Patch 1.2.1 on PTR - Page 16

mepho

Canada9 Posts

February 04 2011 08:25 GMT

#301

I played and tested out some of the new maps, it is a good step for blizzard... here are my initial thoughts

Map 1 - identical to lost temple except middle is now wider and more open 1 zelnaga tower, island expansion is connected via destructible rocks. No more cliff for drops. More friendly for zergs

Map 2 - Lots of narrow pathways good for toss, tons of grass for hidden pylons, I feel like this will play like jungle basin unless u spawn cross position

Map 3 - Horrible map has 2 open gold expansions 2 back door rocks to your natural including a wide ramp on ur natural... and some weird cliffs that you can walk up and down beside 3rd bases...

Map 4 - Natural is very close, the middle of the map will probably not have much play in the game, T and P will fight in the narrow pathways that are covered in vents. I think this map is interesting will need to play more on it.

Map 5 - Expansions are very far apart from each other, 3rd base should be the gold unless spawned close, some strange destructible rocks, not quite sure how i feel about it. Think it will be a decent map

edit woops maps 2 and 3 were not in order haha

teser

United States156 Posts

February 04 2011 08:30 GMT

#302

It doesn't really look like the close spawn rush distance is any further on the new LT. I really wish they would, at the very least, make the rush distances the same for all spawn locations so there isn't an rng advantage built in to the map. However I do really like the other changes on LT, particularly the removal of the cliff behind the natural.

butter

United States785 Posts

February 04 2011 08:38 GMT

#303

On February 04 2011 17:05 Ownos wrote:
Anyone ACTUALLY run these maps through SC2 analyzer before calling foul on rush distances? Would be nice if someone did that *hint* *hint* *nudge*

+ Show Spoiler [TestMap1] +

+ Show Spoiler [TestMap2] +

+ Show Spoiler [TestMap3] +

+ Show Spoiler [TestMap4] +

+ Show Spoiler [TestMap5] +

TERRANLOL

United States626 Posts

February 04 2011 08:40 GMT

#304

I think it's also worth noting that the choke point concealing the natural expansion is now probably twice as wide in the NEW LT
It's not favored for terrans anymore in any manner other than that there is a sort of choke point concealing the natural

Also noteable for a terran:
Ling run-ins are going to be hell. I used to stop these by making a wall with my buildings between the ramp and my expansion command center, so that lings could only enter through a single point which would pass by a bunker... but now they're all wide open, I.E. like metalopolis, making the number of buildings required for this sort of wall in very large.

Scorch

Austria3371 Posts

February 04 2011 08:40 GMT

#305

Just by looking at the maps:
TestMap1 looks nice. Lost temple without cliff drops and with a large open space for flanking. This could be a good standard macro map and a much needed solid addition to the current map pool. I'm looking forward to seeing some games on it.
I don't like any of the other maps since they have weirdly layouted naturals and/or consist of only cramped spaces. TestMap4 is playable I guess.

Dhalphir

Australia1305 Posts

February 04 2011 08:44 GMT

#306

Still no large maps in the style of the current iCCup map pool.

I feel like until we have some larger maps that make all-ins weaker, we'll never see any evolution of SC2.

rickybobby

United States405 Posts

February 04 2011 08:46 GMT

#307

why doesnt blizzard put more expos in -_-

syllogism

Finland5948 Posts

February 04 2011 08:47 GMT

#308

I don't think they should add GSL maps into normal map pool, especially some preliminary maps gomtv just happened to find available in a short time frame. Ideally there would be separate map pools for perhaps Masters/Grandmaster leagues and the rest, in which case those maps could perhaps be added to the pool.

DarkRise

1644 Posts

February 04 2011 08:48 GMT

#309

On February 04 2011 17:46 rickybobby wrote:
why doesnt blizzard put more expos in -_-

I think the number of expos are decent
anymore than that is just ridiculous, I like long games but i don't want to watch a 2 hour game

YourMom

Romania565 Posts

February 04 2011 08:56 GMT

#310

Did they get pro players thoughts on how maps should be before they made them ?

Shockk

Germany2269 Posts

February 04 2011 08:59 GMT

#311

I don't get why they're adjusting the AT/RT matchmaking once again instead of simply removing that "feature".

AT vs. AT and RT vs. RT worked perfectly in War3 and to this day I can't understand the reasoning behind changing this in SC2. The only issue there is are the loading times and I'll gladly accept those if it'll mean team games will actually be fair once again. No more premade teams rolling random ones, no more partial ATs unbalancing RT games (signing up for 3vs3 with a 2 man premade etc).

greycubed

United States615 Posts

February 04 2011 09:02 GMT

#312

LOVE the new Lost Temple.

Ribbon

United States5278 Posts

February 04 2011 09:06 GMT

#313

On February 04 2011 17:46 rickybobby wrote:
why doesnt blizzard put more expos in -_-

Test Map 2 has 14.

jpditri

United States86 Posts

February 04 2011 09:08 GMT

#314

I think at the very least this is Blizzard demonstrating that they are listening to the player community-- these maps aren't perfect (no map ever will be, simply because the game will continue to evolve)-- but they are at least taking the initiative to add new test maps. Given that a unified map pool benefits e-sports in general (by 'generalizing' practice for the professionals), Blizzard has a vested interest in sponsoring better maps... even when you consider things as esoteric as "balance" Blizzard always moves slower than the community; what they are doing here is adding more test maps to the pool to garner more community opinion and collect more data.

They will take the feedback from this experiment, remove some maps from the pool, add some more, and the hardcore players will be upset they didn't go further and kill all the pro-player dislikes, and all the casuals will either be confused by the changes and/or will be mad that their 2base all-ins are now nullified.

To the point: the map-pool by Blizzard will always err on the side of a diverse map pool, regardless of what the community is doing-- pro level players will always want diverse and intriguing maps, where casuals will want as little change to their gameplay as possible; Blizzard has a vested interest in both communities.

The addition of more Blizzard sanctioned maps is a good thing overall, and that only through extensive testing by the community can a map be really judged for both fairness, and "fun"ness.

Zidane

United States1692 Posts

February 04 2011 09:13 GMT

#315

why is there always crap in the middle? They should just leave it open.

ScarletKnight

United States691 Posts

February 04 2011 09:16 GMT

#316

Hm. I'll hold judgement on the new maps until I play them myself. I like where Blizzard is taking this. They look larger and more open, but the amount of rocks and debris is standard Blizzard and still bothers me a bit. Some of them look to have incredibly close positions on some spawns.

But they seem like maybe they coded it so only horizontal and cross position play are possible, which would make them much better.

Props to Blizzard though for listening to the community and releasing new ladder maps, regardless of who they're made by. GSL maps or not, this proves that they listen and realize that some maps are a problem due to positioning and size. All these maps seem bigger and more macro-oriented for the most part.

The smart thing to do would have been if it was coded for only cross positions. We'll wait and see how these work out on the PTR. This looks promising.

weaknurse

Australia320 Posts

February 04 2011 09:26 GMT

#317

On February 04 2011 18:13 Zidane wrote:
why is there always crap in the middle? They should just leave it open.

I could never understand this either.

smileyyy

Germany1816 Posts

February 04 2011 09:37 GMT

#318

Im really astonished that people really thought that Blizzard will add non-Blizzard maps to their own ladder xD. That wont happen anytime soon.

Well time to play some customs on the new maps
Some better pics of the maps.
+ Show Spoiler [Test Map 1] +

+ Show Spoiler [Test Map 2] +

+ Show Spoiler [Test Map 3] +

+ Show Spoiler [Test Map 4] +

+ Show Spoiler [Test Map 5] +

RouaF

France4121 Posts

February 04 2011 09:38 GMT

#319

We'll have to wait and see but those maps honestly look awful. The GSL ones seem to be very much interesting. I say this despite being a terran player

Dark.Carnival

United States5095 Posts

February 04 2011 09:49 GMT

#320

Redesigned LT is good, everything else is trash. Huge naturals, short distance between bases, rocks that make naturals worse and the map with backdoor rocks that is literally spitting distance between bases. Yeah I'm glad Blizzard finally put out maps, but for the love of god leave it to the community, PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE MAPS BLIZZARD, just implement community maps ><!

Prev 1 14 15 16 17 18 40 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Patch 1.2.1 on PTR - Page 16

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming