EPTPatch 1.2.1 on PTR - Page 8
| Forum Index > Community News and Headlines |
|
imareaver3
United States906 Posts
| ||
|
OmniscientSC2
United States713 Posts
On February 04 2011 13:55 GTR wrote: 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. Python had minerals on the islands, right? o_o I'm really interested to see where the spawn locations are for these maps (if it's possible to not spawn cross positions on TestMap 5). I'd prefer the map 10x more if that were true | ||
|
Yokoblue
Canada594 Posts
Map 1 is lost temple... identical with island expensions no longer island expensions.... Cool add some dept but i like lost temple the way it is now... Dont need that... But i sure would like a map like it. Map 2: Is cool... a bit too many cliff and really easy 3rd for zerg... but it will favor cliff walker too much... reaper and collosus and drop abuse ... dont think its gonna be a good map... Map 3 : Really good map... THe natural is really cool with 2 path and everything. Creep spread to the main will be a key here... just 1-2 creep tumor will do but until then... you got tat split path... Map 4: Wide ramp... Protoss will hate it... + close spawn will be unplayable... Sad since the coolest thing about this map is the duoble destructable rocks between naturals ... which are really cool.. Map 5: I Like the mix 3rd base of close spawn. Rush distance seems okay... THe base are huge.... around 1.5x the base we are use to... Its a good map Overall Map 5 and Map 3 are really good Map 4 will be unplayable for protoss against early rush and too close for zerg too Map 2 will be a pain with harass which i dont think will benefit zerg at all... and map 1 is.. Lost temple but kinda strange... Could work but would like another map instead of temple... same concept but with another map | ||
|
Sephiros
United States24 Posts
| ||
|
Wolf
Korea (South)3290 Posts
| ||
|
Gooey
United States944 Posts
Destructible rocks all over the map? Check. Gold bases in the middle of the map? Check. Expansions being blocked by destructible rocks? Check. Backdoor rocks that make it uncomfortable to play on more than 2 bases? Check. Bases extremely close together? Check. | ||
|
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
Hopefully some of them don't allow close spawns. Also, they need implement the same changes gsl did to no longer allow ramps to be blocked off by bunkers. They also shouldn't be putting gold minerals and tons of rocks on every map. Especially gold minerals. Fuck up the entire flow of the game. | ||
|
TheAngelofDeath
United States2033 Posts
| ||
|
MooseSoup
United States21 Posts
Come on people, seriously. Be happy that Blizzard is making an effort. Not only that, but they threw them up on the PTR first...they might be open to change before they get added to ladder. Ease up people, ease up. | ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On February 04 2011 14:09 MooseSoup wrote: Does this community really have to be so critical and negative about everything? Come on people, seriously. Be happy that Blizzard is making an effort. Not only that, but they threw them up on the PTR first...they might be open to change before they get added to ladder. Ease up people, ease up. Companies dont get graded on effort. | ||
|
Karthane
United States1183 Posts
On February 04 2011 14:08 Bosu wrote: I think most of the GSL maps were actually way too big. Initial impressions of these maps is that they look like great sc2 maps. We'll see how it works in the long run, but I am impressed so far. I really, really think you need to take a closer look. | ||
|
Meteora.GB
Canada2479 Posts
I'd also test the map before judging them too harshly, or see if they are used in the GSL and see how well balanced they are. | ||
|
GameTime
United States222 Posts
| ||
|
ffz
United States490 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 04 2011 14:08 Bosu wrote: I think most of the GSL maps were actually way too big. Initial impressions of these maps is that they look like great sc2 maps. We'll see how it works in the long run, but I am impressed so far. Hopefully some of them don't allow close spawns. Also, they need implement the same changes gsl did to no longer allow ramps to be blocked off by bunkers. They also shouldn't be putting gold minerals and tons of rocks on every map. Especially gold minerals. Fuck up the entire flow of the game. Did you play them? I've had a blast on the GSL maps so far. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50118 Posts
| ||
|
Benjilol
Australia244 Posts
Thatd be a viable arguement if you paid a subscription fee. The maps are an improvement over what we currently have, and as long as they keep supporting the game, this is a (small) step in the right direction! | ||
GTR
51443 Posts
On February 04 2011 14:04 OmniscientSC2 wrote: Python had minerals on the islands, right? o_o I'm really interested to see where the spawn locations are for these maps (if it's possible to not spawn cross positions on TestMap 5). I'd prefer the map 10x more if that were true minerals aren't destructible buildings, as someone mentioned earlier. also neutral creep colonies don't count, as they are low hp and can actually be utilised by zerg. | ||
|
Karthane
United States1183 Posts
On February 04 2011 14:13 BLinD-RawR wrote: of all these I hope only map 5 makes it to the ladder and blizzard decides to add Pawn and Testbug. I really think the modified LT is great. No cliffs, a lot easier to access a 3rd. They pretty much took everyones complaints and responded accordingly. Same can't be said for most of the other maps, sadly. | ||
|
Arcanne
United States1519 Posts
| ||
| ||
