EPTPatch 1.2.1 on PTR - Page 6
| Forum Index > Community News and Headlines |
|
Highways
Australia6105 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
| ||
|
Artisan
United States336 Posts
| ||
|
BrahCJ
Australia659 Posts
On February 04 2011 13:46 Megaliskuu wrote: The game should revolve around the biggest goddamn tourney in the game. At first glance, I only "like" one of these maps, but they all look short and stupid with so many rocks. I disagree. If I were to use my corperate partnership to come up with $80k, to throw a tourney where the map-pool consisted of Fastest Map Possible variations, should all maps be made fastest map possible? With 80k on the table, the elite players WILL compete. This doesn't mean that fastest maps possible are the way the game should go | ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
| ||
|
Arkless
Canada1547 Posts
| ||
|
Onlinejaguar
Australia2823 Posts
| ||
|
Coriolis
United States1152 Posts
| ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
Hrm  I hope they at least have some ideas in mind that they're just not ready to implement in the PTR just yet for whatever reason. | ||
|
SiguR
Canada2039 Posts
On February 04 2011 13:51 Onlinejaguar wrote: These new maps look pretty uninspired. They all look basically the same, small chokes to the main and bigger chokes to the natural all with hard to take 3rd's............ Agreed. Its more of the same. | ||
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
Map 2 i don't like the natural and kinda goes with map 1, 2 rocks to deal with + a ramp. Will make allins specially from toss very strong. Will make fe'ing with toss very hard as well vs zerg. Same thing but to a lesser extent on map 1. I really dislike all the open naturals as well. gsl maps please too | ||
|
hellsan631
United States695 Posts
On February 04 2011 13:39 GTR wrote: too many rocks. also thank you blizzard for further alienating the community and yourselves. I don't know about that. The largest problem with the maps was size, and how close the expansions were to each other (creating a central tension zone, so no large strategic movements are possible) I think that these new maps are much much much better then the current ones, and are a step in the right direction. If you think about it, there were some bw maps with a ton of destructible stuff. I don't necessarily like the amount of rocks, but its interesting none the less. | ||
GTR
51497 Posts
watch yellow vs sonkie game 1 | ||
|
Gorguts
Canada254 Posts
I dont get why they dont make another map without rocks. Everyone likes metalopolis right? well, atleast when its non close positions.. | ||
|
[Eternal]Phoenix
United States333 Posts
GSL maps are way better. Yah, I know I'm "jumping to conclusions" but fuck it I don't need to play on maps to do basic analysis. There aren't even really any new techniques employed on these maps. I'll play em, and maybe one will bypass my pessimism. | ||
|
TekKpriest
308 Posts
But those images are small, so i cant say anything yet about all maps. | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50584 Posts
Game 2,image was uploaded,of course some changes were made to make the map worse. | ||
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
I'll hold off full judgment though since I didn't like xelnaga caverns the first time I saw it | ||
|
GTR
51497 Posts
On February 04 2011 13:53 hellsan631 wrote: I don't know about that. The largest problem with the maps was size, and how close the expansions were to each other (creating a central tension zone, so no large strategic movements are possible) I think that these new maps are much much much better then the current ones, and are a step in the right direction. If you think about it, there were some bw maps with a ton of destructible stuff. I don't necessarily like the amount of rocks, but its interesting none the less. there were destructible stuff in bw maps, but they weren't for blocking expansions, they were used well, like blocking secondary paths and allowing the user an optional building (that can be later destroyed) to narrow the size of their choke. i can't name a bw map that plopped a large, destructible building on top of an expansion. | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On February 04 2011 13:51 Arkless wrote: I am really hoping they don't implement all of these maps. I like a range of size from small to big. Just because you want to macro all the time, doesn't mean the game was intended to be an hour long snooze fest every game. I like the short maps like SOW that force u to play in multiple engagments, instead of one big one and then steamroll ur opponent. I think the level of QQ for every map to big is only from lower level players who aren't scouting properly. Actually, larger maps are more condusive to multiple engagements than small maps, because on small maps it's nearly impossible to come back from losing your army, since you don't have time to remake one. | ||
| ||
