of "extras", but regarding anti-hack, map-pool and latency i expect iccup still to do better. What kind of "extras" do you think Bnet might have? (that's a real question) I mean iccup will be using the same interface, will have AMM and stuff, and a decent ladder. I'm just wondering what blizzard could add to Bnet that iccup couldn't add to The Abyss within a week. And on the other hand iccup's got sooo many advantages, like those stated above, but also the fact that the whole world is centralized on the same server, rather than having to switch gateways to play people from different areas. | ||
|
spkim1
Canada286 Posts
| ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5472 Posts
On April 13 2009 22:54 Teejing wrote: This is a little bit offtopic, but will iccup challenge Bnet? I guess Bnet will have tons of "extras", but regarding anti-hack, map-pool and latency i expect iccup still to do better. I doubt Iccup will exist for the first 6-12 months, first of all. Everyone will want to play on Bnet because of its working ladder system, extremely active userbase, huge prize pools, plus all the extras (icons, achievements, whatever) etc. Why would Iccup even bother in the beginning, unless Blizzard doesn't support the game at all, or poorly? As I understand it, SC had built in lag to compensate for slower computers; this seems like an archaic way of dealing with that, and I doubt it will exist in SC2. It will likely be as fast as it can be, latency-wise; however, I would have said the same thing for War3, yet it had GGClient. I'm not sure what exactly GGC did for War3 to make it quicker. | ||
|
Skyze
Canada2324 Posts
And I can't believe how stupid so many people are in this thread.. saying things like "OMG PvT is gonna be impossible on that map, with vultures!" like wtf.. its a WHOLE NEW GAME! And anyone saying anything such as "this looks like a war3 map" or "war3 maps are too large".. Thats totally rediculous, as many of the iccup BW maps are WAY larger than commonly used War3 1v1 maps. I rather play on Secret Valley or Echo Isles than huge ass maps like Katrina or Andromeda.. I suggest anyone saying "omg my vulture/tank push wont work on this map because its a war3 map" or anything similar, either A) dont buy sc2 or B) jump off a cliff. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On April 13 2009 23:40 Skyze wrote: iccup probably wont exist at all in SC2.. SC2's ladder by blizzard will be the #1 place to play (besides private korean servers) for the first 2-3 years. And I can't believe how stupid so many people are in this thread.. saying things like "OMG PvT is gonna be impossible on that map, with vultures!" like wtf.. its a WHOLE NEW GAME! And anyone saying anything such as "this looks like a war3 map" or "war3 maps are too large".. Thats totally rediculous, as many of the iccup BW maps are WAY larger than commonly used War3 1v1 maps. I rather play on Secret Valley or Echo Isles than huge ass maps like Katrina or Andromeda.. I suggest anyone saying "omg my vulture/tank push wont work on this map because its a war3 map" or anything similar, either A) dont buy sc2 or B) jump off a cliff. or maybe they can finally realize that vultures aren't even going to be in this game? | ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
Sup mine dragging? ^_^ | ||
|
Elegance
Canada917 Posts
On April 14 2009 00:25 Tsagacity wrote: Can anyone imagine what PvT would be like in SC1 if zealots could charge and Dragoons could blink? Sup mine dragging? ^_^ TvP without mines or vults | ||
| ||
