Why isn't there a "like" button on TL.net, this post needs it. Frykt etc, I don't care about "standard" Brood War maps (even if such a thing existed). Of course you should use Brood War maps WITH BROOD WAR. If you want to play Brood War, do so and let us play this other game in peace.
Blizzard are not doing us a favor, they are slow and try too much new. Start making maps which are more standard, THEN make all the rocks, grass and all that crap.
I already mocked this, but I'm quoting it again because it's hilarious.
Just me, or does these maps look really small? The community has been crying to the skies for large maps, but these looks like delta quadrant all of them. It seems to be as far to your natural as to your opponents third.
I am in awe and at the verge of depression of how HORRIBLE and FAIL those maps are.
Hope is for SC2 part1 to be enjoyable esport is sealed if those maps go live as they represent and encourage all the things that are wrong about the game. We are playing the same, terrible maps for almost 1 year since beta and this is the "evolution", a map pool mix with all the bad elements and steppes-of-war-like rush distances.
Okay, time to defend myself Ribbon, since you seem very mature and deserves a proper response.
First of all.
You say I mock them for being innovative, which I have not. What I say, is that you need to walk before you run. Have a few maps without all the gimmicky, and some with. Read this map interview with MorroW (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=184052) to see what I mean.
This kind of crap actually angers me. This kind of "My gut instinct is right and anyone who even tries anything else is a terrible person" attitude is one of the most depressing aspects of the human race. This post is so badly written I almost thought it was a strawman, but since so many people are quoting this post as awesome, let's go through it.
Aren't you a little touchy? Depressing aspects of the human race? Chill out man, it's just a game!( that was a lie, we all know SC2 is the meaning of life.) I wrote like that because most people read longer posts with temper and feelings. Cursing, irony and anger makes it funnier and easier to read and I get to express my thoughts.
Basic fairness? Some of these maps are improvements. Some aren't. They're test maps. They're explicitly asking us what we think of these ideas they've cooked up.
I'm not directly complaining about the test maps they are trying, my real problem is half a year with mediocre maps, which the majority don't like. And should the game be balanced with maps that people don't enjoy playing? It's okay with a backdoor if it's a long run. Therefore, they SHOULD have both options, small micro maps AND bigger better macro maps, the bronze silver, players can just downvote what they want. Or even have separate map pools, after master f.ex.
Yeah! Why haven't Blizzard changed the map pool before now?! I'm so sick of playing Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine!
I'm also curious to see your scientific poll on "everyone".
They have been lazy, there is no argue in that. Do you think they need praise from removing desert Oasis and Kulas ravine? Kulas ravine was everything which was bad with the world in one single map. That map still haunts me in the sleep.
I mixed up everyone and majority, you should figure out that. My thoughts reflected towards majority.
This is what all the haters really want. You know, SC2 didn't beat Brood War to death with a wrench. You can still play it. I even think a BW map might be more fun to play BW on, seeing as it was designed for that game and not this one.
I agree, SC2 didn't kill sc1, they are separate games, but with 12 years of experience with BW, we know what makes good maps, and good games. Even tho sc2 is new, the fundamental is equal. Every gimmicky things in sc2 have been tried in sc1 first, except xelnaga and grass. ( Mineral only, gas expos, rocks at expansion, backdoors, blocks, etc etc) But just the maps which worked got played on, and the most maps don't have all that. They use the cream of the cream. So learn something from 12 years of BW, sc2 shouldn't take 12 years to figure out. Maybe 8?
I like how "everyone" got downgraded to "the majority". Still not true, though. Team Liquid is far from the majority of Starcraft 2 players.
Mixup, but the majority of the ones who really loves sc2 is on teamliquid(except koreans). But let's say I was wrong.
ALL THE MAPS SUCK. OKAY THIS ONE'S GOOD.
The "this one you are referring to are lost temple without cliffs, which we complained against in early beta. I agree my comment there was a little childish, but i was at work and didn't have time to analyze. In my opinion the maps are okay, but not as good as they should be. You can see that even from the map preview. To much gimmicky + again hard 3d base with delightfull rocks blocking any zerg wanting to try a risky macro game.
This isn't a sentence
Mixed up "is and are", Sorry about a grammar error, this was very relevant with the rest of the post.
ALL THE MAPS SUCK, EXCEPT THIS ONE, THIS ONE, AND SOMETIMES THIS ONE.
Yupp, I still mean all map zuckzz except Caverns, lost temple, metal cross, and SHakuras cross. So 4 maps in total and they are not great, they are just good maps. Metal and shakuras must be in cross, so that's not even a whole map.
It's almost like they're tying to make the maps interesting. Pricks.
You know, if you "NO TOWERS. ZERG ONLY. FINAL DESTINATION" types had your way, there wouldn't be a map pool at all. There'd be a single map (Probably Python), and every single game would be played on it. I like all the people acting like rocks/towers/grass is inherently bad, just because your precious Brood War didn't have them. I've seen televangelists more open to the idea of evolution than you guys.
The way to make Starcraft 2 better than Brood War is to innovate. We need to try new things and mess around. And yes, sometimes things won't work.
Fucking deal with it.
I'm sick of you spoiled brats so unused to the concept of "working to improve" that it doesn't even occur to you other people can do it. I don't want Starcraft 2 to be Brood War. There's already a Brood War, and it's time to stop idolizing it. It was a very good game, but it's time to make a better one. And that's going to mean taking a step into the unknown, and trying new ideas. I understand change is scary, and work is hard. But instead of bitching that Starcraft 2 isn't exactly the same as Starcraft 1, why don't you take all your rage, use it productively, and make the good maps you want, since it's apparently so easy.
I am not asking for the same as brood war, but i want the same fundamental, maybe that's just me. I have no problem with fucking around and play with gimmicks, but not that far that every map has them and it hinders what we try to accomplish. It's like when you try to make a new recipe. Yes you can mix coca cola, milk , flour and battery acid, but you know it's gonna taste like crap. You experiment slowly. That way things get much more stable and faster race balancing.
I don't see what these maps are "innovating" that the previous, usually disliked maps in the pool did not. Short rush distances, backdoor rocks into the main, etcetera; they usually produce short, frustrating games. They also seem to encourage cheese. Experiment over, let's try something else.
On February 05 2011 00:59 oXoCube wrote: Your average TL poster has a very specific mindset about what they want your average ladder map to look like.
It appears to differ greatly from what blizzard is after.
From what I've been able to gather from these posts, this seems to be the map-style that this community wants:
1) Huge size, almost absurdly large. Early game dynamic nearly non-existent due to spawn distances. Early all-ins not really possible (for better or for worse). Because of the size, everyone can 1 rax FE/ 1gate FE/15 hatch and spend 10 minutes macroing without much fear. Scouting whether your opponent was going for 5rr, stim push, or 4 gate no longer necessary.
2) Easy to defend natural so you can keep you unit ball clumped at a choke at the natural instead of having to spread and defend it from more than one position.
3) Easy 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Army positioning and composition should not be a factor in defending an expo outside of your easy to defend natural.
4) No backdoor to main. Only one way in or out of the main on the ground. If someone wants to attack your main, they better do it in the air or get through your ball of units.
5) No destructible rocks at expos.
Yes the list above was somewhat sarcasm-laden in the extended description but I think the points are on target. I've said it here before and I'll say it again. Imho, not everyone on the ladder wants to have to play a 30-minute macro game every time they hit Find Match. Blizz knows this. Do you think that's what Bronze and Silver league players want? I enjoy the current average ladder game time and the current map pool (mostly) affords this and it looks like the PTR maps will too. Depending on how the game progresses it can be over in 15 or evolve to a macro game.
There's something to be said for the tension in how a game progresses. Is your opponent trying to take it to a macro game? Is he going for an early push or all-in? What information do I have? What should I do based on what I know? - these are questions that don't really matter in the first 10 minutes* of a game on the monstrous GSL/iCCup maps. That would be just as uninteresting to me while watching a pro match-up. Same openings, macro up, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Blizz had provided us with perfect maps so far. Steppes, DQ, JB are some obvious examples. However I don't think iCCup or the GSL maps are the be-all end-all of maps either nor do I think they would be good for the ladder as a whole.
*Edit - not exactly 10 obviously, but you get the idea.
You can rush on BW maps. It's been done. Quite often, in fact. You basically wrote a huge block of text based on a misconception that many people who never followed the BW proscene have.
Admittedly my experience with the BW proscene is deep. Most VODs that I've pulled up have proceeded how I described so maybe I was unlucky in not finding a game where what you described has happened. I don't think that changes my point about why those maps aren't optimal for the ladder in Blizz's opinion.
Edit: perhaps PM me a couple VODs? I'd certainly be interested in checking them out.
Large maps have never stopped early aggression from being effective. Your example about the 4-gate is particularly incorrect, since the nature of warpgates negates rush distance anyways.
Of course. But to do ALL-IN or Early marine Rush will be harder, and will need a lot of micro. And thats good. The problem was that in short maps like steppes etc., the rushes were extremely effective and didnt need any micro at all.
Yes, but I was responding to someone who said that having large maps would totally nullify any early aggression, which is obviously false.
Thanks for the VODs.
By early aggression, I didn't mean that a 6-pool or something still wouldn't work. To me, there's a difference in small army skirmishes early in the game rather than early cheese by 6-pool or proxy gates. Also I don't think I brought up 4-gate in my earlier post for the exact reason you cited: warp tech nullifies the distance barrier.
Lol, that's a pretty good way to get them to listen to you.
These maps are starting not to look so bad actually, except perhaps for a couple close positions and map 5 is just really weird. Although there are many brush/rocks/gold/towers and it may feel a little weird, I don't think it's "too bad".
Looking at LT 2.0 again, I realized, those 4 raised platforms in the middle are now only 2 raised platforms; 2 of them have become holes. This will reduce the effectiveness of Colossi, and they can't get on the raised platforms anyways without a WP because the platform is now 2 stories higher than the low ground rather than having a "step". So reapers and Colossi won't be able to get up there easily.
LT 2.0 looks almost like the perfect "standard" map, like a Python, except for a couple things; the close air positions and the close ground positions are a little too "extreme" imo. It would be perfect if the close positions were slightly longer (even 5 seconds) and the air position not so close, but it's not that bad.
However some of the LT 2.0 changes I am worried about. Although it definitely feels more "standard" and "balanced" now, that also means there will be much less abuse. Remember Set 2 of oGsMC vs TSL Rain in GSL 3 Finals on LT? Remember how epic that was? High Templar storming golds, WP harassing islands, stalker blink/drop micro at the xel naga towers with the high ground platforms next to them, etc. That stuff won't be seen anymore. For better or worse, idk.
I too tried a game on each just for comparison. Map 1 is LT so I didn't try it. Map 2 wasn't bad if you aren't on close positions vertically. If you are, then it reminds me of scrap except shorter initial rush distance and only one set of rocks. Map 3 - bad bad bad. I don't know what they were thinking.. The natural setup is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Map 4 and 5 have a LT/metal type of setup. Close positions are brutal but cross map isn't bad.
I'd much rather have map 2,4 and 5 then steppes, jungle, and delta.
all those maps are horrible, blizzard map makers should seriously just be fired. I mean, is it really that hard to look at the most successful maps of SC1 and look for common traits? Hint: retarded useless naturals that only make themselves a liability is not the way to promote more complex, exciting games
Lol, that's a pretty good way to get them to listen to you.
These maps are starting not to look so bad actually, except perhaps for a couple close positions and map 5 is just really weird. Although there are many brush/rocks/gold/towers and it may feel a little weird, I don't think it's "too bad".
Looking at LT 2.0 again, I realized, those 4 raised platforms in the middle are now only 2 raised platforms; 2 of them have become holes. This will reduce the effectiveness of Colossi, and they can't get on the raised platforms anyways without a WP because the platform is now 2 stories higher than the low ground rather than having a "step". So reapers and Colossi won't be able to get up there easily.
LT 2.0 looks almost like the perfect "standard" map, like a Python, except for a couple things; the close air positions and the close ground positions are a little too "extreme" imo. It would be perfect if the close positions were slightly longer (even 5 seconds) and the air position not so close, but it's not that bad.
However some of the LT 2.0 changes I am worried about. Although it definitely feels more "standard" and "balanced" now, that also means there will be much less abuse. Remember Set 2 of oGsMC vs TSL Rain in GSL 3 Finals on LT? Remember how epic that was? High Templar storming golds, WP harassing islands, stalker blink/drop micro at the xel naga towers with the high ground platforms next to them, etc. That stuff won't be seen anymore. For better or worse, idk.
On February 05 2011 06:31 parn wrote: Does it mean that we won't have any Races/Units changes in the next patch?
Atm we need maps, not race balance. Who knows, maybe the races are balanced and it's just the maps fault. Remember, sc2 got balanced over hundreds of 1vs1 maps the last 12 years. Sc2 has used like 10 -15 in one year.
On February 05 2011 00:59 oXoCube wrote: Your average TL poster has a very specific mindset about what they want your average ladder map to look like.
It appears to differ greatly from what blizzard is after.
From what I've been able to gather from these posts, this seems to be the map-style that this community wants:
1) Huge size, almost absurdly large. Early game dynamic nearly non-existent due to spawn distances. Early all-ins not really possible (for better or for worse). Because of the size, everyone can 1 rax FE/ 1gate FE/15 hatch and spend 10 minutes macroing without much fear. Scouting whether your opponent was going for 5rr, stim push, or 4 gate no longer necessary.
2) Easy to defend natural so you can keep you unit ball clumped at a choke at the natural instead of having to spread and defend it from more than one position.
3) Easy 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Army positioning and composition should not be a factor in defending an expo outside of your easy to defend natural.
4) No backdoor to main. Only one way in or out of the main on the ground. If someone wants to attack your main, they better do it in the air or get through your ball of units.
5) No destructible rocks at expos.
Yes the list above was somewhat sarcasm-laden in the extended description but I think the points are on target. I've said it here before and I'll say it again. Imho, not everyone on the ladder wants to have to play a 30-minute macro game every time they hit Find Match. Blizz knows this. Do you think that's what Bronze and Silver league players want? I enjoy the current average ladder game time and the current map pool (mostly) affords this and it looks like the PTR maps will too. Depending on how the game progresses it can be over in 15 or evolve to a macro game.
There's something to be said for the tension in how a game progresses. Is your opponent trying to take it to a macro game? Is he going for an early push or all-in? What information do I have? What should I do based on what I know? - these are questions that don't really matter in the first 10 minutes* of a game on the monstrous GSL/iCCup maps. That would be just as uninteresting to me while watching a pro match-up. Same openings, macro up, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Blizz had provided us with perfect maps so far. Steppes, DQ, JB are some obvious examples. However I don't think iCCup or the GSL maps are the be-all end-all of maps either nor do I think they would be good for the ladder as a whole.
*Edit - not exactly 10 obviously, but you get the idea.
You can rush on BW maps. It's been done. Quite often, in fact. You basically wrote a huge block of text based on a misconception that many people who never followed the BW proscene have.
Admittedly my experience with the BW proscene is deep. Most VODs that I've pulled up have proceeded how I described so maybe I was unlucky in not finding a game where what you described has happened. I don't think that changes my point about why those maps aren't optimal for the ladder in Blizz's opinion.
Edit: perhaps PM me a couple VODs? I'd certainly be interested in checking them out.
Large maps have never stopped early aggression from being effective. Your example about the 4-gate is particularly incorrect, since the nature of warpgates negates rush distance anyways.
Of course. But to do ALL-IN or Early marine Rush will be harder, and will need a lot of micro. And thats good. The problem was that in short maps like steppes etc., the rushes were extremely effective and didnt need any micro at all.
Yes, but I was responding to someone who said that having large maps would totally nullify any early aggression, which is obviously false.
Thanks for the VODs.
By early aggression, I didn't mean that a 6-pool or something still wouldn't work. To me, there's a difference in small army skirmishes early in the game rather than early cheese by 6-pool or proxy gates. Also I don't think I brought up 4-gate in my earlier post for the exact reason you cited: warp tech nullifies the distance barrier.
If you want to see that in BW, you're probably looking at games from players like Flash, Fantasy and Bisu. The difference is that all-ins aren't as effective in BW because the maps aren't as small as the ones we currently have. Fantasy and Bisu are really good at harassing all over the map while Flash does some really good timing attacks every now and then (timing attacks that are not all-in).
Big maps and more defensible positions means that a player can more easily split off some units from his army to harass with. It's not uncommon in BW to even use 12 units or so to harass with. With small maps and wide open naturals, if you split off 10 or so units from your main force to harass, the other guy can easily roll your main army and base with his main army.
On February 05 2011 00:59 oXoCube wrote: Your average TL poster has a very specific mindset about what they want your average ladder map to look like.
It appears to differ greatly from what blizzard is after.
From what I've been able to gather from these posts, this seems to be the map-style that this community wants:
1) Huge size, almost absurdly large. Early game dynamic nearly non-existent due to spawn distances. Early all-ins not really possible (for better or for worse). Because of the size, everyone can 1 rax FE/ 1gate FE/15 hatch and spend 10 minutes macroing without much fear. Scouting whether your opponent was going for 5rr, stim push, or 4 gate no longer necessary.
2) Easy to defend natural so you can keep you unit ball clumped at a choke at the natural instead of having to spread and defend it from more than one position.
3) Easy 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Army positioning and composition should not be a factor in defending an expo outside of your easy to defend natural.
4) No backdoor to main. Only one way in or out of the main on the ground. If someone wants to attack your main, they better do it in the air or get through your ball of units.
5) No destructible rocks at expos.
Yes the list above was somewhat sarcasm-laden in the extended description but I think the points are on target. I've said it here before and I'll say it again. Imho, not everyone on the ladder wants to have to play a 30-minute macro game every time they hit Find Match. Blizz knows this. Do you think that's what Bronze and Silver league players want? I enjoy the current average ladder game time and the current map pool (mostly) affords this and it looks like the PTR maps will too. Depending on how the game progresses it can be over in 15 or evolve to a macro game.
There's something to be said for the tension in how a game progresses. Is your opponent trying to take it to a macro game? Is he going for an early push or all-in? What information do I have? What should I do based on what I know? - these are questions that don't really matter in the first 10 minutes* of a game on the monstrous GSL/iCCup maps. That would be just as uninteresting to me while watching a pro match-up. Same openings, macro up, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Blizz had provided us with perfect maps so far. Steppes, DQ, JB are some obvious examples. However I don't think iCCup or the GSL maps are the be-all end-all of maps either nor do I think they would be good for the ladder as a whole.
*Edit - not exactly 10 obviously, but you get the idea.
You can rush on BW maps. It's been done. Quite often, in fact. You basically wrote a huge block of text based on a misconception that many people who never followed the BW proscene have.
Admittedly my experience with the BW proscene is deep. Most VODs that I've pulled up have proceeded how I described so maybe I was unlucky in not finding a game where what you described has happened. I don't think that changes my point about why those maps aren't optimal for the ladder in Blizz's opinion.
Edit: perhaps PM me a couple VODs? I'd certainly be interested in checking them out.
Large maps have never stopped early aggression from being effective. Your example about the 4-gate is particularly incorrect, since the nature of warpgates negates rush distance anyways.
Wouldn't a four gate in particular be more effective on large maps, because it would be harder to counter attack if you held it off?
I say this as a novice player, I genuinely don't know.
On February 05 2011 00:59 oXoCube wrote: Your average TL poster has a very specific mindset about what they want your average ladder map to look like.
It appears to differ greatly from what blizzard is after.
From what I've been able to gather from these posts, this seems to be the map-style that this community wants:
1) Huge size, almost absurdly large. Early game dynamic nearly non-existent due to spawn distances. Early all-ins not really possible (for better or for worse). Because of the size, everyone can 1 rax FE/ 1gate FE/15 hatch and spend 10 minutes macroing without much fear. Scouting whether your opponent was going for 5rr, stim push, or 4 gate no longer necessary.
2) Easy to defend natural so you can keep you unit ball clumped at a choke at the natural instead of having to spread and defend it from more than one position.
3) Easy 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Army positioning and composition should not be a factor in defending an expo outside of your easy to defend natural.
4) No backdoor to main. Only one way in or out of the main on the ground. If someone wants to attack your main, they better do it in the air or get through your ball of units.
5) No destructible rocks at expos.
Yes the list above was somewhat sarcasm-laden in the extended description but I think the points are on target. I've said it here before and I'll say it again. Imho, not everyone on the ladder wants to have to play a 30-minute macro game every time they hit Find Match. Blizz knows this. Do you think that's what Bronze and Silver league players want? I enjoy the current average ladder game time and the current map pool (mostly) affords this and it looks like the PTR maps will too. Depending on how the game progresses it can be over in 15 or evolve to a macro game.
There's something to be said for the tension in how a game progresses. Is your opponent trying to take it to a macro game? Is he going for an early push or all-in? What information do I have? What should I do based on what I know? - these are questions that don't really matter in the first 10 minutes* of a game on the monstrous GSL/iCCup maps. That would be just as uninteresting to me while watching a pro match-up. Same openings, macro up, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Blizz had provided us with perfect maps so far. Steppes, DQ, JB are some obvious examples. However I don't think iCCup or the GSL maps are the be-all end-all of maps either nor do I think they would be good for the ladder as a whole.
*Edit - not exactly 10 obviously, but you get the idea.
You can rush on BW maps. It's been done. Quite often, in fact. You basically wrote a huge block of text based on a misconception that many people who never followed the BW proscene have.
Admittedly my experience with the BW proscene is deep. Most VODs that I've pulled up have proceeded how I described so maybe I was unlucky in not finding a game where what you described has happened. I don't think that changes my point about why those maps aren't optimal for the ladder in Blizz's opinion.
Edit: perhaps PM me a couple VODs? I'd certainly be interested in checking them out.
Large maps have never stopped early aggression from being effective. Your example about the 4-gate is particularly incorrect, since the nature of warpgates negates rush distance anyways.
Wouldn't a four gate in particular be more effective on large maps, because it would be harder to counter attack if you held it off?
I say this as a novice player, I genuinely don't know.
More or less, but I think it's more about the fact that Protoss players get a little more leeway in their matchups to play risky(except against other Protoss) on big maps. I don't think it's something we can really theorycraft though and it doesn't appear to create a big imbalance on Metalopolis or Shakuras, for example.
EPT
