* A special sneak peek at new ladder maps is now available!
* Matchmaking has been updated to better match players queuing with pre-made teams in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 brackets.
Bug Fixes
General
* Fixed an issue where the title of a conversation window was scaling rather than truncating.
* Fixed an issue where the Match History score screen was displaying "Null" for the map info for all games played before Patch 1.2.
* Fixed an issue that would sometimes cause players to be improperly disconnected from a game.
* (Mac) Fixed an issue that would cause the Control key to become stuck when holding Control and minimizing the game window, then going back to the game window and attempting to use Control+1 to create a control group.
Maps
* Fixed an issue with foliage that would die and become visible through the fog of war when a player spawned as zerg.
StarCraft II Editor
* Fixed an issue where copied-and-pasted units were not set to the correct height in-game.
* Fixed an issue where the table view scroll-bar position was reset when switching objects.
* Fixed an issue where secondary sort priorities were not working properly. Model name is now the secondary sort so that models are listed in alphabetical order after being sorted by the mod they are contained in.
As this is a test server, please anticipate uneven game performance, and note that restarts and downtime may occur without warning. We'll provide information regarding extended downtimes, should they occur, in the Public Test forum.
New maps:
On February 04 2011 13:36 Cobbbler wrote: Here are the preview of the 1v1s in ladder.
MOD EDIT: please dont edit your post back until you get your own map links working, thanks.
It's nice to see another patch on the PTR. Although, things like the creep killing flowers fix should just be implemented asap, and not put on the PTR.
WHatttttttttttttttttt New maps?? This must be a troll :DDDD
Time to hop on my broom and fly straight to the mo'fuckin' practice fucka
Edit: actually I won't go check it out, I'll wait for the OP to update with the map previews. The last time I downloaded the patch to the PTS my EU account didn't work for a week, or at least til i fixed it
I'm looking at the maps. They changed Lost Temple, no more cliffs.. the new maps are definitely geared for macro games. I think one of them is an existed map called new anitos or something like that.
On February 04 2011 13:35 Gentso wrote: I'm looking at the maps. They changed Lost Temple, no more cliffs.. the new maps are definitely geared for macro games. I think one of them is an existed map called new anitos or something like that.
While the rocks add interesting dimensions to the game, I feel they may be ab it overdone in these maps. You don't want them to be too pivotal, in that it takes away from the symmetry, mechanics of the foundations of Starcraft.
The GSL will definitely use at least some of these, as will other tournaments, simply because they are on the ladder. Hopefully GSTL maps stay in as well.
I really like these maps. It would be cool if they were GSL maps, but come on.. Who really gives a fuck! We are getting new maps, beggars can't be bastards... As the saying goes.
On February 04 2011 13:40 iCCup.Diamond wrote: I got this when I logged on. I can log onto SCII-1 and it selects my old PTR acct. When I select SCII-2 it is a totally different account...
Editing
Yeah, I got this too. I hope it is an option for a second account/smurf and not just something they are using in the PTR. It keeps all real id friends but not other character code added friends.
Weird trend towards medium rush distances that become super-short when the rocks go down. Map 5 has literally a 3 second rush-distance main to main after the rocks go down. We'll need to play it first, of course, but I can see massive problems like that. Namely, Protoss can 2-base turtle to a deathball, then walk into the Z's main, win the engagement, and then kill all the main, natural, and tech before the Z can remax. Hopefully, that spawn was disabled.
Blizzard had the solution put right in front of them. Everyone agrees the biggest problem in SC2 right now is maps and if Blizzard added the community's competitive maps with a thumbs up choice instead of thumbs down then the game would be infintely better than its current state.
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't know.... Ladder isn't GSL. I don't feel that blizzard should alter the foundations of the game due to an aftermarket tourney, however, in saying that. I would enjoy the GSL more if I knew the maps on a personal level. I don't feel it has to be uniform for the sake of the GSL, more so for the sake of the fans. Whether the GSL only use ladder pool maps, or, ladder pool maps include those used in GSL. Either way, really.
For what its worth - I like the look of the new maps. Fairly easy to defend naturals. In a couple, the thirds look pretty hard to hold without map control, due to close proximities... Am itching to play!
Has anyone taken a look at these maps? Am I the only one who's seeing no third base on the fourth map except for one blocked by rocks?
Some of those maps don't have a reasonable third.
I don't understand why they would do this. Releasing their own maps at this junction is an iffy choice. Releasing their own maps that don't obviously fix the problem with the current maps is a complete blunder, and that's being polite.
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't know.... Ladder isn't GSL. I don't feel that blizzard should alter the foundations of the game due to an aftermarket tourney, however, in saying that. I would enjoy the GSL more if I knew the maps on a personal level. I don't feel it has to be uniform for the sake of the GSL, more so for the sake of the fans. Whether the GSL only use ladder pool maps, or, ladder pool maps include those used in GSL. Either way, really.
For what its worth - I like the look of the new maps. Fairly easy to defend naturals. In a couple, the thirds look pretty hard to hold without map control, due to close proximities... Am itching to play!
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 don't know...these maps actually all look the same based on the preview with minor variations and tilesets...I'll give it a spin but I wish they looked a bit more varied.
Ya... Test map1 is just a more open lost temple? .... where's the inspiration in that? :l I hope the community can one day take part in putting maps in the map pool some day. But I guess it's easier for blizzard's part if they control the map pool.
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't know.... Ladder isn't GSL. I don't feel that blizzard should alter the foundations of the game due to an aftermarket tourney, however, in saying that. I would enjoy the GSL more if I knew the maps on a personal level. I don't feel it has to be uniform for the sake of the GSL, more so for the sake of the fans. Whether the GSL only use ladder pool maps, or, ladder pool maps include those used in GSL. Either way, really.
Well when you consider that performing well on the ladder is a criteria for being selected into the Code A qualifiers then it should be very obvious why a unified map pool is better than a split map pool.
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't know.... Ladder isn't GSL. I don't feel that blizzard should alter the foundations of the game due to an aftermarket tourney, however, in saying that. I would enjoy the GSL more if I knew the maps on a personal level. I don't feel it has to be uniform for the sake of the GSL, more so for the sake of the fans. Whether the GSL only use ladder pool maps, or, ladder pool maps include those used in GSL. Either way, really.
For what its worth - I like the look of the new maps. Fairly easy to defend naturals. In a couple, the thirds look pretty hard to hold without map control, due to close proximities... Am itching to play!
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
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.
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............
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............
Map one LT changed up no islands now? 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
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.
Maps are awful, too many backdoor short pushes, not enough bases, too small, not nearly enough options for attack and expansion patterns.
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.
What are these things.. Test map 3 has steppes of war like rush distances and then a fucked up natural setup. How is that good T.T I'll hold off full judgment though since I didn't like xelnaga caverns the first time I saw it
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.
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.
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.
The only thing I can say to put this in an optimistic light is this:
If Blizzard is giving us access to these maps now, they've probably been working on them for a while. These maps were likely developed before the GSTL maps were announced and Blizzard wants us to see them.
Also, the new GSTL maps haven't been tested much yet, so they probably shouldn't be on the ladder. If they turn out to be well received, then sure add them to the ladder. But for now I think the maps need more testing.
On February 04 2011 13:43 BLinD-RawR wrote: I remember Testmap5 from Blizzcon'08 lol.
Testmap1 looks like the map we played at Blizzcon'07 (I think it was in the map pool in 08/09 as well). I just remember thinking it was the new Lost Temple, but then the beta came out and there was an actual Lost Temple. I wonder which map was made for SC2 first.
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.
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.
And then there is neo arkanoid, which is so silly!
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.
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.
Not completely true, Kespa maps had blocked expos all the time. Most common map ever... Python... lol. Also Grand Line, I'm sure there's more but those are the 2 coming to mind where they blocked expos.
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.
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.
Not completely true, Kespa maps had blocked expos all the time. Most common map ever... Python... lol. Also Grand Line, I'm sure there's more but those are the 2 coming to mind where they blocked expos.
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............
look at test map 2. easy to take third as its guarded and the entrance is facing your base.
On February 04 2011 13:43 BLinD-RawR wrote: I remember Testmap5 from Blizzcon'08 lol.
Are you serious? lol,....
says the guy who promotes the same maps that are 5+ years old. mmk.
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............
just because they are 4 player maps and have roughly the same starting locations != same layouts. they are all varied when you actually look at em.
It seems that Blizzard is not very comfortable with big maps featuring lots of expansions. Not going to speculate but they seem to have a very specific goal regarding ladder experience.
Well once i've taken a closer look i can see that these maps are an improvement from the current ladder pool, but only slightly.
The new LT is definetely an improvement, i dont think anyone can complain. The maps in general are much larger but with that blizzard made some mistakes
The naturals are really far away from the chokes, and also on some of the maps it seems like a third is really hard to take. One of the main things i really like about the GSL maps is that on most of them the third is relatively easy to take. But on some of these blizzard maps your third is completely out of the way.
I'm slightly disappointed that Blizzard didn't bring in the custom maps the GSL is using, but at least it seems like they're trying.
Testmap1: It looks like they're tried to tune down Terran superiority by making the islands accessible by ground and removing the cliffs...although close distance still appears to be fairly brutal. The middle looks quite empty and large, though. Probably good for Terran on close, good for Zerg on cross, bad for Protoss in most situations.
Testmap2: Geared towards midgame timing pushes. The rocks in between close positions should prevent most early Terran tomfoolery, but there just aren't enough viable expansions for the late game.
Testmap 3: I'm really unsure about this map. It looks fantastic for tanks and force-fields, with PFs at the gold being able to give you so much map control. I don't like it. The potential dynamic of it almost reminds me of Jungle Basin.
Testmap4: I hate it, to be frank. It looks like they want people to build their simcity outside the main, and the chokes on close positions look brutal. It also looks *tiny*. Maybe it'll be like Shakuras where certain spawn locations are blocked, but still...and the number of expansions is crazy-small. Ick. Lots of one-base cheese and two-base timing pushes inbound.
Testmap5: Reminds me of a shittier remake of Shakuras or something. Expanding is a hassle no matter where you spawn, and if they allow close spawning, we'll have to deal with even more of that backdoor rocks BS except with closer distances. Joy.
I guess the only one that I really, well, don't dislike is the remake of LT. And it's still horrible. I wonder which maps they'll remove to move these maps in. I'll have to start thinking about my new downvotes.
Has everyone gotten so excited about the new maps that they didn't notice how they changed LT? WHOA, huge changes. Goodbye, tank nonsense! bwhahahahaha!!!
Okay, I tested Map 5--the one with main to main rocks reducing rush distance to ~3 seconds--and I'll confirm that it's possible to spawn in those positions (At least in Versus AI, which I assume would be the same as ladder) It looks like all these maps have viable close positions, then, though no others have been tested.
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.
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
My opinion on the map after actually looking at them in game :
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
Well, all of these maps get the Blizzard seal of approval. They went through their handy dandy checklist of things that make a map officially "Blizzard-like".
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?
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.
IF u can spawn on map 5 next to each other with only the rocks in the way, it is the worst map ever. These maps would only be good if forced far spawns happened, close spawns on any of these just look like a nightmare for any Zerg. And the 3rd bases are miles away from anything else. GG Blizzard, you must rly hate Zerg.
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.
Interesting new map pool. Because its on PTR, these maps may not make it to the ladder if the players do not deem it to be good enough. I'd prefer the GSL maps to be included into the ladder, but that will be up to Blizzard's decision and it is a position that is hard to compromise with, since they have their own ideals to work with.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
I'm liking the look of the new Lost Temple. :D I never did gimmicky Terran things like abusing the cliffs on it, so it's nice to know I also won't get gimmicked in turn. Also noting all the maps are larger in nature, which is awesome. I think I'll hop on the PTR and give these a whirl!
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.
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!
EXACTLY!
You're acting like they're already live! They are currently on the PTR so let's be a little more open, shall we?
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.
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!
Blizzard said they wanted to foster the esports scene, I'd like to hold them to their word. They arent really doing that great of a job though and again, effort doesnt mean much when other map makers can make better maps for free.
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.
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!
EXACTLY!
You're acting like they're already live! They are currently on the PTR so let's be a little more open, shall we?
So we have the option between not having any kind of new maps (if they get removed after the PTR) or having old maps which will probably just be "balanced" by adding a few more rocks here and there? Yeah, I don't see any way this will really end well. There's no way they'll completely revamp a map by enlarging it and changing everything around before the official launch.
I am happy that blizzard is making some kind of effort, but the fact that one of the maps first appeared 3 years ago really annoys me. Now they're just withholding maps so that they can say: "See? We care about you! We're not just after your money!!". I would have preferred that they released all of the maps they had at launch, and then made more. That would have been wonderful.
Yeah remember guys this is the GSL. Hell, the maps aren't even named yet. They might even have many more maps right now being worked on, that may perhaps replace some of the test maps you see right now if they do worse than they expect. Hell, perhaps they don't have backups and will just put in a couple GSL maps so there's a couple large maps too.
It's cool they're making new maps, I was like, WHOA YES FINALLY! When I saw map 1 I was like, ok this is LT, but it's not changed much; mostly just the islands are no longer true islands, so that takes a little of the "terran favored" part out. And there's no cliffs, so that takes out the other part. So, hurray :D It's like LT but "balanced". However the air distances seem really short (were they already like that?) and reaper rush distance looks really short (was it like that already)? But then again reapers aren't used very often anyways.
About Testmap4, um yeah I hope you won't be able to spawn close positions, it looks like... even shorter than Metal close, but I could be wrong. Same with Testmap 5, although there are rocks.
About Testmap 5 2 and 3, it looks like the naturals may be barely far enough that it will require 3 full length creep tumors, but I could be wrong. I don't think needing 3 is a good thing.
I hope Blizzard knows what they're doing, but for now I don't see another Xel'Naga or another Shakuras. But hopefully one of them turns out to be one .
O yea also, it's still possible Blizzard will put in a couple GSL maps. For example, they might keep Metal, Scrap, Xel'Naga, Shakuras, put in 1-2 of these, and then 1-2 GSL maps. May be they'll even put Desert Oasis back in? ^_^
Edit: Hey yeah you're right, the maps are generally indeed bigger! Although Testmap4 close position still looks really close, but I think it's about the same as Metal now that I juxtapose them. And I really think Testmap5's texture pallete (forgot the term for it haha) is really ugly Even worse than Terminus RE's.
I'm just excited to see new maps! We've been playing on blistering and meta since the beta and although the map pool isn't bad always good to see something fresh :D
Well I loaded up the patch and took a good look in game at the maps. To be honest, I'm fairly underwhelmed. All of the Naturals are super far away from the main; this kinda kills forge FE :/ Also it makes 3gate FE really hard, because any forward defending points that allow you protect both your natural and your main are HUGE. Even with FF those spaces are immensely large, I could see speedling all-ins, and Zerg aggression being really effective on theses maps because all of the spaces are wide. I'm all for maps the encourage macro play, but these maps seem ridiculously Zerg favored.
Wow all these maps.... ridiculously horrible. It seems like blizzard wanted to throw around some destructible rocks and make it so there are like no chokes on any map, how is protoss going to deal with zerg and terran that way? Also ridiculously close spawns, how is zerg going to deal with early rushes?
These maps are all horrible and a step in the wrong direction. Blizzard should be following GSL's initiative and use some of their maps and some iccup maps if anything.
Well, from playing in all of them a little, am I the only one getting the feeling that, bar testmap2, they "feel" all the same and that they greatly encourage one basing terrans? That is mostly what I've encountered thus far.
So trying a couple, I only really want the LT mod to take place. I doubt they would sub all these maps in, but if they did, Blizz would ruin the map pool lol, I hope it's Xel naga, Shak, metal, mod LT, and whatever else is up for grabs.
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.
Agreed, I really like the first test map if it's going to be LT 2.0. Though close positions will still be a bitch I think.
Test map 2 looks awful. Rush distance from any base look ridiculously close and two backdoors into your nat is just as bad.
3rd map looks alright. Destructible rocks increasing rush distance seems ok and taking a 3rd seems pretty manageable. The 'chokeyness' (made up words ftw) worries me a bit though.
4th map looks pretty bad. Appears short rush distance whether spawning vertical or horizontal positions and good luck getting a 3rd.
5th map looks pretty good imo. Taking a 3rd in any spawn position seems good and I really like that the middle blue expo has rocks on the ramps and not blocking the base itself. Though the openness of the natural and more backdoor rocks right into the main makes me rage a bit.
On February 04 2011 14:28 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote: Well I loaded up the patch and took a good look in game at the maps. To be honest, I'm fairly underwhelmed. All of the Naturals are super far away from the main; this kinda kills forge FE :/ Also it makes 3gate FE really hard, because any forward defending points that allow you protect both your natural and your main are HUGE. Even with FF those spaces are immensely large, I could see speedling all-ins, and Zerg aggression being really effective on theses maps because all of the spaces are wide. I'm all for maps the encourage macro play, but these maps seem ridiculously Zerg favored.
lol god forbid a map is zerg favored. To be honest it might be a good thing to try them and see how much win %s change if they really are that good for zerg.
All of these maps look to be just LT / metal clones... 4 possible spawns with rush distance different depending on spawns... Come on and get new 1v1 only maps!
Map 5 is the worst piece of shit I have ever seen, the nat is laid out like DQ, But also twice as big as metal. There are rocks that lead to your main. I don't understand why blizzard even tries making maps, they were never good at it.
Just played on the new maps on PTR and I must say, these are sooo much better, it somewhat forces solid play instead of so much all in play, because of the rush distances and the wide open ness of a lot of the maps, They are def. really good for Zerg
I haven't played these maps yet, but I really dont' care how it pans out tbh (I'm Protoss). They look plenty bigger and better than SoW and BS in the current mappool and at the very least, it shows that Blizzard is at least listening to the community and bringing in new maps.
They probably should've used the GSL stuff, but...still. At least we know SC2 won't go the way of War3. Blizzard/Activision is being as awesome as they can be
On February 04 2011 14:28 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote: Well I loaded up the patch and took a good look in game at the maps. To be honest, I'm fairly underwhelmed. All of the Naturals are super far away from the main; this kinda kills forge FE :/ Also it makes 3gate FE really hard, because any forward defending points that allow you protect both your natural and your main are HUGE. Even with FF those spaces are immensely large, I could see speedling all-ins, and Zerg aggression being really effective on theses maps because all of the spaces are wide. I'm all for maps the encourage macro play, but these maps seem ridiculously Zerg favored.
lol god forbid a map is zerg favored. To be honest it might be a good thing to try them and see how much win %s change if they really are that good for zerg.
I think these looks bad for zerg. The only one that looks good to play on is LT 2.0 and the one with no gold expos but lots of expos.
Test Map 1 is alright, not great, it allows you to take a safer 3rd (provided you didn't spawn close positions), other than that your natural can't be dropped like on the current Lost Temple.
Test Map 2 has a lot of potential if you couldn't both spawn top or bottom, don't necessarily need cross positions, if you start top left and your opponent bottom left, the map will be fine. The problem is when you spawn top left and your opponent top right. Anyway, you have a lot of relatively safe expansions, that map will be a macro map imo.
Test map 3 will be a 2 base style map, imo there are far too many rocks, the ramp leading into the natural is WAY too big and unless the map is played cross positions, I really don't see you taking anything other than a 3rd since any other expansions are pretty far.
Test map 4 assuming cross positions only (doesn't look that way based on rock placements), this map can be really good. You can get 3 bases easily with your 4th pretty far, but this looks like a very positional based map and I foresee it having very exciting games, that is of course if the map only allowed cross positions.
Test map 5 HAS to be cross positions otherwise the map will be terrible, with cross positions the map has a lot of potential.
But yeah, Test Map 2 and 4 look the most interesting, Test map 3 looks fairly terrible and Test map 1 is decent, Test map 5 can be up there with 2 and 4 if cross positions are forced.
New LT looks okay, wont pass any judgement till i've played them, but from what i can see they dont look any bigger than the current maps in the pool, and im not sure about the design of some of these, they're all 4 player too...
i really wish blizzard would get off their high horse, and share this game with map makers who actually know what they are doing, imo plz stop trying to do everything blizzard...
On February 04 2011 13:40 iCCup.Diamond wrote: I got this when I logged on. I can log onto SCII-1 and it selects my old PTR acct. When I select SCII-2 it is a totally different account...
I had this as well. But now when i load my normal SC2 ( non PTR) i have those options as well.
At first i was thinking, omg are they giving us 2 accounts now? But i logged in with both and they are the same whereas in PTR they are different.
Anyone knows what does SC2-1 and SC2-2 means in my normal sc2?
On February 04 2011 14:38 KMARTRULES wrote: Either GSL needs to use blizzard maps or blizzard needs to use gsl maps. hard to practice maps when leagues use different maps to ladder
to summarize heres what i see map 1 - lost temple without the natural cliffs and the islands have paths to them with rocks. no obvious favoritism map 3 - natural looks hard to defend with potentially 3 entrances and difficulty adding additional expansions without being very exposed.no obvious favoritism map 2 - basically that one 4v4 map with single bases ofc instead of double and no gold expos. overall a decent map, due to its size, but taking a 3rd could be easier. also natural looks hard to defend. no obvious favoritism map 4 - close positions ridiculously close and map layout is basically tankopolis. terran favored map 5 - a fairly decent map except for the backdoor rocks between mains. this is such a short distance its basically impossible to engage a tank push. 3rd bases very hard to take. slightly terran favored
summary - as znowstorm said: good time to be terran. its good that blizzard is trying to improve their map pool, but the maps are still too small and in general still look like they're designed around "what looks cool" as opposed to "what plays good"
thats just my first impression. im sure as theyre played specifics will emerge that really affect balance and could completely fly in the face of what ive said here
Maps look pretty bad for Protoss, LTv2 has the most open middle, would be hell vs Zerg/Terran. TP5 with 5second rush distance for those two basing Terrans...
Has anyone looked at the Battle.net forums and seen if there are any blue posters talking about it there/people posting about this latest PTR build? Seeing as how, unfortunately, the majority of their feedback is from that godforsaken website.
Does anyone know if there are legal issues if Blizzard were to use the GSL maps, since they aren't created by Blizzard? I wonder why they don't at least add them, too... And give us more options to thumb down. -_-;
On February 04 2011 14:51 SoleSteeler wrote: Does anyone know if there are legal issues if Blizzard were to use the GSL maps, since they aren't created by Blizzard? I wonder why they don't at least add them, too... And give us more options to thumb down. -_-;
On February 04 2011 14:51 SoleSteeler wrote: Does anyone know if there are legal issues if Blizzard were to use the GSL maps, since they aren't created by Blizzard? I wonder why they don't at least add them, too... And give us more options to thumb down. -_-;
According to the EULA, the GSL maps are the sole property of Blizzard entertainment.
SC2 EULA wrote: You understand that the content required to create or modify STARCRAFT® II Modified Maps (as defined below) is included in the STARCRAFT® II game client, and that all such content is owned by Blizzard and governed by this Agreement. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT ALL MAPS, LEVELS AND OTHER CONTENT CREATED OR MODIFIED USING THE MAP EDITOR (COLLECTIVELY, “MODIFIED MAPS”) ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF BLIZZARD. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, YOU HEREBY ASSIGN TO BLIZZARD ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ALL MODIFIED MAPS, AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL EXECUTE FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS PROMPTLY UPON RECEIVING SUCH A REQUEST FROM BLIZZARD.
You can still close spawn, you still have some really short rush distances. Thirds are still difficult to take on 3 of the new maps, maybe 4. Seems like whoever made these maps wasted a few hours of their life.
No matter how good these maps are, it's good blizzard somewhat cares about maps, and puts them in a PTR so that they can see how the balance works out.
New LT looks fantastic. No more cliff, and not so choke heavy. and the island is kind of a logical 3rd for a defensive player. Other maps loook pretty good, will have to play them to get a feel for them in the long run obviously. Much love to blizzard for fixing up our broken pool! And remember everyone this is just a sneak peak according to blizzard so there is a chance we may see some GSL maps included.
On February 04 2011 14:54 Froadac wrote: No matter how good these maps are, it's good blizzard somewhat cares about maps, and puts them in a PTR so that they can see how the balance works out.
I would agree if they were any different from the previous blizzard maps.
My thoughts now that I have had some time to look at them (haven't played).
TestMap1 - Close posistions short rush distance. No accesable 3rd - Close by air Terran can elevator siege tanks. 3rd easily defended - Cross posistions should be fine
TestMap3 - Close positions short rush distance 2/3 of spawns (build barracks and float to 3rd for super close rally if T spawns 11 or 5). 3rd very hard to defend. Gold impossible to defend, maybe with PF. - Cross posistions Terran drops PF on gold and sits army at natural ramp... - Overall Natural looks very hard to defend with 3 possible entrances.
TestMap2 - Seems the best overall, hard to see specifics. Again 3rd is going to be very hard to defend.
TestMap4 - No 3rd except gold...LOL - Natural is WIDE open - Terrible Map
TestMap5 - Close posistions short rush distance. No accesable 3rd - Close by air (shorter rush distance when you take down rocks, I'm thinking reaper opening (1 or 2) to marauders is going to be quite good here) - If there were no rocks in the back (just wall or open air) I think this map is decent in air/cross spots.
A lot of people are neglecting to mention how much wide open spaces these maps have for flanking.
Also, the rush distances on all maps are pretty decent before any rocks are broken down.
I only see a potential problem in map 5 with reapers ignoring the 2 destructable rocks directly to the opponents mineral line, and lifted off barracks from the main to opponents main or in between the destructable rocks.
if you really can spawn in close positions, map 4 is probably the worst map i've seen in my entire life. [when spawning close] 2 sec rush distance, impossible to not ninja a third. all-in play highly appreciated. yay.
* A special sneak peek at new ladder maps is now available!
* Matchmaking has been updated to better match players queuing with pre-made teams in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 brackets.
Bug Fixes
General
* Fixed an issue where the title of a conversation window was scaling rather than truncating.
* Fixed an issue where the Match History score screen was displaying "Null" for the map info for all games played before Patch 1.2.
* Fixed an issue that would sometimes cause players to be improperly disconnected from a game.
* (Mac) Fixed an issue that would cause the Control key to become stuck when holding Control and minimizing the game window, then going back to the game window and attempting to use Control+1 to create a control group.
Maps
* Fixed an issue with foliage that would die and become visible through the fog of war when a player spawned as zerg.
StarCraft II Editor
* Fixed an issue where copied-and-pasted units were not set to the correct height in-game.
* Fixed an issue where the table view scroll-bar position was reset when switching objects.
* Fixed an issue where secondary sort priorities were not working properly. Model name is now the secondary sort so that models are listed in alphabetical order after being sorted by the mod they are contained in.
As this is a test server, please anticipate uneven game performance, and note that restarts and downtime may occur without warning. We'll provide information regarding extended downtimes, should they occur, in the Public Test forum.
Definitely an improvement but i feel like they are to set in their ways when it comes to the layout of expansions, always a natural with a choke and usually far off hard to defend 3rds and onwards.
I changed my mind. Most of these maps have naturals way too open and way too far from ramp. Makes defending bunker rushes outrageously hard. And hellions. And 4gates.
and why the fuck do they still allow bunkers at bottom of ramp. It's bad enough if they get 2 bunkers up in the open.
On February 04 2011 15:15 0neder wrote: WHY DO BLIZZARD AND CUSTOM MAP MAKERS REFUSE TO USE THE DESERT/BADLANDS TILESET A LA DESERT OASIS? WTF!?!?!!?!?
Hey, that's a good point.
And actually, I kind of miss that map. Maybe it's just nostalgia talking though.
1st one looks like Lost temple with smaller area to gold bases and bridges to the two islands have now appeared, and the xelnaga tower and the little cliff by it reversed
Map 3 (2nd one listed, desert tileset) I like because of the rocks and wide ramp at different places around the shelf where the natural expansion is. The initially open wide ramp and set of rocks are close to the main ramp, but there's that 3rd set of rocks close to the expansion too. IMO, the distance favors speedy unit harass like Zerglings and speed roaches, and between that and the wide ramp gives Zerg some decent options for pressuring their opponent early game.
Most of the tighter spots are harder to reach as well, and more importantly, they will put you in a bad position against a strong counterattack. Take for example the low ground below the natural expansion. It looks like a really good place for terran in close positions to siege the natural of any race. But it's also tucked away in the corner, unlike in Steppes of War where that siege position is also really close to the ramp. The little plateaus with a ramp on each side look like nasty places for colossi and siege tanks to work from, but they are just far away enough from the wide ramp that again it appears there will be room to work out counters and flanks, but those hills still provide the shorter distance traveled.
Another of those spots is the Xel'Naga watchtowers. Yes, they look rather useful for sieging a gold expansion with tanks. But as neither the towers nor the gold expansions are on high ground, they favor static defense a little bit less than their Metalopolis counterparts. Without any sort of ramps, the gold bases are even more open than on Metalopolis's, which again helps Zerg just a little.
Just played a couple matches on most of these maps, and they are biiig! TestMap2 is especially HUUGE! It took forever to scout, xD Definitely a macro map.
Lot of these maps have big open spaces too, so good for zerg, but at the same time most naturals are very exposed, hard to cover all the area with spine crawlers.
And maybe it's cause these maps are new, and unknown, but it seemed like there are a lot of good places to put proxies. Need to scout for cheese accordingly, and use them ovies.
On February 04 2011 15:41 FlashIsHigh wrote: I dont have a new patch to DL, im confused
As far as I can tell, it's completely down.
Go to your Starcraft 2 Folder and open the Public Testing Realm. or type in 'Public' into your Search on your comp. The patch will be downloaded through there :O
The choke next to each natural on TestMap4 was a really stupid idea. If you park Siege Tanks, Thors and Missile Turrets there, you can hit the natural (with vision) and the Zerg really can't engage you there.
I find it funny that so many people are saying that Maps 1 and 5 remind them of Python.
I think it's too early to have any discussion about these maps. Until we get a decent number of higher level games on them, I don't think theorycrafting will reveal anything beyond the obvious.
I also find it funny that Blizzard is pulling some maps out of their backroom archive of maps that were premiered during the Alpha builds at previous Blizzcons.
Need to keep in mind that it is just the PTR and many things have changed between a PTR patch and the release of the patch before so hopefully blizzard will make a few changes before releasing the maps!
downloading the ptr now, i like the look of the maps, want to see how big they are in game. the lost temple map with no island and no cliff over the natural looks good.
Cool thanks for sharing those team maps, it's good to know it's not just 1v1 maps that are new.
Also, it is a bit disheartening that apparently all 5? (how many exactly?) were exactly (or not?) the same as some of the maps Blizzard showed in the alpha stages of SC2?
Idk if anyone noticed, testmap5 is basically New Antioch. I would think, like Testmap1, it is a "newer", more "balanced" version than New Antioch as Testmap1 is to Lost Temple, but is it possible this testmap5 is actually like a "downgrade" of New Antioch, pulled from the supposed "backroom archive"?
Anyways, still hoping these turn out well. Xel'Naga looked ugly and crappy at first, but it turned out really well
On February 04 2011 13:23 Deltablazy wrote: * Matchmaking has been updated to better match players queuing with pre-made teams in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 brackets.
Missed this the first time around. Remember all of those threads where people playing 2v2s with random teams were complaining about facing premade teams? Looks like blizzard listened to them and changed it.
Ok. If it reduces the number of pointless threads on TL, I'm all for it.
On February 04 2011 15:55 Mazar wrote: Need to keep in mind that it is just the PTR and many things have changed between a PTR patch and the release of the patch before so hopefully blizzard will make a few changes before releasing the maps!
Remember how long it took them to fix the small rock glitch on Shakuras Plateau? I doubt they'll make any alterations to the maps unless any of them have a major glitch; it's probably fairly low on their list of priorities.
Things to remember: These are test maps. Lots of silly things have been tested and rolled back.
Test Map 1: It's Lost Temple, but better. Let's give Blizzard credit for improving a map. Close positions are still rough in ZvT, but no worse than the old Lost Temple.
Test Map 2: I think this is the best map in the new pool, by far. The third is super-easy, close positions aren't super close, and cross positions will lead to epic macro games. I'm not the world's biggest fan of the natural to natural rocks on vertical spawns, but it's a lot easier for Zerg to deal with than the main to main rocks on Shakuras. If this map replaces Jungle Basin, I think it'll be the best map on the ladder. Too bad it's kind of ugly, though.
Test Map 3: This is kind of strange. I think I kind of see what they were going for here, using rocks to keep the rush distances from being Zerg-favored, because the Terran can't knock them down until the midgame. It's a good concept, and Crevasse does it well, but I'm not a fan of it there. The distance between the main and natural, and the relatively close spawn positions, mean that this map could bring the marine SCV all-in back in style, which worries me. There's totally a third though, I don't know what people are talking about when they say there isn't.
Test Map 4: I don't even understand this. I like the Xelnaga tower in the middle granting you vision of absolutely nothing, though. I have absolutely no idea what they were even thinking with this map. Worst map in the test pool, but at least that means it won't be on ladder.
Test Map 5: It's like Shakuras, but not as good. If you don't spawn in close-by-rocks positions, it's okay, but not great. Zergs are getting better at dealing with the rocks on Shakuras close spots, but it's harder to take more bases while slowing down the attack here, because you need fighting units to kill the rocks. I don't hate rocks in principle, but they really hurt on this map.
Wow, first time I've ever seen Blizzard maps that I like. I love the "Neo" LT!! I play Terran but I don't like cliff oriented tank drops as a strategy early game to go for (although I might abuse a bit lategame ), but I always seem to lose to it in TvT!!
There is already so much crying about the map pool... The players are supposed to adapt to the game and map pool, the game isn't meant to adapt to them.
On February 04 2011 16:04 Kmozar wrote: There is already so much crying about the map pool... The players are supposed to adapt to the game and map pool, the game isn't meant to adapt to them.
You talking about this new map pool?
If you're talking about the old one, they were just simply poor maps, even if we have somewhat "adapted" to the maps, it doesn't mean they are quality or fun to play on!
I'm excited for these new maps, I think while definitely not perfect or even "top notch," they are easily an improvement on the existing map pool, which shows at least Blizzard is learning!
As a heavily, heavily macro oriented T player (I never timing push well because I never go all-in enough with them, I always think "well let's make it slightly more econ oriented play," which causes my timing pushes always to still be a little to weak and not do quite enough damage, and then I'm still behind economically if not all-in. But when you're behind entering the mid-late game as Terran, it's no fun, T can only compete in the lategame riding an advantage . Started out as a Zerg, can't get late game out of my head, I just find it soooo much more fun/crazy/chaotic than early games that end quick, so these maps are receiving my seal of approval for now!
The testmaps are out of order (testmap2 and testmap3) so that's possibly why there is confusion between the maps. Some people may not see the names and realize they are out of order or they are just referring to them in the order they are given. Either way, it's unclear unfortunately
On February 04 2011 16:04 Kmozar wrote: There is already so much crying about the map pool... The players are supposed to adapt to the game and map pool, the game isn't meant to adapt to them.
You talking about this new map pool?
If you're talking about the old one, they were just simply poor maps, even if we have somewhat "adapted" to the maps, it doesn't mean they are quality or fun to play on!
I'm excited for these new maps, I think while definitely not perfect or even "top notch," they are easily an improvement on the existing map pool, which shows at least Blizzard is learning!
Woops, I meant the new pool of maps, I didn't word that too well.
On February 04 2011 16:04 Kmozar wrote: There is already so much crying about the map pool... The players are supposed to adapt to the game and map pool, the game isn't meant to adapt to them.
Oh really????
So Z's were supposed to just adapt to the game rather than the 10 second rush distance on steppes?
Just played toss 3 times in a row on test map 3. Unbelivable the choke is force field heaven.
Weve discussed it to death T late game is shit, only reason they do well is because of early game pushes.
Im not saying T is doomed, just my frist observation after 4 tosses in a row on test map 3.
On February 04 2011 16:04 Kmozar wrote: There is already so much crying about the map pool... The players are supposed to adapt to the game and map pool, the game isn't meant to adapt to them.
You talking about this new map pool?
If you're talking about the old one, they were just simply poor maps, even if we have somewhat "adapted" to the maps, it doesn't mean they are quality or fun to play on!
I'm excited for these new maps, I think while definitely not perfect or even "top notch," they are easily an improvement on the existing map pool, which shows at least Blizzard is learning!
Woops, I meant the new pool of maps, I didn't word that too well.
NP, I assumed that's what you meant actually, just wanted to clarify
On February 04 2011 16:04 Kmozar wrote: There is already so much crying about the map pool... The players are supposed to adapt to the game and map pool, the game isn't meant to adapt to them.
Oh really????
So Z's were supposed to just adapt to the game rather than the 10 second rush distance on steppes?
Just played toss 3 times in a row on test map 3. Unbelivable the choke is force field heaven.
Weve discussed it to death T late game is shit, only reason they do well is because of early game pushes.
Im not saying T is doomed, just my frist observation after 4 tosses in a row on test map 3.
I agree the T lategame is shit if you enter it on even terms, but I truly feel that T can still compete no problem, and the bigger the map, you'd think the more abusable drops would be, right? I'm actually really excited as a T player to get to the lategame more often.
On February 04 2011 16:04 Kmozar wrote: There is already so much crying about the map pool... The players are supposed to adapt to the game and map pool, the game isn't meant to adapt to them.
Oh really????
So Z's were supposed to just adapt to the game rather than the 10 second rush distance on steppes?
Just played toss 3 times in a row on test map 3. Unbelivable the choke is force field heaven.
Weve discussed it to death T late game is shit, only reason they do well is because of early game pushes.
Im not saying T is doomed, just my frist observation after 4 tosses in a row on test map 3.
T lategame being shit is your shit opinion. Just because you have no idea how to do anything other than Hellion/Stim bullshit doesn't mean every T doesn't.
ah the pubstar ladder heros that think they only lose games because maps favor their opponent. Why did I expect people to welcome the change in map pool? I wonder how many of you have played them?
Edit: ive loaded each one up now and I really like testmap 2 alot.
I think the spawn locations might need to be fixed on a couple of the maps though. For instance spawning close posiitons on map 5 makes the xel nagas worthless. Same with map 2 as well. Overall pretty cool, surprised by short rush distances in certain spawns though. Id imagine they would fix the spawns as one rush distance was 25 seconds with a probe, seemed really close.
the only map i dont care for is the space station one with the humongous ramps in the middle. overall a step in the right direction if the spawns are fixed. I think map 2 feels the most balanced... on face value.
On February 04 2011 15:15 0neder wrote: WHY DO BLIZZARD AND CUSTOM MAP MAKERS REFUSE TO USE THE DESERT/BADLANDS TILESET A LA DESERT OASIS? WTF!?!?!!?!?
Because it's an ugly earthtone tileset that isn't clever in anyway. I hope both of those tilesets are somehow erased from the game.
lol the first map looks like lost temple without the ledges by the expansion. It looks like they are making a few more maps which will help zerg. Which is good.
In contrast to the GSL candidate maps. My heart skipped a beat because of the symmetry on these. The first one is lost temple, but with perfect mirroring. The last one seems to follow a similar trend, but theres being played around with different ways to do it, if you look at the edges and the filling. I don't know, maybe I'm just rambling because I'm super psyched, because this is actually a great step in a long process of creating and refining maps. I just hope they will also play around with 1v1 maps, because I'm not the biggest fan of the 2v2 maps. And I don't play 2v2 but I think they aren't that optimal for 2v2 anyway.
Edit: Also "SC2 Public Test server is not available right now. Please check http://www.battle.net/sc2/game/ptr/ for more information." I'm on EU, I really hope we get access to a PTR this time because we didn't get it the last time, and we might just never get it
This the first 1 lost temple without the terran bias???
I like the second one too. The rest are kinda... ok? If these maps replace some of shittier maps on the ladder I'd consider it an improvement. Maps aren't great at first glance. We'll see.
Looking at the maps, I'm happy they made improvements to LT. Other than that I am pretty disappointed. I don't really care to comment about how I feel each map plays out right now because that is being discussed enough by people who are most likely more qualified than me, but what I do want to note is how each map looks like it began as a map they have already created but decided to change it up and make it different. None of them really feel new. I swear map #3 started out as the 4v4 map High Ground and they just changed it up lol. And from what you guys have said they even threw in an old map from beta? This all seams like a lack of effort to me. Everyone should go to the custom map section of this forum and check out all the maps the community has come up with. From how they look and how they play out, they are all pretty unique.
I'm happy Blizz is listening to the community and trying to improve the map pool, but I really can't understand why they don't try out GSL or iCCup maps. There has to be a reason for it. The people that made this game are smart. I'm sure they understand how much thought, time and effort the community has put in to coming up with new maps. They know these maps exists, and most of them are quite good.
My question is, do they just look at them and be like "eh we can do it better", or do they have some policy that any official ladder map that they roll out has to be made by the Blizzard team? These are really the only two reasons I can come up with. I just don't understand
i like all of these maps instead of the third, way to many chokes imo, FFs and siege tanks will rape. i love what blizz did with LT also, removed cliff, add a pathway to island, really great stuff. and i was worried they were never going to make new maps
I like how nearly everyone is being pessimistic off the getgo. I thought Shakuras sucked at first and now I love that map, seriously. Give them a try, play on PTR if you can and don't always approach change so negatively. I think adding new maps, even if they're not perfect, is a great step in the right direction. Who isn't tired of playing Xel'Naga, Metalopolis, etc.? And who doesn't hate Delta Quadrant, Steppes of War, etc.? Always look at the bright side of things! *sings*
I think everyone needs to chill on the "omg they didn't add the gsl maps" thing. GSL hasn't even added the GSL maps yet! If blizzard is going to add them I'm sure they will at least wait until after the first season of CodeA/S to use them.
If Blizzard really want to find out what people think, they'll put these maps and the GSL maps into the pool together and let everyone pick which they want to play using the "thumbs up" system. But I think they won't do the experiment because they don't want to see half the maps wither on the vine.
I like how people are complaining about size and similar when they clearly haven't played on them.
Played a few games on all of them. Faux lost temple is nice, I don't insta-lose to Terran.
map 3 I didn't get a ladder game on, but 3 entrances to expo? eh? It'll be nice cross positions to have a quick entrance to a third, but earlier game I feel like it can be abused a bit more.
map 4 is huge. The middle is so massive. Played a few games on it and there is no way cross positions won't be a macro fest. Rush distance is so long.
map 5. palyed 3-4 matches on it, and never got "close positions". Unless anyone else played it and got those positions and contradicts me, it is a shakuras type 2v2 map where you can't spawn so close.
Wow awesome news indeed! Those maps look awesome. As a fairly casual player anything new is always good, we'll see how it plays out at my lovely gold level
On February 04 2011 17:11 XXXSmOke wrote: So test map 5 has just about the same rush distance as close spawn metal if you spawn close. ermmm derppP??? more auto wins.
Unless you can't spawn close positions like Shakurus. You may want to actually play the maps before taking a side.
On February 04 2011 13:49 loving it wrote: Ya... Test map1 is just a more open lost temple? .... where's the inspiration in that? :l I hope the community can one day take part in putting maps in the map pool some day. But I guess it's easier for blizzard's part if they control the map pool.
It also comes down to blizz using lore in their maps, each blizz map is from one of the planets from the SC universe.... the one like LT is obv on the same planet.... just like shakuras is obv on the same planet as XNC
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
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.
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*
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 ><!
On February 04 2011 18:54 DrGreen wrote: LOLOLOLOL!
Few days ago in GSL or ESL map thread some zerg wrote: "I would be just fine if they removed cliff from LT", hahhahaa wtf? prophet?
or a zerg player
Gonna be real interesting to try out these new maps when the patch comes out, since I dont have a US account. Anyways this is great news regardless of how bad or good the maps are.
im glad blizzard finally changes the maps, but we have to see if they are balanced. remember: once they have shown us xel naga caverns the first time, everyone said it is imbalanced as hell because of 3rd base is cliffable. so, sut w8 and see
I don't really think any of the people posting are qualified to say much with just looking at a map. However I really wish they would just make one giant map with two spawns. Just to see if it would work...
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
Honestly, people need to be more patient. Blizzard maps are moving in the right direction. Yes, they're not perfect yet. It's Blizzard. They're slow. Famous for it, in fact. So we'll use custom maps for now and tough out that the ladder's different. Eventually, with enough pressure, Blizzard maps will be so good that the point will be moot because everyone will want to use their maps anyway.
For now, we'll have major tournaments using Blizzard for half the maps in their pools. Xel'naga Caverns, Scrap Station, Test Map 2, and some customs isn't a bad map pool in the slightest.
It's very important for the ladder maps and GSL maps to reconcile quickly if there is a desync, that said I would rather of had the new GSL maps... These are an improvement at least.
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
No they would rather still use their maps as they are more balanced at the moment.....plus it's easier for them to give feedback to the maps and map issues take much less time to rectify.
They all look pretty samey just from a glance, 4 corner spawns, open middle. Just from a visual standpoint they're pretty bland, but I guess the redone LT might be good, and the others might be ok, will have to wait for the patch I guess.
On February 04 2011 19:02 link0 wrote: I like all the new Blizzard maps. They are so much better than the new GSL maps.
I don't think so.
They even made the maps smaller.
Well that really depends on what you compare these maps to. If there replacing Steppes, DQ, and Blistering Sands then at least we will have bigger maps over all. But I also don't want GSL to change its map pool for these maps. When I saw the GSL maps they looked great, noticeably different then the current map pool and I can't wait to see the games that come out of them.
I just played some games as P and I find it really hard 2 sentry expand. I've only played on 2 maps but one has an alternate path the nat that is easy for zerg to run by and the other is even more open than metal. Good to have some change though.
To me, it looks like they basically tried to recreate Metalopolis as many times as possible. Spawning in close positions on maps 1, 3, 4, and 5 is going to suck just as much as it does to do so on Metal / LT now. I also just think there's a general lack of places to expand on many of the maps. One thing Delta Quadrant did right was give players a bajillion places to put up expansions. On these maps it's pretty much given where your third is going to be. Another common theme is that there's generally no easy fourth base, though this isn't necessarily a very bad thing.
Also, and this isn't really a criticism, destructible rocks fetish much?
Regardless, it's at least a step in the right direction, and putting in new maps will certainly make ladder games more fun in the long run even if there are a couple of duds. I just wish they took more cues from amazing ICCUP maps like Europa that make me think "damn, that's awesome" every time I see it.
The initial impression is that these could be fun ladder maps, but probably not big/open enough to provide entertaining top level games from a spectators point of view
How to enrage a community by Blizzard -level 464 Troll Wizard 1) Step 1: Make a bunch of useless maps with imbalanced spawn positions, too close rush distances, stupid to defend naturals (Desert Oasis) and gimmicky back doors everywhere. 2) Step 2: Force players to ladder on these crap maps with only a few thumbs downs with no communication about when they will be updated for far too long a time. 3) Step 3: Leave to simmer for 6 months...... community gets annoyed and makes own maps. 4) Step 4: Jump in with a whole host of new maps just as gimmicky as the first lot! Problem eSports fans? (sorry, I hate memes usually but that just fits too well)
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
No they would rather still use their maps as they are more balanced at the moment.....plus it's easier for them to give feedback to the maps and map issues take much less time to rectify.
On February 04 2011 19:53 Node wrote: To me, it looks like they basically tried to recreate Metalopolis as many times as possible. Spawning in close positions on maps 1, 3, 4, and 5 is going to suck just as much as it does to do so on Metal / LT now. I also just think there's a general lack of places to expand on many of the maps. One thing Delta Quadrant did right was give players a bajillion places to put up expansions. On these maps it's pretty much given where your third is going to be. Another common theme is that there's generally no easy fourth base, though this isn't necessarily a very bad thing.
Also, and this isn't really a criticism, destructible rocks fetish much?
Regardless, it's at least a step in the right direction, and putting in new maps will certainly make ladder games more fun in the long run even if there are a couple of duds. I just wish they took more cues from amazing ICCUP maps like Europa that make me think "damn, that's awesome" every time I see it.
yeah Europa is one kickass map,but the point is that poeple will always looks at iCCup maps as:
1)too big(false) 2)remakes of BW maps(some are but most of them are original like Europa and Enigma)
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
No they would rather still use their maps as they are more balanced at the moment.....plus it's easier for them to give feedback to the maps and map issues take much less time to rectify.
What is this comment based on?
Gisado's Star Challenge(the tourney that tests these maps).
Race Balance Information (Winning Rate on Gisado Star-Challenge)
Terminus RE P 40% T 50% Z 57% Tal'Darim Altar P 57% T 42% Z 54% Crossfire SE P 54% T 53% Z 40%
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
No they would rather still use their maps as they are more balanced at the moment.....plus it's easier for them to give feedback to the maps and map issues take much less time to rectify.
What is this comment based on?
Based on the fact that GSL maps have been tested by Gisado Star challenge by semi-pros and has been adjusted.
GSL also have dismissed couple maps and has been very careful about picking from the new Gisado map pool.
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
No they would rather still use their maps as they are more balanced at the moment.....plus it's easier for them to give feedback to the maps and map issues take much less time to rectify.
What is this comment based on?
Based on the fact that GSL maps have been tested by Gisado Star challenge by semi-pros and has been adjusted.
GSL also have dismissed couple maps and has been very careful about picking from the new Gisado map pool.
They are still just maps that happened to be available and looked decent enough and not maps specifically designed for GSL or likely high level play. Furthermore, the vast majority of Gisado games played on the new maps were pretty low quality and offered little to no data in terms of balance. They may or may not be balanced, but I certainly wouldn't try to assert they are "more balanced".
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
No they would rather still use their maps as they are more balanced at the moment.....plus it's easier for them to give feedback to the maps and map issues take much less time to rectify.
What is this comment based on?
Based on the fact that GSL maps have been tested by Gisado Star challenge by semi-pros and has been adjusted.
GSL also have dismissed couple maps and has been very careful about picking from the new Gisado map pool.
They are still just maps that happened to be available and looked decent enough and not maps specifically designed for GSL or likely high level play. Furthermore, the vast majority of Gisado games played on the new maps were pretty low quality and offered little to no data in terms of balance. They may or may not be balanced, but I certainly wouldn't try to assert they are "more balanced".
Gisado maps were made by people @ playxp specifically for competitive play. They are "not just some random maps".
I watch gisado regularly and there has been some very high level games. Sure, there are bad games, but so does GSL. Also, real pros have played on the show before, like oGsMC.
Gisado also tend to have much less all-in shenanigans thanks to its larger rush distance as well as safe expansions. They constantly update the map as well, like when they made the ramps to main larger so Terran couldn't block it with 2 bunkers, but then realized Protoss were having trouble defending with Forcefield. Now the maps have neutral burrowed depot at the ramp to address both issues.
If Blizzard spends this kind of time in the PTR adjusting even the smallest aspect of these maps, sure. But knowing their track record on maps, I'm more inclined to believe Gisado maps would generate more balanced and interesting gameplay on high level play.
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
No they would rather still use their maps as they are more balanced at the moment.....plus it's easier for them to give feedback to the maps and map issues take much less time to rectify.
What is this comment based on?
Based on the fact that GSL maps have been tested by Gisado Star challenge by semi-pros and has been adjusted.
GSL also have dismissed couple maps and has been very careful about picking from the new Gisado map pool.
They are still just maps that happened to be available and looked decent enough and not maps specifically designed for GSL or likely high level play. Furthermore, the vast majority of Gisado games played on the new maps were pretty low quality and offered little to no data in terms of balance. They may or may not be balanced, but I certainly wouldn't try to assert they are "more balanced".
the quality of the games is definitely not low(or high for that matter)but the games played on these maps are generally being played out into a later stage of the game where the game gets more skill based rather than build order oriented play.
I don't think blizzard will ever add maps to the ladder mappool they didn't design themselves. That's just not how they work. About the new maps: I'm not instantly gonna say they will be bad cause I can't test them, but they seem to extremely favor siege tank play and the map with the double ramp (Testmap 3) is a joke.
Hey does anyone else not think that Testmap1 looks a lot like python? There's no corner/island expos between bases on this one though, and the golds are obviously placed different too. If the gold expo was moved to the isolated expos on python, this would be nearly a spitting image of it (well without trying to make it the same).
It looks pretty great to me, although I didn't really analyze it much.
Doesn't look like SC1 lost temple, but I guess it does look a bit like SC2 lost temple.
On February 04 2011 20:17 Jakkerr wrote: I don't think blizzard will ever add maps to the ladder mappool they didn't design themselves. That's just not how they work. About the new maps: I'm not instantly gonna say they will be bad cause I can't test them, but they seem to extremely favor siege tank play and the map with the double ramp (Testmap 3) is a joke.
It's amazing how every single map since the beginning of time has had someone say "this is good for siege tanks". Even BroodWar maps people would go, this is good for tanks, this cliff is good for tanks etc.. Quite often the maps turned out to be bad for Terran. I think we should call this "Edmund's Law".
(I'm not saying you're wrong by the way, it might be good for tanks!)
I've been looking at the first map a ton on the PTR right now.
(And someone please correct me if im wrong here)
At the far spots where islands used to be on Lost Temple. Those expansions only have 7 mineral patches each, is there any other expo that only has 7 for blue minerals? Every other expo on the map has 8 mineral patches.
On February 04 2011 20:29 Xapti wrote: Hey does anyone else not think that Testmap1 looks a lot like python?
It looks pretty great to me, although I didn't really analyze it much. I'm a bit suprized people are saying it's like lost temple (at least SC1 LT) cause it's quite different.
Well, it's obviously an edited LT and would almost certainly replace it
Somehow this discussion reminds me about all the shakuras plateau flaming that occured when that map was added to the ladder pool... Everyone hated it, now most people favour it...
I'll just sit back and wait how the maps play out. As a Zerg player i see a lot of nice options on each of those maps.
Demanding blizzard to implement user made maps to their product is like sending suggestions to a tv-show because you don't like the direction of the plot. Granted, a game as well as a tv-show both need people to succeed and blizzard may have not been the most receptive to community feedback in the near past, but this is a step forward. Four starting positions and no maps like steppes, is a definate improvement, after all these are just testmaps.
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
No they would rather still use their maps as they are more balanced at the moment.....plus it's easier for them to give feedback to the maps and map issues take much less time to rectify.
What is this comment based on?
Based on the fact that GSL maps have been tested by Gisado Star challenge by semi-pros and has been adjusted.
GSL also have dismissed couple maps and has been very careful about picking from the new Gisado map pool.
They are still just maps that happened to be available and looked decent enough and not maps specifically designed for GSL or likely high level play. Furthermore, the vast majority of Gisado games played on the new maps were pretty low quality and offered little to no data in terms of balance. They may or may not be balanced, but I certainly wouldn't try to assert they are "more balanced".
They probably are more balanced, but until we see some really high-level games, I don't think we state they are as a matter of scientific fact.
On February 04 2011 20:43 Morfildur wrote: Somehow this discussion reminds me about all the shakuras plateau flaming that occured when that map was added to the ladder pool... Everyone hated it, now most people favour it...
I'll just sit back and wait how the maps play out. As a Zerg player i see a lot of nice options on each of those maps.
That thread was great. True, people didn't know about the wacky spawning rules, but they were saying it sucked generally in all positions.
While Jungle Basin turned out to be a bad map, it wasn't because nukes were OP on it like TL was saying at the time.
A lot of people just hate these maps cause they're not GSL maps/"Actiblizzard" is inherently evil. Test Map 2 is going to be really popular once people start playing on it, I think because it's actually really good. At least, I think it is. Data will say for sure :D
At first i felt just like most users here, dissapointet. But i thinkt overall that many of them are much much better as junglebasin/steppes... so it is an improvment. They are not fancy like testbugthat is kinda sad. Overall i feel blizzards want to test 4player maps and not all of them will make it to the ladder pool. Probably 2-3 of them. First of all i'm glad blizzard acts (!) and is trying to do better maps, but i feel they rushed themselfs because gom/esl starting to use other maps and they don't want to learn from those mapmakers. This is the point which confuses me the most. Why don't they just copy testbug/gsl-maps and add a few of their maps? I mean blizzard always said that every map is their property...
These maps are actually NOT BAD. I dislike how so many armchair-commanders try to be all clever and sc2 wise while explaining how shitty the new maps are.
I mean, testmap1 is basically lost temple - without the cliff at the natural - island expos are now easier to reach (no islands anymore) - much more space in the center
So, from a non terran point of view the new lt is actually much better. Zergs gonna love this map. You can get your 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even your 5th base in one single corner of the map, connect them all with creep in a matter of minutes while having a lot of space for surrounding and run by's in the center.
Its basically the same with all other maps: What map will be replaced?
Imagine steppes of war, junglin basin, blistering sands and lost temple being replaced with these 4 new maps. That would be a huge step in the right direction.
Of course it would be an epic fail if they replace some of the bigger and better maps. But we dont know that yet. Its too early to judge anything.
First of all im guessing 95% of the ppl moaning and whining about how the maps suck more then a clogged toilet that has just been fixed, havent even played one of the maps. 2. 95% of the posts are ppl bitching and moaning about how the maps suck... which leads me to believe that ppl are just mindlessly posting the first thing that comes to mind or restating something they heard from a VOD/stream rather then giving their own personal opinion after playing the maps. 3. By asking for maps that are 'balanced' (removing cliff, easier to take naturals, etc.) might win you more games, but in the long run it babies your ability to play, which would actually make you an inferior player, which is the complete opposite of what i want. ( if you can cut the map in half and get two/four identical parts, i see that as true balance, how could it really be any more complex then that.)
Play these maps and give some constructive criticism or just man up and be thankful for new content. who knows maybe someone from blizzard will actually skim though these forums one day and take some suggestions into consideration, rather then looking through the first couple of pages to see that this topic is more worthless then trash.
I played on testmap3 as terren against zerg ( i was top right, he was top left) . the game ended when i sieged up near the gold and managed to take out the enemies expo and then slowly pushed with my tanks up to his natural. I noticed that having control of the middle gold area gave me a bigger benefit then most other maps (aka babying, because controlling the center of the map is obviously a great thing, but having a gold and 2 xel towers there makes it really awesome)
one last point id like to make, man up. back in BW days ppl didnt have the luxury to publicize all there complaints and look like abunch of girly-men.
One of the things I hope the patch resolves is the team matching.
I hate losing points, stating "you were favored' then checking the team to see that they were a premade diamond/plat group. (being a team random plat myself.)
Hopefully they make some adjustments to the maps. But at least blizzard is aware of the problem with the game and making some sort of an effort to fix it.
i dont really think these maps are better. the new lost temple is good and the 2nd and 3rd map look decent, but the 4th and 5th look, well well se. but i really hope blizzard does not take out some good maps like xel naga caverns and shakuras... please blizzard let some folks from the community fo the work 4 u. they do it better!
On February 04 2011 21:06 Babaganoush wrote: One of the things I hope the patch resolves are the team matching.
I hate losing points, stating "you were favored' then checking the team to see that they were a premade diamond/plat group. (being a team random plat myself.)
yeah i dont get that stuff either, i play with some bronze guy who fortifies his bunkers and has an army of 5 marines and 3 reapers after 10mins, vs 2 diamonds, and we are "slightly favored".
- map 1 seems like a teaked lt to me. but that's not bad at all. - i like the different levels of map3... seems interesting. - map2 seems hard for zerg? dunno...
the other two are prettty solid it seems. looking forward to play those
On February 04 2011 21:06 Babaganoush wrote: One of the things I hope the patch resolves is the team matching.
I hate losing points, stating "you were favored' then checking the team to see that they were a premade diamond/plat group. (being a team random plat myself.)
Sometimes I really hate you people... Stop shitting all over everything Blizzard does. Seriously. It was pretty obvious that they wouldn't just take some user made maps and implement them to their ladder to begin with, so at least they're trying to react to the demands of new maps and put some new maps onto the PTR (THE FUCKING PTR!)... A place to test the maps without them having a influence on your beloved ladderrating. And all people do is: "Oh herpa derp, Mr. Blizzard. I saw those screenshots of your maps and I have to say that you and your maps totally suck. MEH!"
On February 04 2011 21:06 Babaganoush wrote: One of the things I hope the patch resolves is the team matching.
I hate losing points, stating "you were favored' then checking the team to see that they were a premade diamond/plat group. (being a team random plat myself.)
Why that one particularly? It's probably the best of the new maps, I think. Easy 3rd. Lots of bases. Close positions are still a decent distance.
Too many narrow path ways...
I only "like" map 1 & 3 so far. I think map 4&5 are reaaaaaaaally bad. But I have to play on them first :D Which I cant besides custom games I want PTR on EU
Just look at the rocks beetwen your nat and your oponnents on close spawn and I dont really know where to expand afterwards ... + Show Spoiler [Test Map 4] +
The problem is that they all have a bad natural (except the map 1 since it is lost temple without cliff), and the natural layout is the basic of map-making. And they are not able to do good naturals in each map, this is why they are already hated.
Can't wait to try these maps out, and I'm glad Blizzard has worked in some very interesting and some quite LARGE maps in the map pool! I'm sure that after some time to settle, the general consensus of the quality of each map will settle.
Only after extensive playing by amateurs and pros should anyone even attempt to judge these maps.
Who knows, maybe we'll see some abusive strategies, maybe we'll see some new ones. All I can say now is thanks to Blizzard and express my excitement at the prospect of a shifting metagame.
First impression is : horrible naturals, dear protosses have fun defending vs zerg. Modified LT seems ok but WHY did they widen the choke ? All those maps seem ridiculously zerg favored to me just because those naturals are terribly wide opened.
My opinion of the preview of the new maps: 1. Improved version of Lost Temple, I approve. 2. Too cramped and too small. Everyone is shouting for bigger maps, and this one is going on the wrong direction. Also, the Natural has a wide ramp and 3 possible entrances..I don't see how this is going to turn out to anything but onebasing play. 3. I love this map. Even though there aren't many open areas, the size of the map makes up for it. The style of the map is completely new (meaning that it doesn't look like any previous blizzard map), and thus its going to be hard to tell how its going to be played out without actually having played it. 4. Where the hell do you take your third on this one? 5. This one also excites me. Blizzard is surely testing a variety of things on these new maps, and this one seems to be "Expoes are spread around the edges of the map only". This is one of the maps I'm most looking forward to play, even if it ends up in favor of one of the races.
Now that I have given my opinion, like 50 other people in this thread, I should also note that I am not against any of the maps, even the ones I dislike. I love that blizzard is trying new things out, especially on the PTR realm. I only have one favor ask...please let us in EU play on it too?
I wish I could give a virtual e-slap to some of you whining bitches. As its been mentioned, these maps aren't even on the regular server yet, NOT TO MENTION PTR. I think it's a sign of goodwill from Blizzard to be implementing these maps and them showing our whiny asses that they are taking a proactive stance with all the dissatisfaction from the player base, and I for one am grateful.
Seriously guys, chill the fuck out, smoke a bowl, play some sc2 on NEW maps, and keep your shit in your pants until AFTER you've played the maps YOURSELVES. I remember when shakuras plateau first came out it was you same idiots that flamed that map too (which ended up being one of the better maps in our current map pool!).
I don't really care if the maps are good or bad right now.
(I can only tell that new Lost Temple looks awesome, cause that cliff was ridiculous and many of us can tell that from hundreds games worth of experience with LT, not like with any other maps, so stop whinning about maps you haven't even played yet people)
It's just awesome that it'll bring some variation and first step to faster map rotation, because playing 6 maps over and over again is just not what I expect from RTS like starcraft.
Too bad there's not PTR for Europe but I'm so looking forward to every one of them being implemented and maybe a little changed thumb down / thumb up system.
I don't see a problem with people complaining about the maps, there is something called constructive criticism and feedback. Anyway, if some of those maps are implemented they better increase the number of possible banned maps.
1) That most of these maps still are 1 base allin slugfests 2) that most maps are reported to be broken in some way 3) It will take prolly a month for Blizzard to actually release these to the normal map pool and unless they drastically change them the new maps won't really change the current state of the game.
'new LT'-close posi sucks even more than before, because there is no tower so its harder to get a glimpse at the unit composition of the aggressor. But of course the cliffs sucked a lot, glad they are removed.
I think implementing these maps is a step in the right direction, regardless of whether or not they're 'good.' It shows that they're listening to the community and are willing to change, which is good. Don't judge the maps before you've played on them multiple times, it makes you look ignorant.
All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okey becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak behind the backdoor rocks of everyfucking expansion.
TL.DR:
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.
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okei becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak.
TL.DR:
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.
For test map 1, they should keep the cliff change (and the island expo change) but revert the centre to the old lost temple, the middle area in this new map seems too wide open, and it doesn't help that the one xel naga shows the entire center of the map (besides the side paths)
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okey becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak behind the backdoor rocks of everyfucking expansion.
TL.DR:
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.
most of the new maps have only one xelnaga tower, some two. but i guess 43572942 comes pretty close to that.
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okei becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak.
TL.DR:
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.
So freaking good that it needs to be quoted.
It's actually a pretty bad post. Embodies the typical sense of entitlement that is so prevalent these days.
They all appear to be worse than what the community could make given the chance to see our maps on the ladder. They all have some huge flaw from the getgo unless they are far positions only like Shakuras.
I feel like once again it's a case of Blizzard giving us a half assed effort at pleasing us that we'd be ungrateful not to atleast be somewhat thankful for, but so much more could be done than churning out a handful of fundamentally questionable maps and saying "see we're listening!"
Everyone hated Shakuras just from looking at it. Read some of the Crap said in that thread. Know Shakuras is one of the Favorite maps. Also remember the H8 on Xelnaga Caverns for having an open natural and a backdoor to the natural.
People are stupid and like to join the huge bandwagon of Hate without any credible justification.
On February 04 2011 20:43 Morfildur wrote: Somehow this discussion reminds me about all the shakuras plateau flaming that occured when that map was added to the ladder pool... Everyone hated it, now most people favour it...
I'll just sit back and wait how the maps play out. As a Zerg player i see a lot of nice options on each of those maps.
This.
These maps are a million times better than steppes, delta quadrant or blistering sands.
People flame Blizzard for the sake of doing it, it's like whatever they do, the reaction is always the same.
Xelnaga still has an open natural and most people still only like Shakuras in absolute cross position. And most of the hate came from when we didn't know you couldn't spawn close position, which is still a ghetto solution to making a 2v2 map into a 1v1 and doesn't make the map good from a technical perspective
On February 04 2011 20:43 Morfildur wrote: Somehow this discussion reminds me about all the shakuras plateau flaming that occured when that map was added to the ladder pool... Everyone hated it, now most people favour it...
I'll just sit back and wait how the maps play out. As a Zerg player i see a lot of nice options on each of those maps.
This.
These maps are a million times better than steppes, delta quadrant or blistering sands.
People flame Blizzard for the sake of doing it, it's like whatever they do, the reaction is always the same.
because the maps for sc2 have been very sub par and in some cases terrible.
Also just compare Kespa map making to Blizz map making, and the fact it's not hard for them to get good maps
It's like saying "THANKS BLIZZ OMG YAY CHAT CHANNELS" shit is stupid, blizz is pretty quickly swirling down a porcelain bowl. Yes, you go say thanks for the fact they spent 10 minutes and threw together some poor maps that didn't address any of the complaints.
Most of the people complaining have played destination, python, tau cross, longinus, etc and know what a decent map is. The maps blizzard is making are terrible, uncreative, and will lead to bad games.
They should just give up and copy GSL / user maps.
It's painfully obvious all the talent/passion has left blizzard to arenanet / firefall guys / etc.
Everyone hated Shakuras just from looking at it. Read some of the Crap said in that thread. Know Shakuras is one of the Favorite maps. Also remember the H8 on Xelnaga Caverns for having an open natural and a backdoor to the natural.
People are stupid and like to join the huge bandwagon of Hate without any credible justification.
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okey becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak behind the backdoor rocks of everyfucking expansion.
TL.DR:
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.
Obviously because Blizzard thinks this is the correct move. People are crying for SC1-ish maps on TL, but if you haven't noticed already, Blizzard is catering to the casual gamers. Having casuals play 30 minutes+ games is something they're trying to avoid. They want matches to be short so that they can quickly win and get 12412 points from the bonus pool and get ranked #1 on their division. That'll make 'em stick around.
Adding these maps is obviously an attempt to compromise. I still think they're leaning a lot more towards the casuals, but hey, at least they're trying.
Everyone hated Shakuras just from looking at it. Read some of the Crap said in that thread. Know Shakuras is one of the Favorite maps. Also remember the H8 on Xelnaga Caverns for having an open natural and a backdoor to the natural.
People are stupid and like to join the huge bandwagon of Hate without any credible justification.
you are damn right.
just an fyi, shakuras has been in SC2 since beta. It's always been a 2v2 map though they just quickly put it on the 1v1 ladder (instead of putting any effort into 1v1 maps).
Another thing to note is that when reapers where actually good, shakuras had really uneven cliff patterns on the backside of each main by the destructible rocks.
The only reason shakuras turned out okay was most likely an accident as they simply ported a 2v2 map which disallowed close spawn positions. I'm pretty sure blizzard probably didn't even know the close spawn positions was disallowed.
Well, if they think this is an improvement or what we need then.. they are totally wrong. These maps are a joke.
Natural design just sucks (far away, open, backdoors), thirds are mostly non-existent, close position is terrible (hope they remove that at least).
I can only see map 2 working decently in all positions, all the other maps will at least suck in close position, except for map 4 which just will never ever work cause there is no third! Seriously, how blind is Blizzard?!
Now that GSL and ESL started to use custom maps, I can look back and say that I'm actually glad that Blizzard made all these terrible maps like Steppes, Incineration Zone, Jungle Basin, Delta and so on, so we could see and learn from them what does NOT work.
But please Blizzard, just admit that you for the most part just suck at mapmaking. Making a good map occasionally is no excuse. Especially when you are soo slow to react and in the end we don't really get what we want anyway (and you never explain your decisions!).
I only really want you to change Meta and LT so that you can't spawn close. Then please stop making 1v1 maps for ladder forever. Instead get a system in place so we can play GSL/iCCup maps. Preferably add them to ladder and change the veto system accordingly (+hint+ listen to the last State of the Game) or make custom map hosting not totally stupid and useless (great idea that some random silver league player can get into my game when I try to play iCCup Testbug and the countdown starts immediatly. Game will be a lot of fun this way, right Blizz?!).
Even better: Hire the iCCup Mapmaking Team now. I'm sure they are not that expensive (they would work for you for free if you'd use their maps, I'm sure ).
You all forget that Blizzard is a developer that has multiple projects in development and under maintenance at the same time. It is very likely that most of the Starcraft 2 team has been reallocated to working on Diablo 3, WoW, and that Titan project.
Activision Blizzard will never hire the iCCup Map making team. It is their policy to leave tournament planning and map-making up to the community. They will not push E-Sports actively. They will only encourage it.
I tested the new lost temple. I like it. I like the open middle. I like the back routes through the destructible rocks towards the golds. Both of the naturals connect to them, so it sort of makes for a Shakuras like game (when you spawn on left/right positions on Shakuras).
It definitely feels more comfortable without the cliffs (I'm a zerg).
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okei becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak.
TL.DR:
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.
So freaking good that it needs to be quoted.
It's actually a pretty bad post. Embodies the typical entitlement that is so prevalent these days.
I agree I don't see why people feel that raging on Internet forums will go anywhere. Wouldn't Blizzard be more open to listening if people made posts that did not include a bunch of insults?
If nothing else, these maps are far superior to the likes of Steppes, Jungle Basin, Blistering Sands and Delta Quadrant.
1. The changes to Lost Temple's expansions seems great, but I question the decision to change the middle. I'm not so sure it was completely necessary. I kind of enjoyed having the Xelnagas serve as a wall against an opponent that wasn't in the close position. But as a Zerg, it's not like I'm going to start complaining about more open space.
2. This one is eerily similar to Kulas Ravine in that the attack paths are all narrow as hell. "HERE HAVE AN EASY THIRD, THAT'LL MAKE UP FOR IT." But I suppose it could be a fun match to watch for other MUs.
3. Rocks are completely unnecessary and there's a bit too much ground to cover from the main to the natural, but it's tucked in nicely and there's a second ramp you can defend from. Overall, it seems like a decent map. The fighting spaces don't seem too big or too small.
4. So basically, they took the middle part of Steppes, copied it, and stuck them together and called it a map. Good luck taking thirds here. I sure hope you can't spawn close position.
The natural at map 2 (the desert one) looks undefendable like on Delta. So I have to push creep all the way to the forward ramp just to able to stop a sentry from forcefielding my ramp?
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okei becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak.
TL.DR:
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.
So freaking good that it needs to be quoted.
It's actually a pretty bad post. Embodies the typical entitlement that is so prevalent these days.
I agree I don't see why people feel that raging on Internet forums will go anywhere. Wouldn't Blizzard be more open to listening if people made posts that did not include a bunch of insults?
So you think it never happened? There was a thread in the battle.net forums by some iccup guy (don't remember who exactly opened it). He explained in a mannered way why the current situation of the maps is just bad, but there wasn't ever a blue post. People probably tried to tell Blizzard that their maps suck in a polite way not only once, but it seems that Blizzard doesn't care.
Remove all the terran maps but keep shakuras xpositions, scrapped balance and macrololpolice xpositions.. Well, zerg only won half the GSLs ^^ Make them win all!!!
On February 04 2011 23:53 Healingproof wrote: Remove all the terran maps but keep shakuras xpositions, scrapped balance and macrololpolice xpositions.. Well, zerg only won half the GSLs ^^ Make them win all!!!
Patch 1.2.2
-Terran Race Removed from the Game.
@predy:GSL is pretty confident with their map pool so I doubt they would change it unless Blizzard decides to completely delete their current map pool.
On February 04 2011 23:49 PredY wrote: crap, so what's gsl gonna do? they just picked new maps and then this happens.. also esl the same thing.
I hope both GOMTV and ESL will not be like "oh great, now we have an excuse to use shitty Blizzard maps again, since they are new" but instead go on using custom maps. They (and we) have to realize that we can't wait for Blizzard to start making good maps. If we rely on Blizzard to do stuff, we will only be disappointed. We have to do it ourselves (and Blizzard even said so).
Would just be cool if Blizzard would help us with some things (alternative to the ladder).
On February 04 2011 23:49 PredY wrote: crap, so what's gsl gonna do? they just picked new maps and then this happens.. also esl the same thing.
I hope both GOMTV and ESL will not be like "oh great, now we have an excuse to use shitty Blizzard maps again, since they are new" but instead go on using custom maps. They (and we) have to realize that we can't wait for Blizzard to start making good maps. If we rely on Blizzard to do stuff, we will only be disappointed. We have to do it ourselves (and Blizzard even said so).
Would just be cool if Blizzard would help us with some things (alternative to the ladder).
If GOM ditches the new maps they made for these ones I Won't be watching any more GSL tournaments until the fixed it back.
On February 04 2011 23:49 PredY wrote: crap, so what's gsl gonna do? they just picked new maps and then this happens.. also esl the same thing.
I hope both GOMTV and ESL will not be like "oh great, now we have an excuse to use shitty Blizzard maps again, since they are new" but instead go on using custom maps. They (and we) have to realize that we can't wait for Blizzard to start making good maps. If we rely on Blizzard to do stuff, we will only be disappointed. We have to do it ourselves (and Blizzard even said so).
Would just be cool if Blizzard would help us with some things (alternative to the ladder).
If GOM ditches the new maps they made for these ones I Won't be watching any more GSL tournaments until the fixed it back.
I forsee a troubled future for GOM and their GSL Map Pool.
Unless Blizzard decides to let GOM do what they want to please the fans.
While I am not a 10+ year BW veteran like most people here, I find these new maps satisfying. They seem very dynamic, and I can't really find any complaints. Well, as a protoss I don't like open spaces, so the old, more cramped maps were better for me, but otherwise these new maps look fun.
Here's a couple of complaints people have had: -"Close spawns are so close" - well, for tournament play it's easy to change the maps to not allow close spawns, Shakuras style, and it wouldn't change pretty much anything. As for ladder gaming...well, perhaps it's my protoss bias, but I have never found close positions annoying. If your race (namely Zerg) has problems with close spawns, I count it as problem with your race, not the map(s).
-"I hate rock backdoors" - only one of the new maps has them. Other rocks are next to naturals, which I can accept. Another option would be to just take out the rocks and leave an empty corridor there. Is that better? Or perhaps we should leave so there is only one choke and one choke only to both your main and natural?
So all in all, I find these maps good. However it may just be because my race Protoss are cheesmasters of this game, and distances are irrevelant to us. I don't do cheese, just pointing out that we have no trouble dealing with that kind of things. Even at short distances.
On February 04 2011 23:53 Healingproof wrote: Remove all the terran maps but keep shakuras xpositions, scrapped balance and macrololpolice xpositions.. Well, zerg only won half the GSLs ^^ Make them win all!!!
Posts like this are completely ignorant. Just because they are macro maps does not automatically make them Zerg favored. Just because YOU have been one basing every game doesn't mean the rest of the terrans haven't figured out how to play the game. Look at statistics on Shakuras and Metalopolis. I assure you they are not heavily skewed towards Zergs. I know a lot of Terran players who actually enjoy macro maps.
There also seems to be a lot of people chiming in and yelling "LOLSUCKS BLIZZARD LAWL" without any justification for their claims. Are they just trying to inflate their post counts or is this some bandwagon effect?
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
No they would rather still use their maps as they are more balanced at the moment.....plus it's easier for them to give feedback to the maps and map issues take much less time to rectify.
What is this comment based on?
Based on the fact that GSL maps have been tested by Gisado Star challenge by semi-pros and has been adjusted.
GSL also have dismissed couple maps and has been very careful about picking from the new Gisado map pool.
I've seen and tested the GSL maps. Quite terrible imo and I give a lot more respect to blizzards mapmaking then the custom makers while this is only my opinion I think it's shared by many others.
Custom makers use all kinds of things like rocks to block xel naga, expands with high gas / no gas and other features that is very premature.
Brood war had those things added when the game was pretty much figured out and to start using gimmicks for maps now is so bad.
So what if they test the map in Gisado Star challange? Blizzard is testing their maps on the test server so I don't see any issues?
Having maps being split across leagues and not being playable on the ladder is not a good thing, it's particularly wrong when blizzard is obviously eyeballing the map issue.
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okei becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak.
TL.DR:
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.
So freaking good that it needs to be quoted.
It's actually a pretty bad post. Embodies the typical entitlement that is so prevalent these days.
I agree I don't see why people feel that raging on Internet forums will go anywhere. Wouldn't Blizzard be more open to listening if people made posts that did not include a bunch of insults?
Nothing really seems to work, Blizzard just kinda marches to the beat of their own drum. It's pretty obvious for a long time we haven't been happy with the maps. Their stance was "that's like, your problem" meanwhile both the foreign community and GSL has been making some good maps for a long time, but the endeavor seems almost fruitless since they won't ever make it to ladder. and instead of acknowledge that they are like "okay here's some maps"
And the maps aren't completely awful like some that we've been playing since forever, but they still aren't as good as what the community puts out, which we still won't have a good environment to practice them in.
It's like they specifically try to keep us happy, but not too happy.
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okey becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak behind the backdoor rocks of everyfucking expansion.
TL.DR:
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.
Holy shit this is good, needs to be quoted and bumped. I dont understand the sheep mentality on so many people here, the work blizzard is doing is subpar right now, we need to give them clearer feedback like the quote above me, so that the thickheaded people at blizzard understand what they are doing is in fact wrong. They will never give up on sc2 cause we give them a shitstorm, they will improve.
Any new maps are good I think. Theses maps look great and I can't wait to play o them. Testmap3 looks like a bitch though. Close position and easily defendable.
Come on Blizzard... What's so hard with hiring prodiG, Diamond, LSPrime and the other iCCup/GSL guys? :/
The sad part about this is we are forced to endorse their maps instead of giving the credit to the people who already put blood, sweat and tears to melee mapmaking.
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
I don't see that being an issue. I assume GSL will cancel that move and use these maps. Any other move would be the wrong one
No they would rather still use their maps as they are more balanced at the moment.....plus it's easier for them to give feedback to the maps and map issues take much less time to rectify.
What is this comment based on?
Based on the fact that GSL maps have been tested by Gisado Star challenge by semi-pros and has been adjusted.
GSL also have dismissed couple maps and has been very careful about picking from the new Gisado map pool.
I've seen and tested the GSL maps. Quite terrible imo and I give a lot more respect to blizzards mapmaking then the custom makers while this is only my opinion I think it's shared by many others.
Custom makers use all kinds of things like rocks to block xel naga, expands with high gas / no gas and other features that is very premature.
Brood war had those things added when the game was pretty much figured out and to start using gimmicks for maps now is so bad.
So what if they test the map in Gisado Star challange? Blizzard is testing their maps on the test server so I don't see any issues?
Having maps being split across leagues and not being playable on the ladder is not a good thing, it's particularly wrong when blizzard is obviously eyeballing the map issue.
1)I'm pretty sure there are more people for the GSL maps than against.(you can prove me wrong) 2)What?Blizzard is allowed to experiment with their maps but custom mapmakers aren't? 3)Bizzard maps are more Gimmicky than most custom maps,and a lot of them are unnecessary compared to Custom maps. 4)Sure the sample size of Gisado's Star challenge but the value of feedback is high and they are looking to make competitive maps not casual(hence why I haven't really expressed the want for them to be in ladder) 5)see 4-Pros will have to take it like BW pros having one map pool for MSL,one for OSL and one for standard Proleague.
On February 05 2011 00:30 xixecal wrote: Nice to see some larger maps....but Blizz needs to realize you can macro maps that are not 4-player....3-player maps anyone?
4/5 of these maps have a backdoor from your natural to your opponents natural in close ground positions... that is a general no-no for any map. All of these maps look pretty bad unfortunately.
I can do nothing but laugh. First of all, I'm guessing this isn't available on EU because no good players play on EU and besides there's so few Europeans. Or something?
The maps:
1. Trying to fix Lost Temple. Some improvements. The middle is more open and you have an easier access to a third base via the "island". However, starting positions like 6 vs 2 and 9 vs 12 will still be awkward and make for bad games, favoring Terran over Protoss and Zerg and Protoss over Zerg. Positional imbalances are really bad to have on a map.
2. You think it's okay at first. But it's not! The natural expansion is very awkward and there's like 3 ways in. You can't defend that enourmous ramp and even if you did there's still rocks to break in. This is the same kind of crap we're used to on blistering sands (a map everybody hates). Fitting that the terrain is similar.
3. There's no third base in sight. The natural expansion is open like on Xel'Naga. We will see a lot of two base plays because of all the rocks.
4. Again a super-hard to defend natural expansion and no third base in sight. That it's a four player map will make up for this a little but look at the map. Imagine spawning 6 vs 9. It's a nightmare. One base fest here we go!
5. Here we go again. A very hard natural to defend. Third base? Sort of like on map 1. Same advantages, same problems. Main problem is of course that different spawn positions will affect the game dramatically. Spawning 6 vs 2 or 9 versus 12 will make for horrible games.
Conclusions:
Blizzard has learned that bigger maps are better and that four player maps are in general better than 2 player maps.
Blizzard has not learnt anything about the value of having non-neutral expansions. This makes for bad games. Blizzard has not learnt anything about why positional imbalances make people mad. I give blizzard's effort 3/100 based on the fact that it's taken them this long to produce maps this bad.
On February 05 2011 00:23 crappen wrote: Holy shit this is good, needs to be quoted and bumped. I dont understand the sheep mentality on so many people here, the work blizzard is doing is subpar right now, we need to give them clearer feedback like the quote above me, so that the thickheaded people at blizzard understand what they are doing is in fact wrong. They will never give up on sc2 cause we give them a shitstorm, they will improve.
To be quite blunt, that post complains about the existance of backdoors. To be blunt, complaining about those screams to me "I am unable to change my gameplay to account for possibility of two base entrances".
Whyyy whyyy why why why why why are backdoors bad? Because you have to defend 2 locations? Only map in existance where attacker may have an advantage in that situation is Blistering Sand. So when I see a player complaining about a backdoor entrance, I see a flashing sign THIS IS A BAD PLAYER WHO CAN'T ADAPT.
I'm sorry, but if Blizzard bashing is allowed in this thread, then that thing above is too.
Oh, and the Lost Temple 2.0 is actually smallest map of the lot. Testmap 2 has 7 bases each, Metalopolis has 6, lost temple & lost temple 2.0 has 6 each, testmap 3 has 7 bases each, testmap 4 has like 5 for each, but even that is more than 1/2 of the map pool, testmap 5 has 6 bases each.
Only complaint about maps being "too small" I could find is maybe the small rush distance, but that is a problem with zerg race in general, not the maps themselves. If zerg can't handle those distances, it's a race problem not map problem, IMO.
On February 05 2011 00:30 xixecal wrote: Nice to see some larger maps....but Blizz needs to realize you can macro maps that are not 4-player....3-player maps anyone?
On February 05 2011 00:31 War Horse wrote: why not throw the GSL maps in the test server and see how well they work on ladder?
Fucking lazy of Blizzard
Based on how slow blizzard works I wouldn't be surprised if they're testing it internally and just haven't released it yet. They never rush things so I wouldn't expect them to push out those maps this fast.
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okey becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak behind the backdoor rocks of everyfucking expansion.
TL.DR:
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.
Holy shit this is good, needs to be quoted and bumped. I dont understand the sheep mentality on so many people here, the work blizzard is doing is subpar right now, we need to give them clearer feedback like the quote above me, so that the thickheaded people at blizzard understand what they are doing is in fact wrong. They will never give up on sc2 cause we give them a shitstorm, they will improve.
It's hard not to agree with this sentiment.
While it's great that they finally stopped resting on their laurels and are publishing new maps, the fact they've waited almost a year to TEST a solution that has been recommended since the beta is ludicrous.
This is obviously partially spurred by the GSL actually demonstrating initiative, and trying to preserve the integrity of their tournament with new maps.
All videogame companies are notorious for being inefficient, and considering Blizzard took 12 years to develop SC2, they are no exception. If I were them I would seriously look at their "balance team" and ask myself what the hell they are actually doing all day. Because they could have tested this idea six months ago without any risk or cost.
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okey becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak behind the backdoor rocks of everyfucking expansion.
TL.DR:
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.
Holy shit this is good, needs to be quoted and bumped. I dont understand the sheep mentality on so many people here, the work blizzard is doing is subpar right now, we need to give them clearer feedback like the quote above me, so that the thickheaded people at blizzard understand what they are doing is in fact wrong. They will never give up on sc2 cause we give them a shitstorm, they will improve.
If you want your feedback to be taken seriously, act like a serious person instead of whiny kid 3 billion on some forum (making said forum worse in the process).
That said, I can't help but notice Blizz seems a bit stuck in a certain pattern here. Much can be said about the original map pool, but it seemed it a bit more.. varied?
I like the cliff being gone on LT of course, not sure about the islands and the middle. As for the other maps, I'd have to see how they work out size wise. A little voice keeps screaming in my ear about close positions however.. :/
Nobody's saying these'll all end up in the map pool though. They're test maps. Maybe they'll see which work out best? As for the different pools between the ladder and each of the big tournaments, that would suck, I'd hope Blizzard'd realize that, but GSL hasn't switched over officially yet either so who knows what'll happen there.
Im really suprised, considering fact that Blizzard already showed will to remove all this kind of bugs be making vortex destroy FF, so I was expecting this ASAP. Kinda strange...
All I heard from people before was whining about no new maps. Now all I read is whining because the new maps aren't good enough. And I'm sure everybody with an opinion on these maps has tested them thoroughly on the PTR so they must be right.
PTR is there for a reason. No need to form bias on a map before you even try it.
Everyone hated Shakuras just from looking at it. Read some of the Crap said in that thread. Know Shakuras is one of the Favorite maps. Also remember the H8 on Xelnaga Caverns for having an open natural and a backdoor to the natural.
People are stupid and like to join the huge bandwagon of Hate without any credible justification.
So true. I like it how people just whine like hell about these maps even though they probably haven't even given the maps a chance. I'm quite bummed that EU doesn't have PTR, I'd love to test those maps out, they seem relatively interesting, who knows, some of them might turn out to be awesome.
On February 05 2011 00:38 Defacer wrote:If I were them I would seriously look at their "balance team" and ask myself what the hell they are actually doing all day.
balancing heart of the swarm.
I think they figured out people are uninterested in paying for ladder maps and have moved on to their new opportunity to make money from us.
we had a HUGE debate back in the beta about whether or not the community should be involved in balance decisions or whether blizzard should just ignore them. well, the ignore them crowd seems to have won. I wonder if they are happy?
ultimately the PTR has been the biggest wasted opportunity I have ever seen. we have now gotten to test out shorter phoenix build time and a bunch of terrible maps. BTW blizz said this is a sneak peak, I wouldnt expect these maps to change significantly.
they had an opportunity to test a stim nerf. but they didnt. they had an opportunity to test an ultra buff like a collision size reduction but they didnt. they had an opportunity to do something about 4 gate wars into war of the worlds in PvP but they didnt. to me, it's starting to look like major balance changes are going to cost us 40 dollars a piece.
On February 05 2011 00:54 P00RKID wrote: All I heard from people before was whining about no new maps. Now all I read is whining because the new maps aren't good enough. And I'm sure everybody with an opinion on these maps has tested them thoroughly on the PTR so they must be right.
PTR is there for a reason. No need to form bias on a map before you even try it.
If you look at the feedback when people saw the new GSL maps and the ICCUP maps they were almost all positive. It's not about people always complaining, it's about the fact that Blizzard just can't make maps.
Also it's not hard to look at a map preview and figure out what will happen on the specific map. And those bs maps are nothing but cheese maps.
Use the GSL maps / ICCUP maps for crying out loud. they are 100 times better!
Well I guess if the rocks turn out to work alright I'll be happily surprised, I've just never played a map and gone "oh thank god these rocks are here."
Come on guys lets give these a chance. Blizzard did what the community asked, lets just sit and enjoy the ride. At least we know blizzard is trying to help the game, these maps are definitely a improvement from what we already have.
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that? Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now. So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed. Which actually are a map old as rock. But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okei becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak.
TL.DR:
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.
So freaking good that it needs to be quoted.
It's actually a pretty bad post. Embodies the typical entitlement that is so prevalent these days.
I agree I don't see why people feel that raging on Internet forums will go anywhere. Wouldn't Blizzard be more open to listening if people made posts that did not include a bunch of insults?
Nothing really seems to work, Blizzard just kinda marches to the beat of their own drum. It's pretty obvious for a long time we haven't been happy with the maps. Their stance was "that's like, your problem" meanwhile both the foreign community and GSL has been making some good maps for a long time, but the endeavor seems almost fruitless since they won't ever make it to ladder. and instead of acknowledge that they are like "okay here's some maps"
And the maps aren't completely awful like some that we've been playing since forever, but they still aren't as good as what the community puts out, which we still won't have a good environment to practice them in.
It's like they specifically try to keep us happy, but not too happy.
On February 05 2011 00:38 Defacer wrote:If I were them I would seriously look at their "balance team" and ask myself what the hell they are actually doing all day.
balancing heart of the swarm.
I think they figured out people are uninterested in paying for ladder maps and have moved on to their new opportunity to make money from us.
we had a HUGE debate back in the beta about whether or not the community should be involved in balance decisions or whether blizzard should just ignore them. well, the ignore them crowd seems to have won. I wonder if they are happy?
ultimately the PTR has been the biggest wasted opportunity I have ever seen. we have now gotten to test out shorter phoenix build time and a bunch of terrible maps. BTW blizz said this is a sneak peak, I wouldnt expect these maps to change significantly.
they had an opportunity to test a stim nerf. but they didnt. they had an opportunity to test an ultra buff like a collision size reduction but they didnt. they had an opportunity to do something about 4 gate wars into war of the worlds in PvP but they didnt. to me, it's starting to look like major balance changes are going to cost us 40 dollars a piece.
Fuck man, a strategy where people are forced to pay for significant balance changes makes perfect sense, and is so fucking diabolical I didn't even consider it.
TestMap 1: Looks like LT and Python had a baby, I like it and think it will work just fine (except close positions will make it a little crazy ofc.
TestMap 2: depends on how big it actually is, i'm dling the PTR patch now and can't wait to play it. a possible hard third depending on spawns, but cross positions it will be ok imo.
TestMap3: looks alright, though the narrow passageways may be a blessing and a curse. It will make TvZ impossible to do with no tanks (which is good), but also an out of position force could easily be FG'd and then banelinged. this applies to all other matchups too, PvP will probably be more 4gate -> colo wars, and so on, just because space controlling splash damage units will be sooooooo strong. We'll just have to see on this one.
TestMap4: there are soooooooooo few bases I'm wary about it, but otherwise it might be good.
TestMap5: is actually New Antioch I believe? maybe its modified a bit. but it seems like close positions will be impossible to FE, maybe its way bigger than it looks though.
Overall I don't think they'll be too bad, but I think nearly that custom map makers like iccup have consistently done a better job in a shorter time frame in terms of maps design,
On February 05 2011 00:38 Defacer wrote:If I were them I would seriously look at their "balance team" and ask myself what the hell they are actually doing all day.
balancing heart of the swarm.
I think they figured out people are uninterested in paying for ladder maps and have moved on to their new opportunity to make money from us.
we had a HUGE debate back in the beta about whether or not the community should be involved in balance decisions or whether blizzard should just ignore them. well, the ignore them crowd seems to have won. I wonder if they are happy?
ultimately the PTR has been the biggest wasted opportunity I have ever seen. we have now gotten to test out shorter phoenix build time and a bunch of terrible maps. BTW blizz said this is a sneak peak, I wouldnt expect these maps to change significantly.
they had an opportunity to test a stim nerf. but they didnt. they had an opportunity to test an ultra buff like a collision size reduction but they didnt. they had an opportunity to do something about 4 gate wars into war of the worlds in PvP but they didnt. to me, it's starting to look like major balance changes are going to cost us 40 dollars a piece.
Fuck man, a strategy where people are forced to pay for significant balance changes makes perfect sense, and is so fucking diabolical I didn't even consider it.
Doh!
The idea they'd do this is also.. silly. It does not match their history nor their intention to have SC2 be a viable e-sport.
You need to iterate this shit, that's what PTRs are for. It seems more helpful for all involved to operate under that assumption (which is not without precedent, see the infestor change for last patch).
I am very happy about this. Of course we will have to play these a lot to know how they work out for sure, but at least we know Blizz has been listening. This is definitely a step in the right direction.
On February 05 2011 01:33 b_unnies wrote: i love the changes to LT
It isn't LT. It's a new map that looks like it. There's only one xel naga, and the mid is just a huge open space. No island bases, and there are thirds which you have to break rocks to get
On February 05 2011 01:27 jarhead271 wrote: I am very happy about this. Of course we will have to play these a lot to know how they work out for sure, but at least we know Blizz has been listening. This is definitely a step in the right direction.
If anything, these maps (except for the fixed Lost Temple) are a step in the wrong direction.
1: Fixed LT should be good to go if they removed close spawns. Otherwise close spawns will still be an issue. However, the removed high grounds near the naturals and more open center should make mid and late game more pleasent. 2: Hard to tell because of tileset, but the map looks choked everywhere. Natural is wide open, making fast expanding for terran and protoss impossible, any base further than that is just as open. 3 (the desert one): Super forwarded ramp to natural and 3 different ways to enter the high ground natural area. Again, this makes fast expanding for protoss and terran impossible and zerg should have a fairly hard time to cover the natural with defences (no, 2 spines near the natural hatchery are not enough, you have to cover your ramp as well, otherwise your ramp will simply get forcefield and you lose). The distances between the natural ramps look super short. 4: Pretty much the same, super open natural. 5: Fail because of backdoor ways. Any match on close backdoor positions (if you want to call them like that) will evolve only around those ways.
Maybe that's just me, but everything what is wrong about these maps is exactly what I dislike about the other Blizzard maps: - backdoor ways - wide open natural with forwarded ramp - rocks everywhere - too few open areas/too many chokes, in the middle of the map that is
On February 05 2011 01:33 b_unnies wrote: i love the changes to LT
It isn't LT. It's a new map that looks like it. There's only one xel naga, and the mid is just a huge open space. No island bases, and there are thirds which you have to break rocks to get
Well as I mentioned earlier, they definitely took LT and edited it. It would be odd if they kept both maps
What a travesty if professional Starcraft 2 and the blizzard ladder wind up using different maps :/. Blizzard should cede map making duties to the GSL if they don't want to split the competitive community.
I think its... Interesting (?) that so many people seem to think that BW mechanics apply to SC2 as they are. While easy thirds and large, open maps suit the BW metagame perfectly, one should keep in mind that the balancing of SC2 took place in smaller maps. We cannot suddenly drop the races into maps that are double the size and expect everything to work itself out.
Backdoors and shorter rush positions are a bad thing by definition? Zerg players may wanna not read this, but this kind of statement is only based on opinion and its not a fact. Clearly Blizzard wants to keep this element present on some maps, and there is nothing wrong with it - after all, its a different game and variety in maps is most of the time considered a good thing. Stop looking at the game like it is BW, or like how you would want the maps to benefit *your* race alone. Its a possibility that these elements are never going away.
I think these new maps show two very promising things. One is that Blizzard seems to be actually listening to the community that is asking for bigger maps, and second is that they are willing to start balancing the game towards this. However, Blizzard is also smart enough to realize that rash decisions only lead to imbalance, so what we have here is a baby step towards a more macro-oriented game. Even if the map pool ends up having 5 slightly different versions of Shakuras Plateau, we are still moving toward macro games.
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.
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.
On February 05 2011 00:38 Defacer wrote:If I were them I would seriously look at their "balance team" and ask myself what the hell they are actually doing all day.
balancing heart of the swarm.
I think they figured out people are uninterested in paying for ladder maps and have moved on to their new opportunity to make money from us.
we had a HUGE debate back in the beta about whether or not the community should be involved in balance decisions or whether blizzard should just ignore them. well, the ignore them crowd seems to have won. I wonder if they are happy?
ultimately the PTR has been the biggest wasted opportunity I have ever seen. we have now gotten to test out shorter phoenix build time and a bunch of terrible maps. BTW blizz said this is a sneak peak, I wouldnt expect these maps to change significantly.
they had an opportunity to test a stim nerf. but they didnt. they had an opportunity to test an ultra buff like a collision size reduction but they didnt. they had an opportunity to do something about 4 gate wars into war of the worlds in PvP but they didnt. to me, it's starting to look like major balance changes are going to cost us 40 dollars a piece.
RIght now its completely pointless to race balance or unit balance unless something is as broken as 2 armor roaches and the like. The expansions will change everything just like BW did. So they should mostly focus on maps because that will be the key. The races are pretty even in a vacuum.
The tears over expansions are so hilarious when BW was a $40 expansion that is beloved by everybody.
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.
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.
On February 05 2011 01:45 Muirhead wrote: What a travesty if professional Starcraft 2 and the blizzard ladder wind up using different maps :/. Blizzard should cede map making duties to the GSL if they don't want to split the competitive community.
So true, I wish we can play in ladder the maps played by pro "on TV" :s
On February 05 2011 00:30 xixecal wrote: Nice to see some larger maps....but Blizz needs to realize you can macro maps that are not 4-player....3-player maps anyone?
Wait...What maps are you talking about?
I wonder this too since it still takes the same time to run a unit to another persons base as in all the other maps. 4 gate warpin allins and 8 scv/marine rush will still dominate. No need for a early expansions play... since you will die!
1) The new maps look interesting. I have some concern over some of the close-spawn possibilities.
2) There are some pretty bad maps in the current pool and only a couple of good ones. This leads people to view new maps with the "what is wrong with this?" mentality rather than the "what makes this cool?" viewpoint. People are so negatively skewed towards the map pool that they're immediately trying to pick holes in everything :/
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.
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.
the test map2 is great if u play zerg. i just played a game on it, andaccidently took my 3rd as natural. and then the natural, was pretty easy. the toss couldnot do anything. it almost seems to be zerg favored°° and the new lost Temple is quite good. im just missing the xel naga towers. this one to´wer is not the same
On February 04 2011 18:37 smileyyy wrote: Im really astonished that people really thought that Blizzard will add non-Blizzard maps to their own ladder xD. That wont happen anytime soon.
The OP should edit in these photos IMO, they're way better.
I am concerned about the changes to LT. Getting rid of the natural cliff was obviously a good idea. Removing the cross position xel nagas towers though? That removes strategic play from the map, and adds nothing. The one central xelnaga now is worthless because there's soooo much open space in the middle. I'm not a fan of turning the islands into rocked expansions either...if this replaces LT, scrap will be the only map with an island expansion. (and even then, it's positioned so poorly it's rarely used)
Another problem with LT2.0 is that there's still no fix for close positions. It seems like all the test maps are metalopolis clones plus rocks, where cross-positions look good but close-positions look bad. I don't know why blizzard would aim for that, I don't think I've heard anyone say they enjoy playing small maps close spawns ever. Or rock-heavy maps for that matter.
I mean I'm willing to withold final judgement on these maps until they're fully tested. But I think it's really sad that both GSL and iccup maps have near 100% positive feedback, while these blizzard maps seem to be closer to 50%.
I don't understand why blizzard doesn't just use the GSL maps. The Koreans proved in BW they have the best mapmakers. And blizzard has a much much better business arrangement with GSL than they did with kespa. If their business partner is putting in the time and effort to test your maps, why not just let them do it instead of wasting your own resources. It's in blizzards best interest for there to be a unified map pool. Currently I watch GSL&MLG instead of iccup precisely because I can learn stuff from watching the play and applying it to my own laddering. Dont get me wrong I love the iccup maps so much more than blizzard's, but why waste time watching a match played on a map totally different from what I play on the ladder?
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.
Im also not a fan of removing the island on LT but a bigger issue is that fact that the natural on LT cannot be walled off anymore without 4-5 buildings instead of 3. Means no more super fast expands vs zerg .
I wasnt a fan of test map 2 at first but after seeing it closer up it doesnt seem to bad except the rocks at the fourth base.
Map 3 seems a bit too good for seige tanks especially at the open gold bases.
Map 4 is just absoulutely terrible, worse for taking a third than blistering sands
Map 5 close positions seem worse than metalopolis and the natural expansion is like 250 degrees open and behind the ramp so you can even defend both at once, plus the third being rocked off is just stupid and they seemed to add the worst thing about shakuras to the map the back rocks.
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.
Yes. People also need to remember that this game isn't Broodwar and that a simple transitioning of maps from one game to another has limited relevance. Making a map size too big is ultimately destructive and the early game flies right out the window. Seems the community wants maps to be absurdly easy for their respective races.
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.
Heres my list:
1) Balanced maps between all races
2) Bigger maps that sustain more expansions so you can at least have a reasonable option to a macro game, or at least so the game can develop constantly until the better player comes out on top with a strong late-game. On top of that, maps that have too close starting positions make 4 minute all ins very powerful which is not fun to play or to watch.
Big maps will not stop all ins. You can all in at any point in the game. Players will also always find ways to apply early pressure so thats not a good counter-point.
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.
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.
Heres my list:
1) Balanced maps between all races
2) Bigger maps that sustain more expansions so you can at least have a reasonable option to a macro game, or at least so the game can develop constantly until the better player comes out on top with a strong late-game. On top of that, maps that have too close starting positions make 4 minute all ins very powerful which is not fun to play or to watch.
Big maps will not stop all ins. You can all in at any point in the game.
I agree. I think everyone wants balanced maps between all races. How do we agree on such a thing though? Should there be a preset choke width for every map going into the natural, for instance?
I agree and disagree with your second part. Reasonable option to macro, yes, but even some of the current maps provide that without being as large as iCCup/GSL. Also, why is it that the better player has to get to the late-game to come out on top? What if their early or mid game skills are their weaknesses? Are they still the better player or is someone not a better player for exploiting those weaknesses?
You "can" all-in at any point in the game, of course. I was more referring to 2 rax SCV all-ins and such; what most people generally consider to be boring to watch or do. Thanks for your reply.
wow not bad at all. All i gotta say is that these map are quiet interesting and yes, it does show that blizzard has learn their lesson about creating map. These map are wayyyy better and i think some of these look quiet promising. Although i am kinda iffy on the last one listed since it seems the expansion is too open and the map has so little amount of expansion. I think it could sneak in 1 more plausible expansion.
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.
Forge expanding looks to be impossible on these maps in PvZ. Who knows maybe that is what blizzard wants. These maps are not perfect but it is an improvement over 4Gate quadrant and Tanks of war.
On February 04 2011 22:35 FryKt wrote: 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.
OH NO
BLIZZARD IS TRYING SOMETHING NEW
THOSE INNOVATIVE BASTARDS HOW DARE THEY!
Obviously, Blizzard should use standard maps. You may be wondering how they'll do that, since there aren't any accepted "standard" maps, yet. Shut up. FryKt has spoken.
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.
All of you who are defending BLizzard with all your might, just why? Why do you do that?
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.
Blizzard should do all they can to get us to stay" keep playing the game, buy expansions etc, play ladder" They are NOT doing us a favor in adding new maps, you make this seem like they are giving us a gift or something. OF COUSE THEY SHOULD ADD NEW MAPS IN FUCKING 6 MONTHS WHEN EVERYONE HATES THEM. Why the fuck they haven't yet is a mystery.
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".
Every one cries for bigger more sc1 maps, So why don't they fucking copy some from sc1, make them a little different, and keep some of the smaller ones we have now.
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.
So the noobies who don't like big maps can just vote them down, and vice versa. They try to balance everything over maps who the majority hates.
I like how "everyone" got downgraded to "the majority". Still not true, though. Team Liquid is far from the majority of Starcraft 2 players.
And now they try to make some new maps, but I mean they fail. The first one, okei lost temple fixed.
ALL THE MAPS SUCK. OKAY THIS ONE'S GOOD.
Which actually are a map old as rock.
This isn't a sentence
But it's one of the best with xelnaga and Shakruas( but shakuras have those f'ing backdoors)
ALL THE MAPS SUCK, EXCEPT THIS ONE, THIS ONE, AND SOMETIMES THIS ONE.
And when they make new maps, they put in all kind of shit, like rocks on every fucking expansion, grass everywhere so you don't see shit, but that's okey becouse there are 43572942 Xelnaga towers showing you when the opponents scv's are taking a shitbreak behind the backdoor rocks of everyfucking expansion.
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.
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.
On February 05 2011 02:34 tenklavir wrote: 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.
I'd love to see Bronze and Silver League gamers polled because I'm fairly certain you're wrong and they despise Blizzard's jail cell maps just as much as the pros. In fact, most of their complaints on these forums from lower level players are in the vain of "I'm tired of being cheesed!" and "I macro but I still lose"* I don't think I've ever seen them say "I'm tired of these 40 minute slugfests on cross position spawns/Shakuras!"
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.
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.
Not completely true, Kespa maps had blocked expos all the time. Most common map ever... Python... lol. Also Grand Line, I'm sure there's more but those are the 2 coming to mind where they blocked expos.
Are you honestly trying to relate blank - 8 mineral nodes that stopped floating CC's to destructible rocks being spackled across the land like acne cream across a 14 year old's face?
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.
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
I saw many more people play 30 minute games in lower leagues. In fact whenever I won a game in under 10 minutes in bronze/silver chances are pretty good that my opponent would whine/cry. As I moved up in leagues people cried less. So I would actually argue the opposite, that low league ladder wants larger maps even more than high leagues.
I mean seriously, look at lower league games and you won't see people perfecting their 2 rax all ins, that's diamond+. Instead you'll see stuff like mass battlecruiser or void ray without any attacking before 200 food.
On February 05 2011 02:34 tenklavir wrote: 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.
I'd love to see Bronze and Silver League gamers polled because I'm fairly certain you're wrong and they despise Blizzard's jail cell maps just as much as the pros. In fact, most of their complaints on these forums from lower level players are in the vain of "I'm tired of being cheesed!" and "I macro but I still lose"* I don't think I've ever seen them say "I'm tired of these 40 minute slugfests on cross position spawns/Shakuras!"
* They're not actually macro'ing that well.
You may be right but large maps doesn't help the lack of mechanical ability to handle large macro games. Instead of seeing maybe 50/50 "I'm tired of being cheesed"/"I macro'd and lost", we'll just get 80/20 "I macro'd and lost" from whoever happened to win or lose for whatever reason. Thanks.
On February 05 2011 02:57 Ribbon wrote: 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 just have lol at this, because that's exactly what iccup and the gom team have done and Blizzard throws this crap at us.
Let's have some maps with a decently defendable natural that doesn't have a backdoor right into it. Shakuras is the closest we have, a couple more would be nice. If Blizzard can do that I'll start giving them some faith. But when 4/5 maps they create have a wide open natural way too far out from the main then I'll continue to think that the only strategy they understand is one basing.
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.
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
I saw many more people play 30 minute games in lower leagues. In fact whenever I won a game in under 10 minutes in bronze/silver chances are pretty good that my opponent would whine/cry. As I moved up in leagues people cried less. So I would actually argue the opposite, that low league ladder wants larger maps even more than high leagues.
I mean seriously, look at lower league games and you won't see people perfecting their 2 rax all ins, that's diamond+. Instead you'll see stuff like mass battlecruiser or void ray without any attacking before 200 food.
They may be 30 minutes, but is that because there are only 18 harversters per base or they are banking tons of mins and gas to get to BCs/carriers/thors/etc.? The length doesn't have much to do with the quality of their game. Perhaps even losing games early, they (hopefully) take initiative in improving and being able to combat early game tactics. One can always hope. Thanks.
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.
I mostly follow just a few players and teams. Recent games I can think of are Fantasy vs Calm where Calm 6-pooled two straight games. There was a game between Jaedong and Stork a few months ago as well where Stork built 3-4 gateways near Jaedong's natural. Or just about any PvZ game involving a hydra timing push or a zealot timing push.
Most BW games are just 10-25 minutes long. The 25 minute ones involve late game units and many mined out bases.
I don't really think balance is important right now in SC2. I find watching pro games incredibly boring. It really just involves players building forces inside their base then going all-in or clashing in the middle. You can't leave your base since the other guy can easily wipe you out. That's in contrast with BW with players harassing and patrolling units all over the map since it's safer to not have all your units protecting your main.
The problem isn´t actually if a map is huge or not, (of course not as small as SoW when it comes to nat to nat), the problem is that Blizzard seem to have this goal to make 3rds incredibly hard to take and/or defend, and 4ths close to non-existand, the best games out there have been in maps like Shakuras Plateau, Non-Close Position Metalopolis and Cross Position Lost Temple, there has to be a reason for that.
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.
Heres my list:
1) Balanced maps between all races
2) Bigger maps that sustain more expansions so you can at least have a reasonable option to a macro game, or at least so the game can develop constantly until the better player comes out on top with a strong late-game. On top of that, maps that have too close starting positions make 4 minute all ins very powerful which is not fun to play or to watch.
Big maps will not stop all ins. You can all in at any point in the game. Players will also always find ways to apply early pressure so thats not a good counter-point.
But the problem there is that I dont think we can safely say that big maps would be balanced between all races. With terran generally having their dominant period in the early-midgame, a big map may very well make them too weak in the macro game. Game balance from day 1 has been based on small maps, and adding maps that are really big could bring unpredictable results. Rocks, hard to take thirds and relatively short attack distances are all things that the current balance is based on.
Thats why we need small, gradual increases in map size. Not BW and copying what we have there. These maps are a good first step since are somewhat similar to the existing large maps like Shakuras, which have proven to bring some nice macro games. The next iteration may very well be a little bigger again.
I am quite interested on seeing how these maps work out. Really hope the first test map replaces Lost Temple...looks like some really good improvements.
Didn't realize there was so much hate for rocks / grass / xel'naga towers out there. Personally these are my favorite parts of the Starcraft 2 maps. They keep it fresh and entertaining, not enough to effect balance but enough to add in little strategic advantages. So the more the better imo...
The only one that scares me a bit is Test Map3, the rush distance seems very very short.
Also keep in mind we can down vote 3 maps. It is good to have a diversified map pool, just check off the ones you dislike.
On February 04 2011 13:37 RifleCow wrote: Wow, so blizzard didn't add the GSL maps. Well all hope is now lost.
Give the new maps a chance before saying something like that.
The point is that now the ladder map pool =/= the map pool for the largest tournament which is bound to cause problems
Have you played the gsl maps. They are huge and almost force games into a huge macro builds where both players can easily take three bases. While I don't think anything is wrong with this I don't think this size map would be appropriate for the fast play that people expect on the ladder maps. These maps are designed to force long games.
It's about ensuring we get quality games. Both so we can enjoy playing them and enjoy watching them.
You're only supposed to get real macro games 20+ minutes when 2 players are fairly even in skill. It's not as if it was impossible to end games early in BW and it won't be impossible on better maps than these either.
Not a big fan of a lot of the maps. I don't think that destructible rocks in between close spawn positions is much of a good thing. If anything, it opens up a 2nd front that you have to worry about, and it can get very annoying.
I have hope that at least one or two will be legit. Awesome.
I think it's awesome they are working to improve the map pool and have faith that over time (NOT immediately; doubtless the new maps will have some flaws - but hopefully less) we'll have a pool of solid maps.
glad to see Blizzard attempting to make changes in their maps and map pool
not glad to see that Blizzard does not fully understand why there is so much bitching about the maps. an example would be removing the cliff drops on the natural on Lost Temple but keeping the possibility of spawning close position (I'm assuming close spawn position on LT is still possible).
having a PTR for them is definitely a good thing though
I would really like to know where the actual 1v1 maps are or if there are any, using 2v2 maps for 1v1 is fine and all...but every test map being a 2v2 is kind of sad.
On February 05 2011 04:04 udgnim wrote: glad to see Blizzard attempting to make changes in their maps and map pool
not glad to see that Blizzard does not fully understand why there is so much bitching about the maps. an example would be removing the cliff drops on the natural on Lost Temple but keeping the possibility of spawning close position (I'm assuming close spawn position on LT is still possible).
having a PTR for them is definitely a good thing though
Yeah, it seems these new maps are very similar to the crappy maps they replaced. Blizzard with maps reminds me of Matt Millen with WRs and Rick Pitino with tall stiffs.
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.
FIVE 4-player maps. You have to be kidding me Blizzard. I like that you are at least willing to change maps (albeit 6 months too late), but at least keep some variety in the pool. Here's to hoping they have the sense to not add all of these.
Maybe its just all the WC3 I played before, but I'm just happy to see any new map put out by blizzard (were creep spawns that hard to figure out???). Really. Better or worse... something new. Win or lose, variety is the real formula for fun imho. Not to mention in the DLC age they probably could've started charging for new maps... (crosses fingers)
I'll definitely be laddering more again now that there's something new to explore .
Just played a TVT on map #2. It was very excellent. Went 5base 5base and we both got to BC tech. I won with superior vikings and upgrades.
The rush distance was just the right distance IMO. Not so close that rushing is OP but not too far where it's no longer an option. Nat wasn't terribly easy to defend but I managed. After taking nat, 3rd and 4th came easily.
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.
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.
Just a few thoughts on maps but I'm sure there are some standard guidelines at Blizzard with regards to map design.
- Many of you mention "difficult to take 2nd expo" on many of these maps. I don't know if the answer is to simply have multiple expos behind the player - which removes a great deal of risk in expo'ing entirely. As to exactly how much "danger" a player should experience when taking a 3rd, seems to be an extremely subjective matter.
- gold expos which seem to be a point of contention, in my opinion I do agree that any gold expos should have some element of danger attached(otherwise why not just take it?) It makes sense to fight over gold resources, due to how game-deciding they can be.
- rush distances. I agree that longer distances encourage a macro-oriented game. Not sure if this means that small maps should be outlawed entirely. I think trying to please everyone is an impossible scenario.
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.
Why is everyone calling the first map the new LT? Yeah it looks kind of similar, but it's also very different. Has it actually been confirmed that this is going to be a new LT, or are people just assuming this?
On February 05 2011 06:48 Treemonkeys wrote: Why is everyone calling the first map the new LT? Yeah it looks kind of similar, but it's also very different. Has it actually been confirmed that this is going to be a new LT, or are people just assuming this?
pretty safe assumption, testmap 1 is nearly identical to LT, with specific changes:
-island expos are now not island expos, blocked by rocks -middle opened up -no cliffs overlooking the naturals
In every other respect, the map is basically LT. start positions exactly the same as LT, layout of the main & natural exactly the same as in LT, every base including the golds are in the exact same position they are in LT, rocks blocking gold just like in LT, tall grass in the exact same spot as they are in LT, etc.
It IS Lost Temple, just re-balanced. Having them both in the map pool would be redundant.
SO ORIGINAL! The only thing that could make the map more interesting is if you add EVEN more destructible rocks, golden expansions, backdoors and xelnaga towers.
I don't understand why Blizzard insists on wide open natural like this, on top of that, the ramp is like a mile away from the expo itself. I thought they didn't like 1 base plays.
On 4 of these maps, if someone tries to expand early, the other guy can just walk into the main.
uggghhh. I don't think that Blizzard gets it. For some reason they seem content with the boring 2 base play that their maps are encouraging. They need to get rid of the silly rocks in the back of your main, make it easier to take a third and just have bigger maps in general to create exiting macro games. If they do this, the game will be a lot more fun to play and to watch.
In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
On February 05 2011 06:48 Treemonkeys wrote: Why is everyone calling the first map the new LT? Yeah it looks kind of similar, but it's also very different. Has it actually been confirmed that this is going to be a new LT, or are people just assuming this?
It has been announced that they gonna modify - LT, Steppes and Blistering.
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it. What about football players who play away from their home ground? I guess they shouldn't just travel to play and claim the location they are about to play is imbalanced and they don't know how to build good venues in good locations where climate and conditions are perfect.
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone.
While this is true, many players (myself included) want to play on the GSL maps because macro maps are generally a better test of skill.
They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it.
While I understand the need to cater to their entire player base, one of the biggest complaints among bronze to gold league players is that sc2 is just a rush fest. While this isn't entirely true, bigger maps would remove this negative stigma. Also, where do you draw the line with accounting for a broad range of players? A map with small rush distances and a wide open choke (Delta Quadrant) will play much differently than say, cross positions shakuras plateau. Should blizzard also add a BGH-esque map to the ladder pool?
With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
I agree that there is no such thing as a perfect map, but Brood War had 12 years of mapmaking behind it, and one needs to look no further than the ICCUP and GSL maps to wonder why Blizzard's mapmaking team simply isn't up to par.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety?
People don't play on macro maps to feel cool like the pros. They play on them because Macro maps are a greater test of skill, and promote a wider range of strategies. If Blizzard wanted variety in their map pool. Then why is it that almost every map has small rush distances and a wide open natural. Where is the big wide open macro map like God's Garden?
Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100%?
Because Brood War has had 12 years of map making behind it. Players have seen what it's like to not have a natural expansion, island maps, a mineral only expansion, a hard to secure gas natural, and finally (what we see now) an easily securable gas natural. As strategies have evolved, easily securable gas naturals have provided the most interesting games. While the possibility remains that this might not hold true in SC2, I think it's fair to say that 4 gates, 2 rax all ins, steppes of War, and close positions on metalopolis rarely provide high level, entertaining, or even enjoyable games to play on.
Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations?
Because players have to play their maps on the ladder. Which might not be a big deal, but Blizzard invites the top people in the ladder to blizzcon and it's damn near impossible to set up a private ladder with custom maps ala BW's ICCUP.
They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
If the new test map is any indication, they clearly think that the cliff at LT's naturals were a bit too much. As for the narrow spots, Blizzard must not want us to engage anywhere because there really isn't a single map that has a nice wide open area to engage at.
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset.
There's a difference between playing aggressive, and being all in. Not to mention Zerg's options on 1 base is laughable.
I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a [b]ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
If you're acknowledging that the maps are bad for high level play, then Blizzard should not use top ladder spots to determine invites for their own tournament. As for people having whatever they want, Blizzard should realize that if they keep using the same stagnant, awful map pool, it will only hurt their game.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
The criticism is absolutely necessary. The map pool promotes a playstyle that requires very little strategic insight, and does not demand much of the players to execute said strategies. People complain and criticize because it's absolutely ridiculous that the same horrendous maps have been in rotation for the past 6 months now, some of them are coming close to a year (including beta). This would be alright if these were truly amazing maps, but the overall quality is just awful. Let's get some true variety in the map pool with some nice solid macro maps (preferably free of destructible rocks).
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
On February 05 2011 07:18 Nayl wrote: + Show Spoiler +
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
In your first post, you were saying that they might want a variety of maps, and now your saying that, they dont want big maps like the GSL ones. I'm a little confused as to what your point is. I think that it is fair that they might want to encourage a variety of play styles with different maps and if you dont like a few of them, you can just vote them down. But the whole point of that is a VARIETY of maps, not all short maps that you cant take a third on. It would be nice to have at least one or two macro maps. I also think that if they really want to try and please everyone, like you were saying Bleak, they should increase the size of the map pool and give everyone more votes on maps that they dont like. Right now i dont see any variety, just gimmicky maps that encourage more cheese and two base all ins, rather than real macro games that in themselves give a greater variety of play styles.
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
Well then they should have at least the option of pro maps available shouldn't they?
Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps? I can say this
some players might enjoy the map. But some won't.
about the current map pool. Does blizzard care about that? Well, currently, no.
By the way, GSL maps get constantly updated over and over, in order to make the map as balanced as possible. Gom has also been dismissing some maps due to issues with it, and they are being very careful when picking from these maps.
Again, do blizzard do this? No. I honestly don't think they have enough man power to commit to this kind of details, yet they refuse to use community driven map, or at least adopt their philosophy. Instead, they add maps for the sake of adding maps. Earlier in the thread mentioned Test map 5 was shown at Blizzcon, and its actually in the blizzard custom map pool, its named New Antioch.
You cannot honestly say current ladder map pool Blizzard is keeping because current style seems fun for the casuals. Dustin browder himself even said 2 rax pressure is "garbage". And what do Casuals usually cry about? That this game is too much about "rushes".
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
Well then they should have at least the option of pro maps available shouldn't they?
Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps? I can say this
about the current map pool. Does blizzard care about that? Well, currently, no.
By the way, GSL maps get constantly updated over and over, in order to make the map as balanced as possible. Gom has also been dismissing some maps due to issues with it, and they are being very careful when picking from these maps.
Again, do blizzard do this? No. I honestly don't think they have enough man power to commit to this kind of details, yet they refuse to use community driven map, or at least adopt their philosophy. Instead, they add maps for the sake of adding maps. Earlier in the thread mentioned Test map 5 was shown at Blizzcon, and its actually in the blizzard custom map pool, its named New Antioch.
You cannot honestly say current ladder map pool Blizzard is keeping because current style seems fun for the casuals. Dustin browder himself even said 2 rax pressure is "garbage". And what do Casuals usually cry about? That this game is too much about "rushes".
A map that is not made by the game creators will cause more trouble to them because they do not have the control over it, they haven't been involved in its creation, therefore they aren't comfortable with using them in the ladder. They want to have the control because they are in charge of game balance. These issues will be fixed at pro-level, but at the ladder level, the control is important to balance the game. For this reason, the community made maps will most likely never be seen in the ladder map pool and the reason is not just ignorance or not caring enough, but this simple fact: Control.
If someone finds a crazy build where they can get to 200/200 in no time with super aggresive expand style all over the big map and go and 1-a the opponent, the pro scene will find a way to beat it. Use the same map in ladder, see what happens.
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
Well then they should have at least the option of pro maps available shouldn't they?
Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps? I can say this
some players might enjoy the map. But some won't.
about the current map pool. Does blizzard care about that? Well, currently, no.
By the way, GSL maps get constantly updated over and over, in order to make the map as balanced as possible. Gom has also been dismissing some maps due to issues with it, and they are being very careful when picking from these maps.
Again, do blizzard do this? No. I honestly don't think they have enough man power to commit to this kind of details, yet they refuse to use community driven map, or at least adopt their philosophy. Instead, they add maps for the sake of adding maps. Earlier in the thread mentioned Test map 5 was shown at Blizzcon, and its actually in the blizzard custom map pool, its named New Antioch.
You cannot honestly say current ladder map pool Blizzard is keeping because current style seems fun for the casuals. Dustin browder himself even said 2 rax pressure is "garbage". And what do Casuals usually cry about? That this game is too much about "rushes".
A map that is not made by the game creators will cause more trouble to them because they do not have the control over it, they haven't been involved in its creation, therefore they aren't comfortable with using them in the ladder. They want to have the control because they are in charge of game balance. These issues will be fixed at pro-level, but at the ladder level, the control is important to balance the game. For this reason, the community made maps will most likely never be seen in the ladder map pool and the reason is not just ignorance or not caring enough, but this simple fact: Control.
WC3 example alone shows Blizzard "control" is not a good thing. Blizzard never updated ladder maps ever, and look what happened. They used same bloody maps for years.
Anyone who actually played BW would agree that the abyss was and is MUCH better option than battle.net for learning melee games.
It is good that they are at least trying to add new maps. BUT, they don't seem to have enough man power to handle this "control", yet they want to hang onto it for the sake of controlling.
And you keep changing your argument, sighs.
If someone finds a crazy build where they can get to 200/200 in no time with super aggresive expand style all over the big map and go and 1-a the opponent, the pro scene will find a way to beat it. Use the same map in ladder, see what happens.
Are you suggesting that Blizzard should balance the game for Casuals too?
All I can say is that I am very happy I didn't throw in the towel on Zerg macro play... These new maps are going to have T and P scrambleing when their 2Rax 4Gate pushes arn't auto wins. I'm a relatively low level player (gold league) and am so tired of the constant cheese, these maps are really going to make things more balanced for zerg.
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
Well then they should have at least the option of pro maps available shouldn't they?
Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps? I can say this
some players might enjoy the map. But some won't.
about the current map pool. Does blizzard care about that? Well, currently, no.
By the way, GSL maps get constantly updated over and over, in order to make the map as balanced as possible. Gom has also been dismissing some maps due to issues with it, and they are being very careful when picking from these maps.
Again, do blizzard do this? No. I honestly don't think they have enough man power to commit to this kind of details, yet they refuse to use community driven map, or at least adopt their philosophy. Instead, they add maps for the sake of adding maps. Earlier in the thread mentioned Test map 5 was shown at Blizzcon, and its actually in the blizzard custom map pool, its named New Antioch.
You cannot honestly say current ladder map pool Blizzard is keeping because current style seems fun for the casuals. Dustin browder himself even said 2 rax pressure is "garbage". And what do Casuals usually cry about? That this game is too much about "rushes".
A map that is not made by the game creators will cause more trouble to them because they do not have the control over it, they haven't been involved in its creation, therefore they aren't comfortable with using them in the ladder. They want to have the control because they are in charge of game balance. These issues will be fixed at pro-level, but at the ladder level, the control is important to balance the game. For this reason, the community made maps will most likely never be seen in the ladder map pool and the reason is not just ignorance or not caring enough, but this simple fact: Control.
WC3 example alone shows Blizzard "control" is not a good thing. Blizzard never updated ladder maps ever, and look what happened. They used same bloody maps for years.
Anyone who actually played BW would agree that the abyss was and is MUCH better option than battle.net for learning melee games.
It is good that they are at least trying to add new maps. BUT, they don't seem to have enough man power to handle this "control", yet they want to hang onto it for the sake of controlling.
If someone finds a crazy build where they can get to 200/200 in no time with super aggresive expand style all over the big map and go and 1-a the opponent, the pro scene will find a way to beat it. Use the same map in ladder, see what happens.
Are you suggesting that Blizzard should balance the game for Casuals too?
Oh I forgot, they shouldn't. The game should be reserved for tip-top elitists who know everything about not only SC2 but also BW and its entire history and the rest should get packed and leave. If you want the game to be opened to masses, this is not the attitude you want to be in.
There is a difference between bad casuals, and those who just want to enjoy the game. Those who are simply bad, are without hope and the balance changes are not prepared with them being in mind. The balance changes are for those who can play the game at a reasonable level and don't let their own fundamental mistakes shadow their entire gameplay (i.e getting supply blocked all time)
I'm not changing my argument at all. The argument is the same. Ladder maps are created with taking many things in considerations. One of them, is having control. It seems to me that the Blizzard have learnt their lesson from WC3, since they are actually making changes to it.
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
Well then they should have at least the option of pro maps available shouldn't they?
Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps? I can say this
some players might enjoy the map. But some won't.
about the current map pool. Does blizzard care about that? Well, currently, no.
By the way, GSL maps get constantly updated over and over, in order to make the map as balanced as possible. Gom has also been dismissing some maps due to issues with it, and they are being very careful when picking from these maps.
Again, do blizzard do this? No. I honestly don't think they have enough man power to commit to this kind of details, yet they refuse to use community driven map, or at least adopt their philosophy. Instead, they add maps for the sake of adding maps. Earlier in the thread mentioned Test map 5 was shown at Blizzcon, and its actually in the blizzard custom map pool, its named New Antioch.
You cannot honestly say current ladder map pool Blizzard is keeping because current style seems fun for the casuals. Dustin browder himself even said 2 rax pressure is "garbage". And what do Casuals usually cry about? That this game is too much about "rushes".
A map that is not made by the game creators will cause more trouble to them because they do not have the control over it, they haven't been involved in its creation, therefore they aren't comfortable with using them in the ladder. They want to have the control because they are in charge of game balance. These issues will be fixed at pro-level, but at the ladder level, the control is important to balance the game. For this reason, the community made maps will most likely never be seen in the ladder map pool and the reason is not just ignorance or not caring enough, but this simple fact: Control.
WC3 example alone shows Blizzard "control" is not a good thing. Blizzard never updated ladder maps ever, and look what happened. They used same bloody maps for years.
Anyone who actually played BW would agree that the abyss was and is MUCH better option than battle.net for learning melee games.
It is good that they are at least trying to add new maps. BUT, they don't seem to have enough man power to handle this "control", yet they want to hang onto it for the sake of controlling.
And you keep changing your argument, sighs.
If someone finds a crazy build where they can get to 200/200 in no time with super aggresive expand style all over the big map and go and 1-a the opponent, the pro scene will find a way to beat it. Use the same map in ladder, see what happens.
Are you suggesting that Blizzard should balance the game for Casuals too?
Oh I forgot, they shouldn't. Because they don't play the game. The game should be reserved for tip-top elitists who know everything about not only SC2 but also BW and its entire history and the rest should get packed and leave. If you want the game to be opened to masses, this is not the attitude you want to be in.
There is a difference between bad casuals, and those who just want to enjoy the game. Those who are simply bad, are without hope and the balance changes are not prepared with them being in mind. The balance changes are for those who can play the game at a reasonable level and don't let their own fundamental mistakes shadow their entire gameplay (i.e getting supply blocked all time)
I'm not changing my argument at all. The argument is the same. Ladder maps are created with taking many things in considerations. One of them, is having control. It seems to me that the Blizzard have learnt their lesson from WC3, since they are actually making changes to it.
If they can play the game at reasonable level, I don't see how there could be something balanced for Pros but imbalanced for "reasonable casuals".
Also GSL maps are constantly reevaluated for balance, where as Blizzard seems to design maps on what they think is fun. Map 1-3 is definitely step in the right direction; HOWEVER, there are still fundamental flaws in these maps that GSL maps have as basic requirement.
There are positional imbalances. This would be unacceptable by most tournament organizers as it gives inherent advantage for spawning at certain location.
There are huge variability in distance depending on spawn points. Now, I've only tried the map against AI, but it seems like there is no spawn lock like in Shakuras Plateau. Meaning just like metalopolis, you can either be in closest rush distance possible out of the map pool, or farthest distance. This is just a bad design, putting outcome of the game flow on a dice roll. If you check GSL 4 player maps, variability in rush distances are not as huge as blizzard maps.
Ramp that doesn't face natural expo. This means against any FE builds, you can easily walk into their main. In fact, forge FE is impossible on most of these maps. Why take away a style of play?
Also, why do you believe that its necessary for blizzard to have absolute control over the ladder?
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
Well then they should have at least the option of pro maps available shouldn't they?
Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps? I can say this
some players might enjoy the map. But some won't.
about the current map pool. Does blizzard care about that? Well, currently, no.
By the way, GSL maps get constantly updated over and over, in order to make the map as balanced as possible. Gom has also been dismissing some maps due to issues with it, and they are being very careful when picking from these maps.
Again, do blizzard do this? No. I honestly don't think they have enough man power to commit to this kind of details, yet they refuse to use community driven map, or at least adopt their philosophy. Instead, they add maps for the sake of adding maps. Earlier in the thread mentioned Test map 5 was shown at Blizzcon, and its actually in the blizzard custom map pool, its named New Antioch.
You cannot honestly say current ladder map pool Blizzard is keeping because current style seems fun for the casuals. Dustin browder himself even said 2 rax pressure is "garbage". And what do Casuals usually cry about? That this game is too much about "rushes".
A map that is not made by the game creators will cause more trouble to them because they do not have the control over it, they haven't been involved in its creation, therefore they aren't comfortable with using them in the ladder. They want to have the control because they are in charge of game balance. These issues will be fixed at pro-level, but at the ladder level, the control is important to balance the game. For this reason, the community made maps will most likely never be seen in the ladder map pool and the reason is not just ignorance or not caring enough, but this simple fact: Control.
WC3 example alone shows Blizzard "control" is not a good thing. Blizzard never updated ladder maps ever, and look what happened. They used same bloody maps for years.
Anyone who actually played BW would agree that the abyss was and is MUCH better option than battle.net for learning melee games.
It is good that they are at least trying to add new maps. BUT, they don't seem to have enough man power to handle this "control", yet they want to hang onto it for the sake of controlling.
And you keep changing your argument, sighs.
If someone finds a crazy build where they can get to 200/200 in no time with super aggresive expand style all over the big map and go and 1-a the opponent, the pro scene will find a way to beat it. Use the same map in ladder, see what happens.
Are you suggesting that Blizzard should balance the game for Casuals too?
Oh I forgot, they shouldn't. Because they don't play the game. The game should be reserved for tip-top elitists who know everything about not only SC2 but also BW and its entire history and the rest should get packed and leave. If you want the game to be opened to masses, this is not the attitude you want to be in.
There is a difference between bad casuals, and those who just want to enjoy the game. Those who are simply bad, are without hope and the balance changes are not prepared with them being in mind. The balance changes are for those who can play the game at a reasonable level and don't let their own fundamental mistakes shadow their entire gameplay (i.e getting supply blocked all time)
I'm not changing my argument at all. The argument is the same. Ladder maps are created with taking many things in considerations. One of them, is having control. It seems to me that the Blizzard have learnt their lesson from WC3, since they are actually making changes to it.
If they can play the game at reasonable level, I don't see how there could be something balanced for Pros but imbalanced for "reasonable casuals".
Also GSL maps are constantly reevaluated for balance, where as Blizzard seems to design maps on what they think is fun. Map 1-3 is definitely step in the right direction; HOWEVER, there are still fundamental flaws in these maps that GSL maps have as basic requirement.
There are positional imbalances. This would be unacceptable by most tournament organizers as it gives inherent advantage for spawning at certain location.
There are huge variability in distance depending on spawn points. Now, I've only tried the map against AI, but it seems like there is no spawn lock like in Shakuras Plateau. Meaning just like metalopolis, you can either be in closest rush distance possible out of the map pool, or farthest distance. This is just a bad design, putting outcome of the game flow on a dice roll. If you check GSL 4 player maps, variability in rush distances are not as huge as blizzard maps.
Ramp that doesn't face natural expo. This means against any FE builds, you can easily walk into their main. In fact, forge FE is impossible on most of these maps. Why take away a style of play?
Also, why do you believe that its necessary for blizzard to have absolute control over the ladder?
I feel like a parrot saying the same thing every post. Because it is the ladder!!!! Everyone plays in ladder not just pros. The maps should cover all of that. New maps create new problems, which can be solved at pro-level, but not all ladder players can do that. A huge majority of people on ladder probably doesn't know what teamliquid or who day9 is. The game is really new, the strategies are not standardized and new playstyles are being created almost every day, there might be things that cause problem for the normal folk and not for the pros. Not everyone that can play reasonable plays great. They may not get supply blocked and always spend their money, but they just might not know about micro or the overall strategy at all.
On February 05 2011 08:13 Coven wrote: All I can say is that I am very happy I didn't throw in the towel on Zerg macro play... These new maps are going to have T and P scrambleing when their 2Rax 4Gate pushes arn't auto wins. I'm a relatively low level player (gold league) and am so tired of the constant cheese, these maps are really going to make things more balanced for zerg.
I'm honestly not convinced that these maps promote long therm play. True, some of the spawn locations are further than the current average, but a lot are also closer... However, the maps seem spesifically designed to make your brain hurt from being on more than 2 bases, with destructable rocks everywhere and hard to defend thirds.
The worst thing about these maps is by far the naturals. How the hell can you hold off a proper 4gate without static defenses (cant cover the ramp and natural at the same time, in fact, cant cover the ramp whatsoever without minimum 1 creep tumor on a couple of the maps), and a ramp that simply begs to be forcefielded on 4/5 maps? I really fail to see why any protoss would even consider another strategy on map 2, 3 and 5...
There are of course a few more poorly designed aspects, such as the rocks in the main on map5. Or on map 2, can you imagine a dropship going from the lowground third, to the ledge, to the main, then back to the ledge, then down to the third, and then up to the main etc? Or trying to actually take a third on map 3?
I really hope they make some changes, or I'm fairly certain I will miss the previous mappool... Even Jungle basin is preferable to some of these...
The only map that looks remotely finished and tested is lost temple 2.0.
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
Well then they should have at least the option of pro maps available shouldn't they?
Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps? I can say this
some players might enjoy the map. But some won't.
about the current map pool. Does blizzard care about that? Well, currently, no.
By the way, GSL maps get constantly updated over and over, in order to make the map as balanced as possible. Gom has also been dismissing some maps due to issues with it, and they are being very careful when picking from these maps.
Again, do blizzard do this? No. I honestly don't think they have enough man power to commit to this kind of details, yet they refuse to use community driven map, or at least adopt their philosophy. Instead, they add maps for the sake of adding maps. Earlier in the thread mentioned Test map 5 was shown at Blizzcon, and its actually in the blizzard custom map pool, its named New Antioch.
You cannot honestly say current ladder map pool Blizzard is keeping because current style seems fun for the casuals. Dustin browder himself even said 2 rax pressure is "garbage". And what do Casuals usually cry about? That this game is too much about "rushes".
A map that is not made by the game creators will cause more trouble to them because they do not have the control over it, they haven't been involved in its creation, therefore they aren't comfortable with using them in the ladder. They want to have the control because they are in charge of game balance. These issues will be fixed at pro-level, but at the ladder level, the control is important to balance the game. For this reason, the community made maps will most likely never be seen in the ladder map pool and the reason is not just ignorance or not caring enough, but this simple fact: Control.
WC3 example alone shows Blizzard "control" is not a good thing. Blizzard never updated ladder maps ever, and look what happened. They used same bloody maps for years.
Anyone who actually played BW would agree that the abyss was and is MUCH better option than battle.net for learning melee games.
It is good that they are at least trying to add new maps. BUT, they don't seem to have enough man power to handle this "control", yet they want to hang onto it for the sake of controlling.
And you keep changing your argument, sighs.
If someone finds a crazy build where they can get to 200/200 in no time with super aggresive expand style all over the big map and go and 1-a the opponent, the pro scene will find a way to beat it. Use the same map in ladder, see what happens.
Are you suggesting that Blizzard should balance the game for Casuals too?
Oh I forgot, they shouldn't. Because they don't play the game. The game should be reserved for tip-top elitists who know everything about not only SC2 but also BW and its entire history and the rest should get packed and leave. If you want the game to be opened to masses, this is not the attitude you want to be in.
There is a difference between bad casuals, and those who just want to enjoy the game. Those who are simply bad, are without hope and the balance changes are not prepared with them being in mind. The balance changes are for those who can play the game at a reasonable level and don't let their own fundamental mistakes shadow their entire gameplay (i.e getting supply blocked all time)
I'm not changing my argument at all. The argument is the same. Ladder maps are created with taking many things in considerations. One of them, is having control. It seems to me that the Blizzard have learnt their lesson from WC3, since they are actually making changes to it.
If they can play the game at reasonable level, I don't see how there could be something balanced for Pros but imbalanced for "reasonable casuals".
Also GSL maps are constantly reevaluated for balance, where as Blizzard seems to design maps on what they think is fun. Map 1-3 is definitely step in the right direction; HOWEVER, there are still fundamental flaws in these maps that GSL maps have as basic requirement.
There are positional imbalances. This would be unacceptable by most tournament organizers as it gives inherent advantage for spawning at certain location.
There are huge variability in distance depending on spawn points. Now, I've only tried the map against AI, but it seems like there is no spawn lock like in Shakuras Plateau. Meaning just like metalopolis, you can either be in closest rush distance possible out of the map pool, or farthest distance. This is just a bad design, putting outcome of the game flow on a dice roll. If you check GSL 4 player maps, variability in rush distances are not as huge as blizzard maps.
Ramp that doesn't face natural expo. This means against any FE builds, you can easily walk into their main. In fact, forge FE is impossible on most of these maps. Why take away a style of play?
Also, why do you believe that its necessary for blizzard to have absolute control over the ladder?
I feel like a parrot saying the same thing every post. Because it is the ladder!!!! Everyone plays in ladder not just pros. The maps should cover all of that. New maps create new problems, which can be solved at pro-level, but not all ladder players can do that. A huge majority of people on ladder probably doesn't know what teamliquid or who day9 is. The game is really new, the strategies are not standardized and new playstyles are being created almost every day, there might be things that cause problem for the normal folk and not for the pros. Not everyone that can play reasonable plays great. They may not get supply blocked and always spend their money, but they just might not know about micro or the overall strategy at all.
How in the world sir, would GSL maps, which people spend countless hours on to balance it, create any new weird problems that Blizzard maps wouldn't? When was the last time Blizzard updated their own map other than to fix bugs? Who cares if Stepps of war has positional imbalance and Terrans block the ramp with 2 bunkers.
Also why should Blizzard balance the game for casuals instead of encouraging them to learn new strategy and get better? What they balance for casuals may break the game for Pros, while what they balance for Pros casuals can over come by learning the game. It would be overall horrible policy to balance using feedbacks from mid to low level players because of this.
I know that nobody cares about 2v2 compared to 1v1, but how come the OP doesn't mention the 4 new 2v2 Test maps at all?
As someone who usually only plays 1v1 when I can fit in 5-10 games but will jump in for lots of quick 2v2s, I'm very happy to see new maps. I abhor about 50% of the current 2v2 map pool. Whether they're better or not, just having something new is quite pleasant.
It seems to me that a lot of these maps have naturals without a choke point, which make them vulnerable to attacks. I'm guessing Blizzard must've liked what they were seeing in Xel'Naga and Metalopolis, and so those concepts carried over to the new maps.
On February 05 2011 07:09 Stymie[SC] wrote: uggghhh. I don't think that Blizzard gets it. For some reason they seem content with the boring 2 base play that their maps are encouraging. They need to get rid of the silly rocks in the back of your main, make it easier to take a third and just have bigger maps in general to create exiting macro games. If they do this, the game will be a lot more fun to play and to watch.
The rocks on for example the new LT are a non issue as far as I'm concerned seeing as they're IN your natural. Meaning you don't have to go out of your way to take them down.
I haven't looked at any of the other maps in any detail though so you could well be right.
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
Well then they should have at least the option of pro maps available shouldn't they?
Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps? I can say this
some players might enjoy the map. But some won't.
about the current map pool. Does blizzard care about that? Well, currently, no.
By the way, GSL maps get constantly updated over and over, in order to make the map as balanced as possible. Gom has also been dismissing some maps due to issues with it, and they are being very careful when picking from these maps.
Again, do blizzard do this? No. I honestly don't think they have enough man power to commit to this kind of details, yet they refuse to use community driven map, or at least adopt their philosophy. Instead, they add maps for the sake of adding maps. Earlier in the thread mentioned Test map 5 was shown at Blizzcon, and its actually in the blizzard custom map pool, its named New Antioch.
You cannot honestly say current ladder map pool Blizzard is keeping because current style seems fun for the casuals. Dustin browder himself even said 2 rax pressure is "garbage". And what do Casuals usually cry about? That this game is too much about "rushes".
A map that is not made by the game creators will cause more trouble to them because they do not have the control over it, they haven't been involved in its creation, therefore they aren't comfortable with using them in the ladder. They want to have the control because they are in charge of game balance. These issues will be fixed at pro-level, but at the ladder level, the control is important to balance the game. For this reason, the community made maps will most likely never be seen in the ladder map pool and the reason is not just ignorance or not caring enough, but this simple fact: Control.
WC3 example alone shows Blizzard "control" is not a good thing. Blizzard never updated ladder maps ever, and look what happened. They used same bloody maps for years.
Anyone who actually played BW would agree that the abyss was and is MUCH better option than battle.net for learning melee games.
It is good that they are at least trying to add new maps. BUT, they don't seem to have enough man power to handle this "control", yet they want to hang onto it for the sake of controlling.
And you keep changing your argument, sighs.
If someone finds a crazy build where they can get to 200/200 in no time with super aggresive expand style all over the big map and go and 1-a the opponent, the pro scene will find a way to beat it. Use the same map in ladder, see what happens.
Are you suggesting that Blizzard should balance the game for Casuals too?
Oh I forgot, they shouldn't. Because they don't play the game. The game should be reserved for tip-top elitists who know everything about not only SC2 but also BW and its entire history and the rest should get packed and leave. If you want the game to be opened to masses, this is not the attitude you want to be in.
There is a difference between bad casuals, and those who just want to enjoy the game. Those who are simply bad, are without hope and the balance changes are not prepared with them being in mind. The balance changes are for those who can play the game at a reasonable level and don't let their own fundamental mistakes shadow their entire gameplay (i.e getting supply blocked all time)
I'm not changing my argument at all. The argument is the same. Ladder maps are created with taking many things in considerations. One of them, is having control. It seems to me that the Blizzard have learnt their lesson from WC3, since they are actually making changes to it.
If they can play the game at reasonable level, I don't see how there could be something balanced for Pros but imbalanced for "reasonable casuals".
Also GSL maps are constantly reevaluated for balance, where as Blizzard seems to design maps on what they think is fun. Map 1-3 is definitely step in the right direction; HOWEVER, there are still fundamental flaws in these maps that GSL maps have as basic requirement.
There are positional imbalances. This would be unacceptable by most tournament organizers as it gives inherent advantage for spawning at certain location.
There are huge variability in distance depending on spawn points. Now, I've only tried the map against AI, but it seems like there is no spawn lock like in Shakuras Plateau. Meaning just like metalopolis, you can either be in closest rush distance possible out of the map pool, or farthest distance. This is just a bad design, putting outcome of the game flow on a dice roll. If you check GSL 4 player maps, variability in rush distances are not as huge as blizzard maps.
Ramp that doesn't face natural expo. This means against any FE builds, you can easily walk into their main. In fact, forge FE is impossible on most of these maps. Why take away a style of play?
Also, why do you believe that its necessary for blizzard to have absolute control over the ladder?
I feel like a parrot saying the same thing every post. Because it is the ladder!!!! Everyone plays in ladder not just pros. The maps should cover all of that. New maps create new problems, which can be solved at pro-level, but not all ladder players can do that. A huge majority of people on ladder probably doesn't know what teamliquid or who day9 is. The game is really new, the strategies are not standardized and new playstyles are being created almost every day, there might be things that cause problem for the normal folk and not for the pros. Not everyone that can play reasonable plays great. They may not get supply blocked and always spend their money, but they just might not know about micro or the overall strategy at all.
How in the world sir, would GSL maps, which people spend countless hours on to balance it, create any new weird problems that Blizzard maps wouldn't? When was the last time Blizzard updated their own map other than to fix bugs? Who cares if Stepps of war has positional imbalance and Terrans block the ramp with 2 bunkers.
Also why should Blizzard balance the game for casuals instead of encouraging them to learn new strategy and get better? What they balance for casuals may break the game for Pros, while what they balance for Pros casuals can over come by learning the game. It would be overall horrible policy to balance using feedbacks from mid to low level players because of this.
I don't enjoy talking to a wall, so I'm going to stop arguing here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think the effort is good, maps will show if they can be good or not in time, and we will see. I don't have such a biased opinion that only some people can make the best maps and believe that Blizzard is doing what they can. That's all about it.
Here is my big tip for Bizzard (and any other I guess) map makers:
Stop putting a big garble of stuff (raised ground, mineral patches, pits, ramps) in the center of these maps. The closest I can think of is Shakuras that actually has an OPEN center.
Always placing the ramps, minerals, holes, or some other nonsense right in the center, usually creates the same old series of 1 or 2 narrow passageways to force armies through.
Having an actual open center, with wider corridors, would allow for better flanks and tactics without having to make the maps ungodly HUGE to change the late game.
Please at least try it on one or 2 maps- otherwise, I think the direction of the maps looks good, with the optional directions for expanding (ie Away or Towards your opponent) like on the NeoLostTemple looking one. Looks pretty good for a lot of reasons but still has the narrow hallway effect on ALL of them.
The main reason tournaments need to use the same map as ladder is at the very top level, there are probably dozens of ways to play a map. A single team may get stuck with the idea that a certain build or strategy is the best on a certain map, but that gets hard countered by some other strategy that another team has thought up. That's the nature of a team.
Blizzard does need to move away from the open naturals and backdoor rocks though, because generally, those features heavily favour one race or another simply because of mechanics.
On February 05 2011 00:23 crappen wrote: Holy shit this is good, needs to be quoted and bumped. I dont understand the sheep mentality on so many people here, the work blizzard is doing is subpar right now, we need to give them clearer feedback like the quote above me, so that the thickheaded people at blizzard understand what they are doing is in fact wrong. They will never give up on sc2 cause we give them a shitstorm, they will improve.
To be quite blunt, that post complains about the existance of backdoors. To be blunt, complaining about those screams to me "I am unable to change my gameplay to account for possibility of two base entrances".
Whyyy whyyy why why why why why are backdoors bad? Because you have to defend 2 locations? Only map in existance where attacker may have an advantage in that situation is Blistering Sand. So when I see a player complaining about a backdoor entrance, I see a flashing sign THIS IS A BAD PLAYER WHO CAN'T ADAPT.
I'm sorry, but if Blizzard bashing is allowed in this thread, then that thing above is too.
Oh, and the Lost Temple 2.0 is actually smallest map of the lot. Testmap 2 has 7 bases each, Metalopolis has 6, lost temple & lost temple 2.0 has 6 each, testmap 3 has 7 bases each, testmap 4 has like 5 for each, but even that is more than 1/2 of the map pool, testmap 5 has 6 bases each.
Only complaint about maps being "too small" I could find is maybe the small rush distance, but that is a problem with zerg race in general, not the maps themselves. If zerg can't handle those distances, it's a race problem not map problem, IMO.
I'm sorry I'm such a sheep.
It's not a matter of not adapting. Pro's and casuals alike can do that. The question is, does it promote good play? Truth is, Blizzard could make maps with starting positions with no chokes at all. Simply a wide open main. Players would adapt. Early SC players built their own walls around their Nexus/cc to survive the inevitable rush. But it wasn't good for gameplay.
Single chokes allow a player to hold off a larger force in time to build up another force or make a tech switch. Without defensible bases, it simply becomes a matter of who has the bigger army ball. You fall behind, you get left behind with no ability to come back in the game.
The destructible rocks are just annoying. There's really no increased value in gameplay or viewablity from having them block expansion. The Python example is not good- 8 mineral easily mined out by 1 worker and really only to prevent floating cc's to dominate Python. Versus however many zealots and stalkers you need to take out those dang rocks.
Neo-Medusa actually made good use of destructible buildings. It was a second entrance to the base, but because it was 10 buildings stacked, you had to tech to seige tanks, archons or lurkers to take it out. In addition, you couldn't just gallivant into the production facilities (like Blistering Sands), but had to navigate a long ridge that was easily defensible, then a narrow ramp into the main- also defendible . I saw as many doom drops as I did busting through the ridge because for a secondary entrance, it was still pretty defensible with a few tanks, lurkers or cannons.
But I don't see this level of design with Blizzard and I don't think Neo-Medusa could've been designed in the early stages of SCBW. We need to see how more standard maps affect the game before we start designing Neo-Medusa or Troy. The Blizzard features seem to be there for their own sake rather than a specific gameplay idea.
On the other I do like the cliff-less Lost Temple. I remember back in Beta getting destroyed by some early tank-medivac play, abusing those cliffs.
On February 05 2011 07:09 Stymie[SC] wrote: uggghhh. I don't think that Blizzard gets it. For some reason they seem content with the boring 2 base play that their maps are encouraging. They need to get rid of the silly rocks in the back of your main, make it easier to take a third and just have bigger maps in general to create exiting macro games. If they do this, the game will be a lot more fun to play and to watch.
The rocks on for example the new LT are a non issue as far as I'm concerned seeing as they're IN your natural. Meaning you don't have to go out of your way to take them down.
I haven't looked at any of the other maps in any detail though so you could well be right.
I have to agree that the new LT looks better, though im not too sure how it would work if you spawn in close positions (good or bad). Map 2 also looks pretty good, but honestly, what is map 5, that is possibly the worst map that I have ever seen. Its like close positions on shakuras but worse.
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
Well then they should have at least the option of pro maps available shouldn't they?
Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps? I can say this
some players might enjoy the map. But some won't.
about the current map pool. Does blizzard care about that? Well, currently, no.
By the way, GSL maps get constantly updated over and over, in order to make the map as balanced as possible. Gom has also been dismissing some maps due to issues with it, and they are being very careful when picking from these maps.
Again, do blizzard do this? No. I honestly don't think they have enough man power to commit to this kind of details, yet they refuse to use community driven map, or at least adopt their philosophy. Instead, they add maps for the sake of adding maps. Earlier in the thread mentioned Test map 5 was shown at Blizzcon, and its actually in the blizzard custom map pool, its named New Antioch.
You cannot honestly say current ladder map pool Blizzard is keeping because current style seems fun for the casuals. Dustin browder himself even said 2 rax pressure is "garbage". And what do Casuals usually cry about? That this game is too much about "rushes".
A map that is not made by the game creators will cause more trouble to them because they do not have the control over it, they haven't been involved in its creation, therefore they aren't comfortable with using them in the ladder. They want to have the control because they are in charge of game balance. These issues will be fixed at pro-level, but at the ladder level, the control is important to balance the game. For this reason, the community made maps will most likely never be seen in the ladder map pool and the reason is not just ignorance or not caring enough, but this simple fact: Control.
WC3 example alone shows Blizzard "control" is not a good thing. Blizzard never updated ladder maps ever, and look what happened. They used same bloody maps for years.
Anyone who actually played BW would agree that the abyss was and is MUCH better option than battle.net for learning melee games.
It is good that they are at least trying to add new maps. BUT, they don't seem to have enough man power to handle this "control", yet they want to hang onto it for the sake of controlling.
And you keep changing your argument, sighs.
If someone finds a crazy build where they can get to 200/200 in no time with super aggresive expand style all over the big map and go and 1-a the opponent, the pro scene will find a way to beat it. Use the same map in ladder, see what happens.
Are you suggesting that Blizzard should balance the game for Casuals too?
Oh I forgot, they shouldn't. Because they don't play the game. The game should be reserved for tip-top elitists who know everything about not only SC2 but also BW and its entire history and the rest should get packed and leave. If you want the game to be opened to masses, this is not the attitude you want to be in.
There is a difference between bad casuals, and those who just want to enjoy the game. Those who are simply bad, are without hope and the balance changes are not prepared with them being in mind. The balance changes are for those who can play the game at a reasonable level and don't let their own fundamental mistakes shadow their entire gameplay (i.e getting supply blocked all time)
I'm not changing my argument at all. The argument is the same. Ladder maps are created with taking many things in considerations. One of them, is having control. It seems to me that the Blizzard have learnt their lesson from WC3, since they are actually making changes to it.
If they can play the game at reasonable level, I don't see how there could be something balanced for Pros but imbalanced for "reasonable casuals".
Also GSL maps are constantly reevaluated for balance, where as Blizzard seems to design maps on what they think is fun. Map 1-3 is definitely step in the right direction; HOWEVER, there are still fundamental flaws in these maps that GSL maps have as basic requirement.
There are positional imbalances. This would be unacceptable by most tournament organizers as it gives inherent advantage for spawning at certain location.
There are huge variability in distance depending on spawn points. Now, I've only tried the map against AI, but it seems like there is no spawn lock like in Shakuras Plateau. Meaning just like metalopolis, you can either be in closest rush distance possible out of the map pool, or farthest distance. This is just a bad design, putting outcome of the game flow on a dice roll. If you check GSL 4 player maps, variability in rush distances are not as huge as blizzard maps.
Ramp that doesn't face natural expo. This means against any FE builds, you can easily walk into their main. In fact, forge FE is impossible on most of these maps. Why take away a style of play?
Also, why do you believe that its necessary for blizzard to have absolute control over the ladder?
I feel like a parrot saying the same thing every post. Because it is the ladder!!!! Everyone plays in ladder not just pros. The maps should cover all of that. New maps create new problems, which can be solved at pro-level, but not all ladder players can do that. A huge majority of people on ladder probably doesn't know what teamliquid or who day9 is. The game is really new, the strategies are not standardized and new playstyles are being created almost every day, there might be things that cause problem for the normal folk and not for the pros. Not everyone that can play reasonable plays great. They may not get supply blocked and always spend their money, but they just might not know about micro or the overall strategy at all.
I dont think this would matter more that it already does, doesn´t ladder disign avoids you from too skilled people? So you are playing people your skill mainly, witch can not really abuse you from theorical map imbalance more than you can abuse them.
Blizzard have to put some good maps out there, I mean, Neo Enigma, Testbug, GSTL maps, they are great maps wich convince most of the people who give them a shot, there is people who like rushing everygame, but that doesn´t mean that all maps have to been small.
Blizzard may want to have control, but I seriously doubt the community is going to give it to them, players are going to get tired at some point.
I've lost all hope in Blizzard ever making a semi-decent map. The naturals are all absolutely terrible, thirds are basically non-existent, and rocks, rocks fucking everywhere.
Don't be so rude against blizzard. And don't take everything that GomTV does like it was gold.
An example: If the third base is too easy to take that feature doesn't favour the zerg, but the other races. Remember: if a protoss manages to take a third in PvZ it ends up in a victory 99% of the time. So I don't think that maps like Terminus will show to be more balanced than the others just because they have a third that shares its choke with the natural.
Another Example: everyone complains about the natural expansion's chokes on the current map pool. Those are large, larger than most of the chokes in any SC1 map. But think about it: what are the most balanced maps in the current map pool? Xel Naga Caverns and Metalopolis, two maps with huge chokes at the natural. So what? We have to throw away the Brood War Mindset, we have to evolve. You all complain about the fact that FFE is no more a viable tactic and you blame the maps. But I saw IdrA busting FFEs on shakuras plateau with roaches and zerglings, it was easy like drinking a glass of water. So think about it: it's not about the maps, it's about the fact that SC2 is a new game and asks for new builds.
Now about the new maps:
Lost Temple 2 is a great map. Ok, there are still close spawn positions available, but all the other imbalances have been removed, this is great.
TestMap 2 is broken because it has a corridor with rocks that shortens the rush distances on the close spawns. But if that thing will be removed it will become a great map, we just have to ask for it. It has an easy to take third, lots of bases, a wide open centre and good rushing distances if we don't mind the corridor with destructible rocks.
The other maps are not good: too 3 has too many chokes, 4 is too small and 5 has too many backdoors, not to say the rushing distances. But we don't need them.
Think about it: two new maps are more than enough to fix the map pool. Shakuras Plateau, Xel Naga Caverns, Metalopolis, New Lost Temple, Fixed TestMap 2 and a smaller map that you can check if you don't like it, say Steppes of War. Maybe a new 2 player map to complete the whole thing. A great pool for a great game.
stop talking shit about the maps without even playing a few hours on them .. I like to see changes and will to improve.. its great to see blizzard trying to make us enjoy even more Starcraft2 , not dislike ..
There. Are. So. Many. Destructible. Rocks. Holy shit are there many destructible rocks. Oo
Needed to say that first. Overall some of the maps are decent I feel, LT2 is obviously better than LT atm I feel, but the chokes are so wide and clunky and there's so many rocks to break and so many points of entrance 4 gates+++ are just going to be ridic to hold due to static defense being next to worthless.
Another point that's just plain scary is on map 5, TvZ getting rocks to rocks bases as the terran you can FE rather safely tech to tanks, break your rocks and just bunker up on the lowground with tanks, and you have an unbreakable position 3 seconds walk from your opponent base. Oo It's alrdy bad at shakuras, but here it's even closer. Did i mention there are many destructible rocks btw?
Anyways, going to be interesting trying them out, but as for now I'm still a bit sceptical. :/
Played about 10 games across all the maps, here are my thoughts.
Testmap1 (lost temple): Quite simple, I think it's an improvement over the current version. I'd have no problem just swapping this in right away, although I don't mind that they want it tested to check balance and/or bugs.
Testmap 3 (the second one pictures in OP, looks like blistering sands): I think this is a really, really interesting map. Fairly large main base, natural is a bit back and has chokes in front, but those are still between the ramp and the nat. Means there will be lots of different arrangements to defend the area. The third can go either direction depending on what side the opponent spawned, but you have to clear rocks on either (similar to Xel Caverns). Or you can get be more aggresive and go straight for the gold (again, like XNC).
Testmap 2 (3rd in set of pics): Looks really shaky for any non mirror vs T. Tanks in the main behind bushes can hit probably hit the CC/nex/hatch. Your third is recessed so all kinds of harrassment possible. I fear this map ZvT, but I really enjoyed it ZvZ. I think it can cause interesting decisions.
Testmap 4(space theme): My least favorite map. Lots of raised areas for tank damage, taking a third is very susceptible to drops and other harrasment, cliff area separates nat from 3rd.
Testmap 5: Someone said this early, but it's like a revised Shakuras (even in look). I only played against opponents on the opposite side (not connected by rocks) so I'm guessing all spawn locations are open. Middle has a raised area to aggressively control the map, but the map is really friggin huge. Enjoyed it.
after playing testmap 4 I can say that I like it, except for the fact that the ramp is so far apart from the natural, like delta quadrant, also close positions pose an issue similar to metalopolis, but not as bad since there is a bit of distance... Cross position is zerg heaven....
Had a chance to play some random v random with some friends on these maps. Every single one is better than Steppes, Blistering, Jungle Basin, Delta, and Scrap - with the "new" lost temple (which looks like the offspring of Python and LT) being superior to its predecessor.
I'm actually looking forward to playing on these if they ever make it live on the normal ladder. My favorites would probably be 1, 3, and 5. I don't really see 5 as a re-imagined Shakuras Plateau, unlike Testmap 1/LT it's definitely got its own unique vibe in terms of how the game plays out. My experience is limited but 2 and 4 weren't quite as nice... but I may be biased because they're just not aesthetically pleasing as the others.... also I lost on them .
My first impression after playing a few is "meh". I miss the two towers and islands on LT as I thought it made the map more interesting and unique in that you have a wall protecting your side of the tower, and the island expo seemed pretty balance. I think the new LT encourages more aggressive play since there is only 1 tower now. It's like you're playing more blind and promotes even more 1 base play. Before using the 2 towers (especially when players spawn the farthest from each other) allowed players to better prepare for early aggression since you could see their unit composition and prepare by the time they get to your base. You can play a little more greedy with economy or cut corners in builds when utilizing the 2 towers (they offer more range than 1 center tower) from my experience. Wider choke on the natural is also kind of a bummer and Im also sick of these backdoor rocks that go into your main or natural expansion.
Overall it's been meh so far on the ptr. I guess that desert map is ok as it has lot of interesting terrain features (could be cool watching marines and banelings go at it) but whatevers I kind of lost faith in blizzard lol. I expected great maps like Shakuras, and some good 2 player spawn maps. Maybe something like 3 player maps as well? Instead we get 4 player maps with short rush distances that can be problematic for close spawns like metal & LT like throwing dice...
Preventing early thor & cliff on natural expo cliffs on old LT, force cross spawns and less chokes in the center is all that was needed to be done for LT imo.
On February 05 2011 06:48 Treemonkeys wrote: Why is everyone calling the first map the new LT? Yeah it looks kind of similar, but it's also very different. Has it actually been confirmed that this is going to be a new LT, or are people just assuming this?
It has been announced that they gonna modify - LT, Steppes and Blistering.
These new maps should be in the GSL, it makes no sense for players not to be able to practice for the GSL while Laddering at the same time. New maps are all great IMHO, give them a chance guys before you rag on them.
On February 05 2011 05:51 FryKt wrote: Okay, time to defend myself Ribbon, since you seem very mature and deserves a proper response.
Sorry about my delayed response. I was sleeping.
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.
I feel as if Blizzard considers rocks, grass, golds, and towers to be integral parts of the game, that just need to be used correctly to bring everything together. You want them to release maps without any interesting features at all. And then....balance around these bland maps? Then you won't be able to use the interesting stuff. You're basically asking them to drop their vision for the game. That's kind of sad, actually. Figuring out how to use towers wisely is hard, so you don't want them to do it?
If you "walk before you run", and then balance the game around "walk" maps (as some have demanded), then you'll never be able to run.
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.
I don't even care about the swearing. It's the general anti-new-ideasness.
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.
(Bold added)
People don't enjoy maps with interesting features because they're imbalanced. Therefore, we should not balance them.
This is not good logic. If no one tried new things and worked to balance around them, we'd never have Starcraft. Three races with wildly different options? People don't want to play that unbalanced garbage; give us back Warcraft 2.
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.
Moving the goal posts.
I mixed up everyone and majority, you should figure out that. My thoughts reflected towards majority.
Then your thoughts are wrong. Team Liquid != Majority.
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?
They did learn things. Maps are much better for Macro than anything Brood War came with. But you don't want them to learn, you want them to copy. You want them to give up on any innovation because it didn't work in a game that game out a million billion years ago.
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.
(Bold Added)
If you don't have time to think, you shouldn't take time to 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.
Considering how much Blizzard is trying to reinvent the wheel, that's actually a little impressive.
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.
Tl.DR: battery acid.
Again, I think of grass/rocks/towers as core gameplay features in need of a proper use. Shakuras uses all three quote well, and they're not gimmicks. They're things that are new.
I see a Nayl in need of a hammer.
On February 05 2011 07:49 Nayl wrote: Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps?
On February 05 2011 08:32 Nayl wrote:Blizzard seems to design maps on what they think is fun.
Those cocksuckers.
There are positional imbalances. This would be unacceptable by most tournament organizers as it gives inherent advantage for spawning at certain location.
Actually, what the hell are you talking about? What positional imbalances, besides Delta? That close positions are worse for Zerg? That's going to be true of every map ever, because of how Zerg work.
Now, I'm going to go actually play these maps, instead of dismissing them offhand.
I think sc2 is trying to make maps too complex, with rocks, gold expos, and overall funky map design. Yes having complex maps is cunning to the eye, but sc2 is so young that having these things in takes away from balancing the game. We know that rocks block quick travel distances or important areas from being accessed, but knowing their proper use is limited. So a map with just standard bases with no rocks and average distances could be a breath of fresh air in this map pool. This could help highlighting true unit base balance in the game, rather that map balance.
These new maps feel awful so far. The nats are way too wide open for 'toss to do anything but 1-base to t3. I hope you like how forcefields make or break your t1, because it's even fucking worse now.
Alternatively, fucking redesign forcefield already so toss can have decent T1 without stupid expensive upgrades.
Also, yes I too like to look optimistically at the situation. How many of you guys actually thought Xel'Naga Caverns, or even Shakuras Plateau, were great maps right when they came out? At least judging from threads, many people criticized Blizzard turning a 2v2 map into a 1v1 map and thought the map wouldn't work well, while XC looked ugly and weird (look how open the natural is! and wait there's a backdoor? AND WAIT there's rocks blocking the entrance to a third??? must be horrible for Zerg).
I do think the use of rocks and etc is quite an excess sometimes. Yes they have a vision and should accomplish it, but i mean, you don't need all maps (or very close) to have at least 1 instance of high yield, rocks, tower, brush, etc. right? Can't you have a couple maps that only have 1-2 or even none? That would make maps more unique and varied. (Perhaps they will in the future and are focusing on using as many of these new aspects as possible to figure stuff out.)
The 4th map is clearly terrible and won't make it to the ladder. There are multiple positional disadvantages depending on the spawn, the biggest being the 6 o clock having way more ground behind the mineral line than the other mains. Which makes it easier to intercept drops/air harass compared to the other 3 mains. Plus a tank can hit the main from the top gold.
these maps are a spit in the face to everything we've been asking for in maps. it's clear at this stage blizzard doesn't give a shit about making legitimate competitive pro level maps. they want eye candy maps that are so simple a frontal lobotomy patient can understand them that don't involve too many bases. ugh.
On February 05 2011 15:34 AndAgain wrote: Map #4 is a joke against zerg. Really? Never occurred to blizzard what happens to protoss in early game where you can't put some decent FFs.
I think it's awesome that there's finally a map which isn't controlled by tiny chokes. Protoss really have no reason to complain against Zerg. Seriously.
For our European friends, I made a replay pack of my Platinum self (bronze in PTR herp derp). Zerg is my off-race, but it was mostly Zergs qqing (SURPRISE), so I played Z, mostly.
Double Bunker on the ramp = @#!$!. I need to start patrolling drones over there. PTR is so goddamn cheesy. In Plat on the NA server, people play macro, so I'm not used to this bullshit.
Test Map 2 is great. Test map 3 is okay, but I kept rolling ZvZs on it. I loathe ZvZ, it's why I don't normally play Zerg.
Test map 4 is awful. Even ignoring balance, it's just such a half-assed map.
Test map five is close positions all positions. I rolled it as Toss, and have 0 idea how the hell I'm intended to take that natural. Protoss are going to cheese this map so hard, because what else can they do?
On February 05 2011 07:10 Bleak wrote: In Blizzcon, devs have talked about maps and they have stated that tournaments should use their own maps. There is a freaking game editor for this that people use to create a ton of maps.
It is not right to compare GSL maps to the ladder maps. Only pros take part in the GSL. Ladder is played by everyone. They need to account for the wide range of players, while trying to create maps that can allow fun games to be played, while also trying to cater the pros that practice using the ladder and also those who bought the game and just want to enjoy it in their own way without trying to be pros and don't know about how great BW was or don't care a thing about it. With those in mind, they're trying to do design some maps to the best of they can with their own thinking. But, people always find something to whine, you cannot satisfy anyone and the devs are aware of that, so that is why they don't take these pointless, childish complaining too seriously. No map is perfect, and so these maps are not, but they are just trying to make changes to the current pool.
Asking the Blizzard to get the GSL maps into the ladder is ridiculous. The world is just not composed of Pros, and people who try to put themselves in their shoes while playing the game just because they want to feel "cool" like them while trying to pull off the things they do on those "ideal" maps. Maybe some people don't want too big maps in ladder? Maybe they want variety? Maybe they don't share the same philosophy regarding how the game should be played out? Why is ICCUP map making team, or just Kespa or whoever that made the maps in past have the absolute perfect tip-top uber ideas about how a map should be? Why are some people, so blindly adhering to the thought that these people should know the best and they are right 100% ? Perhaps they do actually, but why should the Blizzard dev team, the guys that made the game and play the game too, have to know less than these organizations? They freaking made the game. Do you think they are that stupid? Perhaps they think harrassment from cliff is a legitimate strategy and should be used? Perhaps there are narrow spots in the map because they just don't want you to engage there and think if you are out of position, you should be punished? Perhaps they don't agree to your point of view? Ever thought of that?
Yes, there are bad maps. Delta Quadrant,Blistering Sands, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin or any map with close position spawn possible is downright boring and can drive some people including me, crazy. These maps are just not fun to play for a macro or a long game at all. But perhaps those maps are to be played in a quick fashion, with a more aggressive mindset. I know that this isn't fun in pro-scene at all, because you just want to see interesting and long-term play, but that is the point, it is a ladder map! Not for a tournament. The goal is not that. The ladder maps have been used in tournaments so far because there weren't any good maps that the map making teams could create in time. If you oh so want to play in the ICCUP maps, custom games are there, try to find some good practice partners and play the game in your own way. It's not going to be as competitive or thrilling as ladder can be, but the sad truth is that if people could have whatever they want then the human civilization would be wiped out by now.
Again, I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that the Blizz devs know the best, rest don't, or the other way round. It is just the pointless and unnecessary criticism to whatever they are trying to do. It is just childish. You're saying that they should know all because of 12 years of BW Korean Pro-Scene experience. You are comparing pro-scene, with maps designed for pro-play, to the ladder. Apples to oranges.
For most people, ladder is only way to practice this game. Also, GSL determines Code A qualifier through the ladder. But when the ladder is different from tournament, its very difficult to practice for a tournament.
According to your logic, Blizzard should either make a seperate league with different map pool for Pros and casuals, (which almost doesn't make as much sense as having different map pool for ladder and tourneys) or even better, allow organizations to create a private ladder with custom map pool.
Also There is not a single map in the current ladder pool that remotely resembles GSL-esque map. Why not even try to make ONE MAP like it?
Pros should find people that can play together in custom games on the GSL maps. Most of them already are in teams, and even those who aren't just play with other people. Ladder can be used to train against cheese, or all-ins maybe? And the question about why not try to make one map like it, perhaps they don't want too big maps like the GSL ones? How do the great BW pros practice? Do they just roll everyone in iccup? I'm sure they play each other as now people can do in custom games.
If the guy got through the ladder maps and a shitton of games to qualify for GSL, they should just prepare to put the effort to learn the new maps. Otherwise, how do you expect the tournaments to use new maps? In your logic, only ladder maps should be used because they have been here for a year, and adapting to the new maps will be too hard for them since they only practice on ladder. If they are pros, they should show how much pro they are and learn the new maps and deal with it.
How about semi-pro players who aren't on a team? New players who wants to play competitively? Why create such artificial barrier of entry?
Also why is it so painful in trying out GSL-esque maps? Maybe even casuals will enjoy this kind of map once in a while. Isn't that the point of PTR?
The great Foreigner BW pros practiced using Iccup, because ICCup had 99% of the maps used by all tournaments around the world available. It's easy way to practice, you don't have to wait for your teammate to log on, you can just get in and play.
Also, When you have to ladder to qualify, It's pretty difficult to watch replays of a pro to learn anything because they are on a completely different map pool with completely different map making philosophy.
At some point you need to draw the distance between the two. Ladder is ladder, tournament is tournament. You can choose your opponent in ICCUP, so maps will matter there. In ladder you just click the button and play someone in your region. Therefore it is important to draw the distinction. Yes, some players might enjoy the map. But some won't. It needs to be taken into account, even though there is an option to downvote the maps. The fact is that, the new maps will create new problems for the game. At the pro level, they can just find a way to deal with it and the game will open up to a different playstyle. What about the people in ladder? It is just too much work to balance the game around that.
Again I repeat, I'm not the one trying to make money playing a video game, if they love what they're doing and committed to it, they should just find a way to do it. It is their job.
Well then they should have at least the option of pro maps available shouldn't they?
Do you really think people enjoy playing on Delta/Stepps? I can say this
some players might enjoy the map. But some won't.
about the current map pool. Does blizzard care about that? Well, currently, no.
By the way, GSL maps get constantly updated over and over, in order to make the map as balanced as possible. Gom has also been dismissing some maps due to issues with it, and they are being very careful when picking from these maps.
Again, do blizzard do this? No. I honestly don't think they have enough man power to commit to this kind of details, yet they refuse to use community driven map, or at least adopt their philosophy. Instead, they add maps for the sake of adding maps. Earlier in the thread mentioned Test map 5 was shown at Blizzcon, and its actually in the blizzard custom map pool, its named New Antioch.
You cannot honestly say current ladder map pool Blizzard is keeping because current style seems fun for the casuals. Dustin browder himself even said 2 rax pressure is "garbage". And what do Casuals usually cry about? That this game is too much about "rushes".
A map that is not made by the game creators will cause more trouble to them because they do not have the control over it, they haven't been involved in its creation, therefore they aren't comfortable with using them in the ladder. They want to have the control because they are in charge of game balance. These issues will be fixed at pro-level, but at the ladder level, the control is important to balance the game. For this reason, the community made maps will most likely never be seen in the ladder map pool and the reason is not just ignorance or not caring enough, but this simple fact: Control.
WC3 example alone shows Blizzard "control" is not a good thing. Blizzard never updated ladder maps ever, and look what happened. They used same bloody maps for years.
Anyone who actually played BW would agree that the abyss was and is MUCH better option than battle.net for learning melee games.
It is good that they are at least trying to add new maps. BUT, they don't seem to have enough man power to handle this "control", yet they want to hang onto it for the sake of controlling.
And you keep changing your argument, sighs.
If someone finds a crazy build where they can get to 200/200 in no time with super aggresive expand style all over the big map and go and 1-a the opponent, the pro scene will find a way to beat it. Use the same map in ladder, see what happens.
Are you suggesting that Blizzard should balance the game for Casuals too?
Oh I forgot, they shouldn't. Because they don't play the game. The game should be reserved for tip-top elitists who know everything about not only SC2 but also BW and its entire history and the rest should get packed and leave. If you want the game to be opened to masses, this is not the attitude you want to be in.
There is a difference between bad casuals, and those who just want to enjoy the game. Those who are simply bad, are without hope and the balance changes are not prepared with them being in mind. The balance changes are for those who can play the game at a reasonable level and don't let their own fundamental mistakes shadow their entire gameplay (i.e getting supply blocked all time)
I'm not changing my argument at all. The argument is the same. Ladder maps are created with taking many things in considerations. One of them, is having control. It seems to me that the Blizzard have learnt their lesson from WC3, since they are actually making changes to it.
If they can play the game at reasonable level, I don't see how there could be something balanced for Pros but imbalanced for "reasonable casuals".
Also GSL maps are constantly reevaluated for balance, where as Blizzard seems to design maps on what they think is fun. Map 1-3 is definitely step in the right direction; HOWEVER, there are still fundamental flaws in these maps that GSL maps have as basic requirement.
There are positional imbalances. This would be unacceptable by most tournament organizers as it gives inherent advantage for spawning at certain location.
There are huge variability in distance depending on spawn points. Now, I've only tried the map against AI, but it seems like there is no spawn lock like in Shakuras Plateau. Meaning just like metalopolis, you can either be in closest rush distance possible out of the map pool, or farthest distance. This is just a bad design, putting outcome of the game flow on a dice roll. If you check GSL 4 player maps, variability in rush distances are not as huge as blizzard maps.
Ramp that doesn't face natural expo. This means against any FE builds, you can easily walk into their main. In fact, forge FE is impossible on most of these maps. Why take away a style of play?
Also, why do you believe that its necessary for blizzard to have absolute control over the ladder?
I feel like a parrot saying the same thing every post. Because it is the ladder!!!! Everyone plays in ladder not just pros. The maps should cover all of that. New maps create new problems, which can be solved at pro-level, but not all ladder players can do that. A huge majority of people on ladder probably doesn't know what teamliquid or who day9 is. The game is really new, the strategies are not standardized and new playstyles are being created almost every day, there might be things that cause problem for the normal folk and not for the pros. Not everyone that can play reasonable plays great. They may not get supply blocked and always spend their money, but they just might not know about micro or the overall strategy at all.
Yes you are correct in that the ladder is for everyone and not just for pros. But since when is making large, macro orientated maps not catering for everyone? Who decided that casual players simply will not be able to function on a large, GSL-esque map? By making these new testmaps with tiny rush distances and hard to defend naturals, you are NOT catering for the people who are able to identify the advantages and disadvantages of said map features. I don't understand why there should be an issue with putting the casual players on larger maps. In creating larger maps, the casual players get to play on a different set of maps, which is what they want, and you dont anger the community that really cares about the game and plays it on a regular basis. Thus, you cater for everyone and do not create a rift amongst the community.
And yes, I will make the argument that noone enjoys seeing 2 rax pressure in the GSL on almost every map with close rush distances, but I'm also sure that the casual players who dont know what Team Liquid is and don't know who Day9 is do not enjoy it when 3 zealots come streaming into your base before they even have a single unit out. I know i sure didn't.
And EVERYONE who plays the game, professional or first timer, much prefers the feeling that you get after an epic 5 base vs 5 base 40 minute long win over simply getting 2 bases, a superior army and then a-moving to victory. So why not create an environment where the probability of this is more likely to happen?
-Haven't played all the maps yet but some of them look like its going to be hard for Zerg to take a 3rd.
-As a Terran player I love this new Lost Temple map. The Cliff drops were so cheesy and repetitive. The new Lost Temple IMO looks like it has the potential now to be one of the most balanced map.
people are criticising maps but i wonder if people are forgetting that its ptr and most likely a lot of these maps won't even make it into the new season/patch or whatever?
next, with esl using iccup and gsl using their gsl maps. i wonder what that leaves blizzard...and their ladder. its gonna be an interesting next year to see how this game evolves.
Played one each on maps 3 and 4. Maybe it's just the fact that I didn't play BW a lot or anything, but playing an actual game on the maps is helping me understand them more than just looking at the pictures.
Maps 3 and 4 are jokes. I'll update as I play more.
Does anyone know where I can find higher resolution images of these new maps? The ones on the first page of this thread are too small.... and I don't have access to PTR right now.
On February 05 2011 16:02 crms wrote: these maps are a spit in the face to everything we've been asking for in maps. it's clear at this stage blizzard doesn't give a shit about making legitimate competitive pro level maps. they want eye candy maps that are so simple a frontal lobotomy patient can understand them that don't involve too many bases. ugh.
StarCraft 2 was made for front lobotomy patients. At least that's what I think after playing the terrible singleplayer.
Map 5 is pretty weird, I don't think I like it. New LT is a big improvement. More open, but still closed nat is cool. Removing the excess cliffs is nice. The one xel'naga... don't know if I like that. Overall, welcome changes.
Only haven't played map 2 yet, but it looks like the most reasonable new map.
On February 05 2011 18:35 cosmo.6792 wrote: Does anyone know where I can find higher resolution images of these new maps? The ones on the first page of this thread are too small.... and I don't have access to PTR right now.
page 16. Hmm OP is rather lazy :D
Ah well I will upload the pics of the new 2on2, 3on3 and 4on4 as well I hope somebody updates it.
As far as I can tell, there are huge positional imbalances on pretty much every map - has anyone tested yet which spawning positions are possible on each map?
A map is only good if the main is protected by a tiny choke, has no backdoor, has an easily protectable natural and 'a natural third'... And the third should be easy to protect as well. And not be covered in rocks. It should also be of a certain size and never have too many open areas or too many chokes. Cliffs are bad. Not too warm, and not too cold either. They should basically all be the same and give us repetetive gameplay.
I got a feeling Blizzard disagrees. I sure hope they do.
I apologize in advance, I did not read the previous posts - but I LOVE the maps ! For sure a step in the right direction, and testmap 1 seems like python with a gold, and 2rocks in place of a ramp in the corners ... :D obviously they are looking into map making in Korea, or at least I hope so if they have a team dedicated to making maps at blizzard.
I seem to have been playing testmap4 over and over - and it seems like a great macro map that is not insanely huge.
On February 05 2011 20:41 Mulletarian wrote: So let me get this right;
A map is only good if the main is protected by a tiny choke, has no backdoor, has an easily protectable natural and 'a natural third'... And the third should be easy to protect as well. And not be covered in rocks. It should also be of a certain size and never have too many open areas or too many chokes. Cliffs are bad. Not too warm, and not too cold either. They should basically all be the same and give us repetetive gameplay.
I got a feeling Blizzard disagrees. I sure hope they do.
Man you are going into extreme. Noone asks all that, but isn't that stupid that map has million rocks or backdoor rocks? Do you know how much harder is for zerg to defend slow tanks push on shakuras backdoor? Do you know how hard is for zerg to defend tank/thor drop on LT? Even my grandma could make a thor drop on LT cliff and zerg will have a lot of problems.
Thing is that maps shouldnt have those "very easy for one race to pull off and very hard for another race to defend" things.
On February 05 2011 18:34 ChThoniC wrote: Playing some on the PTR right now.
Played one each on maps 3 and 4. Maybe it's just the fact that I didn't play BW a lot or anything, but playing an actual game on the maps is helping me understand them more than just looking at the pictures.
Maps 3 and 4 are jokes. I'll update as I play more.
It has nothing to do with BW. It's hard to analyze a map without playing on it.
If they opened up the middle of test map 2 slightly, and replaced LT with TM1, and Jungle Basin with TM2, I don't think even Team Liquid would complain that it was a bad change.
I think if Test Map 3 had the main's ramp moved closer to the natural, it'd be pretty decent. Maybe not great, but it'd make swapping out Delta Quadrant for TM3 a good deal.
So the general consensus of TL seems to be
1. Blizzard sucks and is evil. 2. Test Map 1 is an improvement. 3. Test Map 2 is a maybe (I love it, but the site as a whole is more meh). We'd probably all like it if more open areas were added. 4. Test Map 3 is kind of bad, but in small and possible to fix ways. 5. Test Maps 4 and 5 are just fucked.
On February 05 2011 20:41 Mulletarian wrote: So let me get this right;
A map is only good if the main is protected by a tiny choke, has no backdoor, has an easily protectable natural and 'a natural third'... And the third should be easy to protect as well. And not be covered in rocks. It should also be of a certain size and never have too many open areas or too many chokes. Cliffs are bad. Not too warm, and not too cold either. They should basically all be the same and give us repetetive gameplay.
I got a feeling Blizzard disagrees. I sure hope they do.
Don't need all that. However, just removing the stupid backdoor/expansion blocking rocks would go a long way. I can't think of a map that wouldn't be better without rocks. There's a few occassions where it's all right, like opening the way to a protected third, or shortening some passages. IMO they should never be used to block an expansion.
On February 05 2011 20:41 Mulletarian wrote: So let me get this right;
A map is only good if the main is protected by a tiny choke, has no backdoor, has an easily protectable natural and 'a natural third'... And the third should be easy to protect as well. And not be covered in rocks. It should also be of a certain size and never have too many open areas or too many chokes. Cliffs are bad. Not too warm, and not too cold either. They should basically all be the same and give us repetetive gameplay.
I got a feeling Blizzard disagrees. I sure hope they do.
The thing is, each and every of this cute stuff screws up balance, if only slightly. Say the game is perfectly balance for small ramps. Then how can a big ramp, like on scrap station, be balanced....too? This doesn't even make sense logicly. If force fields are designed and balanced for small ramps, then big ramps must - inevitably - make toss worse off. Same holds true for rocks. If the game is balanced for mains that can only be entered through small ramps, then rocks create problems. Also, if the game is balanced for expos that don't have rocks, then rocks that are covered in rocks create problems. For example terran can expand at their usual timing and just destroy the rocks later, while toss and zerg have to destroy the rocks before the expo; delta quadrant is perfect for this, a safe early expo is impossible for everyone except for terran. They just start the CC inside and float it once the rocks are down.
No offense, but there are MILLIONS of overly cute RTS-games out there with lots and lots of crazy stuff that is nice to play at first but gets ridiculous once players have figured out the abusive possibilities. I would like SC2 to be a RTS that has as number one priority perfect balance. And if this means that maps have to be "boring" to create balanced match-ups then it's absolutely fine with me.
On February 05 2011 20:41 Mulletarian wrote: So let me get this right;
A map is only good if the main is protected by a tiny choke, has no backdoor, has an easily protectable natural and 'a natural third'... And the third should be easy to protect as well. And not be covered in rocks. It should also be of a certain size and never have too many open areas or too many chokes. Cliffs are bad. Not too warm, and not too cold either. They should basically all be the same and give us repetetive gameplay.
I got a feeling Blizzard disagrees. I sure hope they do.
After reading this thread, I watched an episode of My Little Ponies
It's stunning how applicable a song about making dresses for ponies is to this serious thread about this serious manly game, but it really fits. Poor Blizzard-kun!
And just like that, a hundred Team Liquid posters knees jerked so hard they hit themselves in the face.
I doubt anyone here can actually tell how the balance of these maps is going to turn out. It could go any way. My only problem is how this is going to clash with GOM's release of their new maps.
On February 05 2011 20:41 Mulletarian wrote: So let me get this right;
A map is only good if the main is protected by a tiny choke, has no backdoor, has an easily protectable natural and 'a natural third'... And the third should be easy to protect as well. And not be covered in rocks. It should also be of a certain size and never have too many open areas or too many chokes. Cliffs are bad. Not too warm, and not too cold either. They should basically all be the same and give us repetetive gameplay.
I got a feeling Blizzard disagrees. I sure hope they do.
After reading this thread, I watched an episode of My Little Ponies
It's stunning how applicable a song about making dresses for ponies is to this serious thread about this serious manly game, but it really fits. Poor Blizzard-kun!
Yeah! Brohoof!
But the comparison isn't fair. Blizzard has dozens of examples of great maps from BW, but they insist on narrow passageways and cutesy bullshit with rocks.
For comparison, if Rarity had an entire book of approved patterns for dresses that would satisfy each pony, but decided she hated those patterns and threw destructible rocks all over everything, then Rarity would be Blizzard.
On February 05 2011 20:41 Mulletarian wrote: So let me get this right;
A map is only good if the main is protected by a tiny choke, has no backdoor, has an easily protectable natural and 'a natural third'... And the third should be easy to protect as well. And not be covered in rocks. It should also be of a certain size and never have too many open areas or too many chokes. Cliffs are bad. Not too warm, and not too cold either. They should basically all be the same and give us repetetive gameplay.
I got a feeling Blizzard disagrees. I sure hope they do.
After reading this thread, I watched an episode of My Little Ponies
It's stunning how applicable a song about making dresses for ponies is to this serious thread about this serious manly game, but it really fits. Poor Blizzard-kun!
Yeah! Brohoof!
But the comparison isn't fair. Blizzard has dozens of examples of great maps from BW, but they insist on narrow passageways and cutesy bullshit with rocks.
For comparison, if Rarity had an entire book of approved patterns for dresses that would satisfy each pony, but decided she hated those patterns and threw destructible rocks all over everything, then Rarity would be Blizzard.
Rarity is an artiste who wanted to make the dresses she thought were best. Blizzard is a game company who wanted to make the game they thought would work best. Then Rairity went overboard trying to bend over backwards throwing out her ideas for what the customers said, and she did go on to make the GSL dresses that made all the ponies satisfied...until they went out in them and realized that all the things they wanted didn't gel and the dress as a whole looks ridiculous.
Next week is the Global Starcraft Team Fashion Show, and Hoity Toity (who in this analogy is Idra? I guess?) is coming to see. Maybe it'll go well, or maybe we'll learn a lot of things we thought we liked don't work as well as we thought they would've. Then Blizzard will lock themselves in their rooms trying to figure out what game companies wallow in and what to pack for an exile.
Then Day[9] will hide David Kim's cat in a tree, and the analogy really starts to fall apart at this point.
On February 05 2011 20:41 Mulletarian wrote: So let me get this right;
A map is only good if the main is protected by a tiny choke, has no backdoor, has an easily protectable natural and 'a natural third'... And the third should be easy to protect as well. And not be covered in rocks. It should also be of a certain size and never have too many open areas or too many chokes. Cliffs are bad. Not too warm, and not too cold either. They should basically all be the same and give us repetetive gameplay.
I got a feeling Blizzard disagrees. I sure hope they do.
This. And how those things are said with such utter certainty, even though every poster is asking for a different permutation of the above, and the majority of critics have yet to even play any of the maps... the amount of bitching of some posters honestly makes me question why they even PLAY the game, when clearly they don't enjoy it.
Having played the new maps... are they perfect? No. Are they a step in the right direction? Absolutely yes. Even when the execution isn't that great (positional differences between some of the bases...), the feel they are going for - larger maps, longer rush distances, more natural naturals - is totally evident.
On February 05 2011 20:41 Mulletarian wrote: So let me get this right;
A map is only good if the main is protected by a tiny choke, has no backdoor, has an easily protectable natural and 'a natural third'... And the third should be easy to protect as well. And not be covered in rocks. It should also be of a certain size and never have too many open areas or too many chokes. Cliffs are bad. Not too warm, and not too cold either. They should basically all be the same and give us repetetive gameplay.
I got a feeling Blizzard disagrees. I sure hope they do.
After reading this thread, I watched an episode of My Little Ponies
It's stunning how applicable a song about making dresses for ponies is to this serious thread about this serious manly game, but it really fits. Poor Blizzard-kun!
Yeah! Brohoof!
But the comparison isn't fair. Blizzard has dozens of examples of great maps from BW, but they insist on narrow passageways and cutesy bullshit with rocks.
For comparison, if Rarity had an entire book of approved patterns for dresses that would satisfy each pony, but decided she hated those patterns and threw destructible rocks all over everything, then Rarity would be Blizzard.
Rarity is an artiste who wanted to make the dresses she thought were best. Blizzard is a game company who wanted to make the game they thought would work best. Then Rairity went overboard trying to bend over backwards throwing out her ideas for what the customers said, and she did go on to make the GSL dresses that made all the ponies satisfied...until they went out in them and realized that all the things they wanted didn't gel and the dress as a whole looks ridiculous.
Next week is the Global Starcraft Team Fashion Show, and Hoity Toity (who in this analogy is Idra? I guess?) is coming to see. Maybe it'll go well, or maybe we'll learn a lot of things we thought we liked don't work as well as we thought they would've. Then Blizzard will lock themselves in their rooms trying to figure out what game companies wallow in and what to pack for an exile.
Then Day[9] will hide David Kim's cat in a tree, and the analogy really starts to fall apart at this point.
I really don't get you and what your saying but I have to assume its this....that Blizzard's weird maps are liked by casuals and therefore must and should be in the ladder?
and custom maps which are not really "Casual Friendly" are to be ignored and never to be placed on the ladder.
At least GSL maps would be played on the GSL,what about the other map makers who work hard to put up balanced maps which even casuals may like(maybe if they were actually given a chance)?
Someone who works hard to make balanced and fun maps should be rewarded.Blizzard use use thier PTR to test out custom maps,thats to only way they would get played otherwise and if there is a positive result they should be put on the ladder.
Yes i have played on these maps and only LT 2.0 was worth playing on but even that only on cross positions,with a few minor changes with the natural layout testmap 3 could be fixed,testmap 4 should be square with the mains on the corners and then make all 4 sides the same.
For everyone here complaining and having actually played the maps, I urge you to make a post on the sticky thread about maps on the US ptr forum. Even if it doesn't do much, it still is probably the best thing you can do to influence Blizzard, more so than posting here. If you care even a bit (and have a NA account) I think it's the least you can do.
Strange that Crota actually forgot to mention the small hallway between the 9 and 6 position and the 12 and 3 position... This is basically what make this map completely broken to me, instead of just inconfortable in close ground position (such as the 6 and 3 position).
Remember that close positions may be unavailable just like in Shakuras.
The middle space in LT2 is huuuge! You can say whatever you want, but these maps are definitely different from the current map pool. As far as details go, there are asymmetries in the maps that aren't necessary. Let's see how this plays out.
Hey cool now in ZvT close positions the Terran can 2 rax with a shorter rush distance than Steppes AND if that doesn't win the game outright they can just pretend it's horizontal positions Shakuras or Scrap Station and tank push through the rocks.
LOL this is a 4v4 map but with half the expos cut out and put in over half a dozen rocks. There are so many attack paths on this map that it is terrifying
Oh god can you imagine trying to forge FE against zerg against this map. Even 3 gate expand won't work, the natural is too far away from the ramp. T.T
Is it just the low res or is the close position attack path really just a straight line to the opponent's base? Also, there is a meager 10 expansions on this map. Even Jungle Basin had 8 before the gold base was added.
Oh cool a shrunken version of Shakuras Plateau but with more rocks!
Overall I think Dustin Browder must have received some terrible terrible damage on his brain to approve these maps.
On February 06 2011 02:42 Goodseed wrote: How can you play on PTR? and when you ladder on it, does it count towards record?
Go to your Starcraft 2 folder, there should be two SC2 icons in there, one of them will be your PTR. The PTR doesn't count toward any record of yours, you make a new account (Subject to resets) for the PTR itself.
Hey cool now in ZvT close positions the Terran can 2 rax with a shorter rush distance than Steppes AND if that doesn't win the game outright they can just pretend it's horizontal positions Shakuras or Scrap Station and tank push through the rocks.
Abuse the other entrance?
LOL this is a 4v4 map but with half the expos cut out and put in over half a dozen rocks. There are so many attack paths on this map that it is terrifying
So you don't spam cannons on a single attack path and auto-win with economy?
Oh god can you imagine trying to forge FE against zerg against this map. Even 3 gate expand won't work, the natural is too far away from the ramp. T.T
I agree with this one.
Is it just the low res or is the close position attack path really just a straight line to the opponent's base? Also, there is a meager 10 expansions on this map. Even Jungle Basin had 8 before the gold base was added.
5 expansions is enough.
Oh cool a shrunken version of Shakuras Plateau but with more rocks!
Unless you want Terran to always have free expoes.
Overall I think Dustin Browder must have received some terrible terrible damage on his brain to approve these maps.
Do you hate rocks and you can only focus in 1 direction?
Hey cool now in ZvT close positions the Terran can 2 rax with a shorter rush distance than Steppes AND if that doesn't win the game outright they can just pretend it's horizontal positions Shakuras or Scrap Station and tank push through the rocks.
LOL this is a 4v4 map but with half the expos cut out and put in over half a dozen rocks. There are so many attack paths on this map that it is terrifying
Oh god can you imagine trying to forge FE against zerg against this map. Even 3 gate expand won't work, the natural is too far away from the ramp. T.T
Is it just the low res or is the close position attack path really just a straight line to the opponent's base? Also, there is a meager 10 expansions on this map. Even Jungle Basin had 8 before the gold base was added.
Oh cool a shrunken version of Shakuras Plateau but with more rocks!
Overall I think Dustin Browder must have received some terrible terrible damage on his brain to approve these maps.
Oh cool someone who doesn't seem to have played any of the maps.
We have to give the maps a chance, can't just state match up imbalance just by looking at the preview for 5 minutes. After all we all thought Delta Quadrant was gonna be a good map.
Played a few of them on PTR now. I think it's good that they're moving towards 4 player maps. I think Lost Temple removing the cliff is a great thing. They still have to work on these, but I think they're a step in the right direction compared to some of the current 1v1 maps.
Also, I'm a big fan of how open the center is on map #5. The huge ramps and openings remind me a lot of BW maps.
I'm just excited they're working on maps. Good sign .
Edit: Didn't read the responses before posting. What a ridiculous amount of negativity. I understand criticism, but just incessant whining over everything really gets old. I remember when Shakuras was announced on ladder, we had this same whining over how it was the worst map ever and how it will be constantly abused. Turns out, it wasn't so bad. Give the maps a chance and try actually playing them a little.
SC2 maps aren't just going to suddenly be perfect. We're gonna have a lot of errors and improvements along the way.
Hey cool now in ZvT close positions the Terran can 2 rax with a shorter rush distance than Steppes AND if that doesn't win the game outright they can just pretend it's horizontal positions Shakuras or Scrap Station and tank push through the rocks.
LOL this is a 4v4 map but with half the expos cut out and put in over half a dozen rocks. There are so many attack paths on this map that it is terrifying
Oh god can you imagine trying to forge FE against zerg against this map. Even 3 gate expand won't work, the natural is too far away from the ramp. T.T
Is it just the low res or is the close position attack path really just a straight line to the opponent's base? Also, there is a meager 10 expansions on this map. Even Jungle Basin had 8 before the gold base was added.
Oh cool a shrunken version of Shakuras Plateau but with more rocks!
Overall I think Dustin Browder must have received some terrible terrible damage on his brain to approve these maps.
Oh cool someone who doesn't seem to have played any of the maps.
We have to give the maps a chance, can't just state match up imbalance just by looking at the preview for 5 minutes. After all we all thought Delta Quadrant was gonna be a good map.
Of course I haven't played any of the maps yet. However these were just my opening personal thoughts. Obviously I will play on the maps before being any more judgmental, but from what I can tell so far from the maps is that they will not be a GG. 1 and 2 don't look too bad though.
Why wouldn't blizz add the new GSL maps to the ladder? This is so frustrating.
They didn't say they wouldn't. If they were adding them, do you think they would really put them into the PTR when they obviously want those 5 to be tested, and since the new GSL maps have already been tested? They still might, and better xD
Looking at the rush distance before you understand the scale of the map is retarded. I don't understand how the majority of you people who are continuously wrong about everything just come back and start literally FIGHTING over which one of you is less wrong about maps, like voicing your opinion somehow makes it more correct, more knowledgable, more backed up. Everyone can come up with "reasons" and snap judgments, but that doesn't have anything to do with what is correct. And the best part is that even if you were right, none of your arguments are going to amount to anything productive. You won't persuade anyone else, and you won't be persuaded of anything else. So what's the point?
These maps don't look as potentially cool as the GSL maps, but this is a test realm, there is room for improvement, and no matter how many times you say the words "I told you so" it doesn't mean you actually knew what was going to happen or why it happened.
On February 05 2011 20:41 Mulletarian wrote: So let me get this right;
A map is only good if the main is protected by a tiny choke, has no backdoor, has an easily protectable natural and 'a natural third'... And the third should be easy to protect as well. And not be covered in rocks. It should also be of a certain size and never have too many open areas or too many chokes. Cliffs are bad. Not too warm, and not too cold either. They should basically all be the same and give us repetetive gameplay.
I got a feeling Blizzard disagrees. I sure hope they do.
After reading this thread, I watched an episode of My Little Ponies
It's stunning how applicable a song about making dresses for ponies is to this serious thread about this serious manly game, but it really fits. Poor Blizzard-kun!
Yeah! Brohoof!
But the comparison isn't fair. Blizzard has dozens of examples of great maps from BW, but they insist on narrow passageways and cutesy bullshit with rocks.
For comparison, if Rarity had an entire book of approved patterns for dresses that would satisfy each pony, but decided she hated those patterns and threw destructible rocks all over everything, then Rarity would be Blizzard.
Rarity is an artiste who wanted to make the dresses she thought were best. Blizzard is a game company who wanted to make the game they thought would work best. Then Rairity went overboard trying to bend over backwards throwing out her ideas for what the customers said, and she did go on to make the GSL dresses that made all the ponies satisfied...until they went out in them and realized that all the things they wanted didn't gel and the dress as a whole looks ridiculous.
Next week is the Global Starcraft Team Fashion Show, and Hoity Toity (who in this analogy is Idra? I guess?) is coming to see. Maybe it'll go well, or maybe we'll learn a lot of things we thought we liked don't work as well as we thought they would've. Then Blizzard will lock themselves in their rooms trying to figure out what game companies wallow in and what to pack for an exile.
Then Day[9] will hide David Kim's cat in a tree, and the analogy really starts to fall apart at this point.
I really don't get you and what your saying but I have to assume its this....that Blizzard's weird maps are liked by casuals and therefore must and should be in the ladder?
Well, I was thinking of Blizzard trying to make fun maps, and being met with a barrage of criticism. Then someone challenged the analogy, and I ran with it. Blizzard has a LOT of fans to please, the overwhelming majority of which aren't us.
There are billions of people who hate the maps and all for different reasons. Is it impossible for Zerg to attack on Test Map 2 because the paths are too narrow? Or is it impossible to defend a Zerg attack because there are so many attack paths. I've heard both. Test Map 1 is basically Python except close positions are auto-lose for Zerg why doesn't Blizzard use Brood War Maps like Python? Blizzard maps have rocks everywhere. They should use GSTL maps like Crevasse than have rocks on your third, rocks blocking attack paths, and (on the latest Gisado VODs), rocks on the ramp!
And heaven help Blizzard trying to reconcile the tournament types who want every map to fit the exact same extremely narrow theorycrafted ideal of "balance" (You Zergs are Fluttershy in this episode, btw) with the non-tournament majority who think games should be fun, and want a variety of interesting maps that need to be about 20% more cool than the current map pool. Then there are balance whiners (led by Idra, but for all races) who think that any feature that's bad for their race in any situation is bad (they're Applejack)
All I'm really saying is that Blizzard is doing their best to please everyone, with a significant but but exclusive focus towards the small minority here. I'm not saying don't criticize, but all the hatedom demanding Blizzard stop making maps altogether because they aren't pleasing us isn't really being fair to them.
Hey cool now in ZvT close positions the Terran can 2 rax with a shorter rush distance than Steppes AND if that doesn't win the game outright they can just pretend it's horizontal positions Shakuras or Scrap Station and tank push through the rocks.
you do realize that this is LT with only 1 xel naga, no islands and no abusable cliffs, right?
LOL this is a 4v4 map but with half the expos cut out and put in over half a dozen rocks. There are so many attack paths on this map that it is terrifying
they did go a bit crazy with the rocks
Oh god can you imagine trying to forge FE against zerg against this map. Even 3 gate expand won't work, the natural is too far away from the ramp. T.T
agree'd not to mention the main ramp is HUGE
Is it just the low res or is the close position attack path really just a straight line to the opponent's base? Also, there is a meager 10 expansions on this map. Even Jungle Basin had 8 before the gold base was added. yes it does seem that the close positions yeild an attack path roughly equal to steppes in distance
Oh cool a shrunken version of Shakuras Plateau but with more rocks!
Overall I think Dustin Browder must have received some terrible terrible damage on his brain to approve these maps.
These maps, with the exception of the new LT, are objectively worse than all the GSL maps (except Tal'Darim Altar). The criticism is fair, because some maps have huge, obvious problems. For example, it is impossible for a Zerg to do anything but one base on #3 against Protoss, because any 4-gate rush can infinitely block the unprotectable ramp while taking potshots at the expansion. #4 has only 10 bases total... That's the same as Steppes of War, and the third is even harder to take than on that map. It's ridiculous also.
#2 and #5 are about the same average quality as the maps currently in the rotation, and wouldn't be awful if they made it to the pool, but certainly aren't an improvement.
They fixed Lost Temple to not be Imba for Terran anymore. Good stuff. (Coming from someone who mainst as T) Even I know that those cliff drops were deadly .
I'm most annoyed about the New LT. I hate the fact that because people whined that they lost to cliff drops and Island expanders, they've just been removed. Creating a more boring and linear game experience. Because they have removed those features, blizzard won't put them into any other maps they make either. which is horrible because now maps are all going to slowly become very similar as any creativity or innovation is going to be met with whining and criticism to the point where they give in.
On February 06 2011 09:03 Exstasy wrote: I'm most annoyed about the New LT. I hate the fact that because people whined that they lost to cliff drops and Island expanders, they've just been removed. Creating a more boring and linear game experience. Because they have removed those features, blizzard won't put them into any other maps they make either. which is horrible because now maps are all going to slowly become very similar as any creativity or innovation is going to be met with whining and criticism to the point where they give in.
By having cliffs so close to a natural that a thor or tanks can snipe the expansion, it made that strategy far more powerful than any other on that map TvZ. And having one strategy that far outperforms any other on a map makes the matchup even more linear. Zerg, from the beginning of the game, had to do EVERYTHING with that cliff in mind.
Creativity should come from the players, not the maps. And making imbalanced maps dictates that the matchup will go in a certain direction more often than balanced maps where a number of different strategies are all very viable and powerful.
On February 06 2011 08:11 Ribbon wrote: All I'm really saying is that Blizzard is doing their best to please everyone, with a significant but but exclusive focus towards the small minority here. I'm not saying don't criticize, but all the hatedom demanding Blizzard stop making maps altogether because they aren't pleasing us isn't really being fair to them.
Have you ever played wc3....ever?
The maps in wc3 stayed pretty much the same and were 99% pure garbage. I/we complain because in fact we know better. We know from EXPERIENCE that blizz has never been able to produce good maps (with the occasional exception). Therefore all the hate that they refuse to incorporate the gsl-maps or iccup-maps that are a million times better (even if not flawless obviously).
The maps not only look bad (have never played on them admittedly!) but they also seem to have been made very "cheaply"....they are quite the opposite of creative either, especially map 4.
I also don't like LT morphing into an open map...it was a fun map because of it's closed positions.
All in all, I prefer the GSL maps.
Like the closed air alley in test map 2...if we're going to be going for larger macro maps something has to be done about mutas, and corner spawns with the ground extending to the edge of the map (no cliff or chasm blocking pursuing AA units) is key to balancing big maps. In the present ladder maps there are just way too many safe air alleys beyond your natural spawns that make mutas too powerful IMO and forces the opposition to be somewhat 1-dimensional in their tech choices.
If we are going big maps (which is good) then we need very protected naturals to allow terran and toss to fast expand like zerg, else zerg will have an insane advantage.
I dislike the general trend that panders to zerg players to have more open maps...unit terrain/obstacles/cliffs creates diversity and fun game play and if zerg can't handle this then this should be a unit balance issue, not a map balance issue.
Would love to see blizzard come with race specific matchup maps..balancing for zerg just takes way too much creativity out of PvP, TvT, and PvT possibilities. Lot of cool things could be done with mirror match maps only...how about an island map like debris field in something like GSL for mirrors? That could be so cool watch...
eep was thinking how it would be to have a 3 ramps to natural with 2 blocked by rocks map today heh. Nice different gimmicks on every map, just like before. Wonder if zerg players will get annoyed by the new lt map as a terran can more easily take a 3rd now. and run by with hellions and marines, like on most maps. As a zerg i would prefer dealing with the thor drop as its much cheaper to fend of. Well LT and Steppes are my favorite maps for all races, so i hope those stay ladder.
On February 06 2011 09:20 Fungal Growth wrote: I also don't like LT morphing into an open map...it was a fun map because of it's closed positions.
All in all, I prefer the GSL maps.
Like the closed air alley in test map 2...if we're going to be going for larger macro maps something has to be done about mutas, and corner spawns with the ground extending to the edge of the map (no cliff or chasm blocking pursuing AA units) is key to balancing big maps. In the present ladder maps there are just way too many safe air alleys beyond your natural spawns that make mutas too powerful IMO and forces the opposition to be somewhat 1-dimensional in their tech choices.
If we are going big maps (which is good) then we need very protected naturals to allow terran and toss to fast expand like zerg, else zerg will have an insane advantage.
I dislike the general trend that panders to zerg players to have more open maps...unit terrain/obstacles/cliffs creates diversity and fun game play and if zerg can't handle this then this should be a unit balance issue, not a map balance issue.
Would love to see blizzard come with race specific matchup maps..balancing for zerg just takes way too much creativity out of PvP, TvT, and PvT possibilities. Lot of cool things could be done with mirror match maps only...how about an island map like debris field in something like GSL for mirrors? That could be so cool watch...
Gawd, unit balancing takes months and months to resolve ... they could probably pump out, test and produce some maps that balanced the races in a matter of weeks.
That's the big issue here. There's people playing tournaments with thousands of dollars at stake on shitty, shitty maps.
On February 06 2011 09:26 Defacer wrote:That's the big issue here. There's people playing tournaments with thousands of dollars at stake on shitty, shitty maps.
No disagreement there...
The cool thing with GOM doing their own maps (well for the most part) is they could in theory do their own unit balancing as well on a monthly basis. People forget that a large number of balance issues (not all) can be addressed with the unit map editor as long as people use your maps.
The ultimate solution is for blizzard to redesign their bnet interface so people can use custom maps... Right now custom maps are very impractical because you have go onto a chat and find people to play on your map which is a pain. The old system was better...display the most recent open games with a description, number of players, etc.. and one click and your in! So easy to find open games on custom it mystifies me why blizzard went to their current interface.
Stage 2 of blizzard's needed reform is to allow groups to form custom ladders... Say you have a GOM ladder which would have GOM maps only...you click to join a game and the system then best matches you with an available opponent of similar skill also wanting to play on the GOM maps.
Blizzard's main ladder could stay, but their map selection needs to be more democratic...maybe they could discard every week the map that was excluded the most and introduce a new map...in a way natural selection would then promote the best maps to the top. New maps could be introduced via the blizzard forums and voted upon for inclusion into the next open spot.
The big thing is blizzard has to allow community maps and community map matching to flourish...gamers are willing to invest their time for free to help improve their product and keep it fresh which blizzard should absolutely take advantage of to stay competitive against other RTS games.
WHY? Why is there always destructible rocks everywhere?
I can't believe these map makers, its like they are obliged to use them... Every single map has to have fucking rocks.
And those stupid watch towers, revealing all the middle of the map. WTF? Its like they don't want you to be able to flank the enemy... I think the towers are the worst new feature in this game compared to BW.
On February 06 2011 08:42 ChThoniC wrote: For example, it is impossible for a Zerg to do anything but one base on #3 against Protoss, because any 4-gate rush can infinitely block the unprotectable ramp while taking potshots at the expansion.
When did people get this idea that Zerg cannot defend a 4-gate without static defenses at their natural? I have found that +1 speedlings can counter most forms of early 4-gates without the need for spine crawlers.
On February 06 2011 08:42 ChThoniC wrote: #4 has only 10 bases total... That's the same as Steppes of War, and the third is even harder to take than on that map. It's ridiculous also.
10 bases is also the exact number of bases on Xel'Naga caverns, which is largely considered among the most popular and balanced maps.
On February 06 2011 08:11 Ribbon wrote: All I'm really saying is that Blizzard is doing their best to please everyone, with a significant but but exclusive focus towards the small minority here. I'm not saying don't criticize, but all the hatedom demanding Blizzard stop making maps altogether because they aren't pleasing us isn't really being fair to them.
Have you ever played wc3....ever?
Didn't care for it.
The maps in wc3 stayed pretty much the same and were 99% pure garbage. I/we complain because in fact we know better. We know from EXPERIENCE that blizz has never been able to produce good maps (with the occasional exception). Therefore all the hate that they refuse to incorporate the gsl-maps or iccup-maps that are a million times better (even if not flawless obviously).
The maps not only look bad (have never played on them admittedly!) but they also seem to have been made very "cheaply"....they are quite the opposite of creative either, especially map 4.
tl;dr: Blizzard sucks and should never do anything?
On February 06 2011 09:26 Defacer wrote: Gawd, unit balancing takes months and months to resolve ... they could probably pump out, test and produce some maps that balanced the races in a matter of weeks.
On February 06 2011 08:42 ChThoniC wrote: For example, it is impossible for a Zerg to do anything but one base on #3 against Protoss, because any 4-gate rush can infinitely block the unprotectable ramp while taking potshots at the expansion.
When did people get this idea that Zerg cannot defend a 4-gate without static defenses at their natural? I have found that +1 speedlings can counter most forms of early 4-gates without the need for spine crawlers.
And how do you get enough speedlings to defend 4 gate from one base?
On February 06 2011 08:42 ChThoniC wrote: #4 has only 10 bases total... That's the same as Steppes of War, and the third is even harder to take than on that map. It's ridiculous also.
10 bases is also the exact number of bases on Xel'Naga caverns, which is largely considered among the most popular and balanced maps.
Xel'Naga caverns also has a third and fourth base that are within shouting distance of the third. The map is completely ridiculous for competitive play.
On February 06 2011 02:01 Xain wrote: Strange that Crota actually forgot to mention the small hallway between the 9 and 6 position and the 12 and 3 position... This is basically what make this map completely broken to me, instead of just inconfortable in close ground position (such as the 6 and 3 position).
I had a zerg make about 15 spinecrawlers and a few queens and lings and push through the rocks into my main. First game on the map.
On February 06 2011 10:47 ChThoniC wrote: And how do you get enough speedlings to defend 4 gate from one base?
Who said anything about getting +1 speedlings off of only one base?
On February 06 2011 08:42 ChThoniC wrote: Xel'Naga caverns also has a third and fourth base that are within shouting distance of the third. The map is completely ridiculous for competitive play.
Interesting, but I wasn't disputing the complaint that the 3rd expansion is difficult to defend. I was disputing the foolish belief that 10+ bases is some kind of requirement for good maps.
On February 06 2011 08:42 ChThoniC wrote: Xel'Naga caverns also has a third and fourth base that are within shouting distance of the third. The map is completely ridiculous for competitive play.
Interesting, but I wasn't disputing the complaint that the 3rd expansion is difficult to defend. I was disputing the foolish belief that 10+ bases is some kind of requirement for good maps.
How do you get speedlings from 2 bases when your ramp constantly has forcefield on it? You don't, and there's no way to prevent it because of the structure of the map. They are two objectively bad maps, and the current pool would be worse if they were included.
Hey, sorry for the stupid question but where do I download the PTR client from? The FAQs that the blog post refers to simply says that I should already have a file called "Starcraft II Public Test.exe" but not only can I not find this but since I'm on a Mac I'm pretty sure that I couldn't run this even if it turns out that I do have it. Can anyone help me out?
On February 06 2011 13:39 ChThoniC wrote: Are you saying you prevent 4-gate and apply pressure with pure speedling?
No, I'm saying that pure +1 speedlings can stop most 4-gates from crushing my expansion. Applying pressure will obviously require more than just speedlings. I also said "most" because a heavy sentry/zealot composition will obviously require roaches instead of pure +1 speedlings.
On February 06 2011 13:39 ChThoniC wrote: What league are you in?
I'm only in Platinum, but that hasn't stopped me from knowing how to get +1 speedlings out of 2 bases before a 4-gate push reaches my ramp. But maybe you should also be asking everyone in this long thread what league they're in, because they seem to think that Dimaga's +1 Speedling opener is a sound strategy.
Let me ask you this question ChThoniC.... how is defending a 4-gate on TestMap3 so different from defending a 4-gate on Scrap Station or Blistering Sands? Do we see Dimaga, Idra, Nestea, and Fruitdealer auto-lose on those maps against all Protoss just because spines can't defend the main & natural simultaneously?
I'm not going to try and read the 37 pages already loaded, I'm just recording my personal take.
General Thoughts:
Testmap 1 - I have a feeling that if they mess with Lost Temple enough they can draw a huge snake in the middle and call it "Python".
Testmap 3 - Looks like 4gate heaven, especially with the really wide natural and a ton of space in the main (easy to hide scouting probes and pylons). Though, I like how the gold expos are in high risk/high reward areas. If this were BW I would predict a healthy siege line guarding chokes down the middle and splitting the map early, but I'm not sure how the arrangement translates to SC2. I am a little concerned about the thin ramp getting bunkered, but no matter the arrangement someone will think of a clever all-in...
Testmap 2 - A lot of room means a lot of places to hide 4gate pylons. But it also means a lot of space to flank. This map has a kind of "Fighting Spirit" feel to it where the third bases are risky with multiple entrances while taking over a corner natural and main ensures a strong economic gain. The two rushing lanes also look like a pain to scout. The zerg in me is looking forward to trying this out.
Testmap 4 - I don't like the colors, but I'll live! Looks like third bases are hard to come by, so I predict a lot of zergs bitching about not getting into the late game. Anything but cross map positions looks like a REALLY close rush distance (if it's a 4 player map), so once again, I think zergs are going to endlessly bitch about it.
Testmap 5 - I'm real confused of what even to make of this. Can't really tell if there's 2 spawn position or 4. Either way, this would be one where I'd hammer out a bunch of games, see what happens, and see how others are dealing with it.
I'm glad that Blizzard is at least expanding the map pool. I'd imagine they need more data to fix units and they haven't varied the maps yet. Glad they're thinking about it!
I confess, I was really excited about new maps. However, I'm growing more and more aggravated at Blizzards hatred of easy-to-defend naturals and obvious thirds. In this sense, Lost Temple is what I like to see (cross positions/ close by air only). None of these maps have easy-to-defend naturals, and that makes me sad.
On February 06 2011 08:42 ChThoniC wrote: For example, it is impossible for a Zerg to do anything but one base on #3 against Protoss, because any 4-gate rush can infinitely block the unprotectable ramp while taking potshots at the expansion.
When did people get this idea that Zerg cannot defend a 4-gate without static defenses at their natural? I have found that +1 speedlings can counter most forms of early 4-gates without the need for spine crawlers.
So what you mean is every game no matter what I need to get super fast evo chamber and get +1 because my opponent might go 4 gate, right? Man that's stupid thinking, you need to react for a 4 gate, but you suggest wasting 100/100 just to get +1 so you can counter 4 gate.
People are saying that a map is bad because he comes, makes a forcefield and you won't have any reinforcements from your main, but you are giving an advice which has nothing to do with a problem.
On February 06 2011 13:39 ChThoniC wrote: Are you saying you prevent 4-gate and apply pressure with pure speedling?
No, I'm saying that pure +1 speedlings can stop most 4-gates from crushing my expansion. Applying pressure will obviously require more than just speedlings. I also said "most" because a heavy sentry/zealot composition will obviously require roaches instead of pure +1 speedlings.
On February 06 2011 13:39 ChThoniC wrote: What league are you in?
I'm only in Platinum, but that hasn't stopped me from knowing how to get +1 speedlings out of 2 bases before a 4-gate push reaches my ramp. But maybe you should also be asking everyone in this long thread what league they're in, because they seem to think that Dimaga's +1 Speedling opener is a sound strategy.
Let me ask you this question ChThoniC.... how is defending a 4-gate on TestMap3 so different from defending a 4-gate on Scrap Station or Blistering Sands? Do we see Dimaga, Idra, Nestea, and Fruitdealer auto-lose on those maps against all Protoss just because spines can't defend the main & natural simultaneously?
If you really think test map 3 is the same as scrap station for defending a 4 gate, you have no idea what i'm talking about and should probably stop arguing with someone who is much better than you at this game.
They are new maps, actual maps sucks, adding new maps wich suck in some aspects is overall good, yeah we want "good" maps, that according to our standarts, in my case big macro maps with considerable rush distance so all ins can still happen, but we have to play what we´ve got, I mean, if you really want to play balanced maps, use iCCup channel, they are way better and as far as I`ve seen, there`s always people in it.
I`ve just decided that new maps is great, even if they arent so good. (=
I played so many games today. The new LT is really macro oriented now. Bases are so easy to take and defend that I actually made a carrier switch late against a zerg for the win. It was the first time I ever used carriers and won lol. All my expos were easily defended with canons once I got the gold base to afford so many canons. It was a lot of fun to play, it reminded me of python..
Map 2 is huge and I played some pretty long macro games on it. It was crazy how my zerg opponent had the whole map covered in creep and had so many bases =/
The rest of the maps so far are meh, do have hard to defend naturals & thirds, but they still beat blistering sands, steppes of war and delta quadrant. The layouts are very interesting though. Overall an improvement of maps IMO.
Damn I would have really liked for the ladder to be updated with the GSL maps. I hate to see a split map pool, just makes the ladder less worthy of a practice place for the pro's and makes it less fun to watch pro games imo, as I won't be as familiar with 'their' maps.
They seem to be working along well with GSL regarding patch timings, they could also work together with maps imo.
Man I really wish Blizzard would finally let go of their stupid rocks & watch towers. A few well placed rocks with maybe double their current HP similar to BW would be nice and maybe one watch tower per map max., but they're totally overdoing it imho.
Edit: Apart from that, at first glance the new maps do seem better than the current ones.
On February 06 2011 22:03 Mooncat wrote: Man I really wish Blizzard would finally let go of their stupid rocks & watch towers. A few well placed rocks with maybe double their current HP similar to BW would be nice and maybe one watch tower per map max., but they're totally overdoing it imho.
Edit: Apart from that, at first glance the new maps do seem better than the current ones.
I agree, some of the maps have way too many rocks. Its almost like they want you to delay taking a third or fourth. Or maybe they want to prevent a FE to the gold :/ I dont know why they like their rocks so much but sometimes its excessive.
I want to give these maps a chance before i just start yelling at them for been bad maps. Some look better then others but overall just having larger maps is nice. Also i understand why blizz doesn't use the gsl maps,but after we see how the team league goes i think it would be just stupid not to use them.
On February 06 2011 22:03 Mooncat wrote: Man I really wish Blizzard would finally let go of their stupid rocks & watch towers. A few well placed rocks with maybe double their current HP similar to BW would be nice and maybe one watch tower per map max., but they're totally overdoing it imho.
Edit: Apart from that, at first glance the new maps do seem better than the current ones.
On February 06 2011 12:38 ChThoniC wrote: How do you get speedlings from 2 bases when your ramp constantly has forcefield on it?
Are you saying it's not possible to get speedlings out of 2 bases before a 4-gate push starts?
Are you saying you prevent 4-gate and apply pressure with pure speedling? What league are you in?
You know who else said that you can crush a 4gate with pure speedling, IdrA. Search for "JP and Friends": watch the first Youtube video with IdrA, in that video you will see IdrA crush a 4gate by Cruncher (who happened to win the TLopen) with pure speedling; then he goes on to recommend that people do that to defend 4gate.
So what you mean is every game no matter what I need to get super fast evo chamber and get +1 because my opponent might go 4 gate, right? Man that's stupid thinking, you need to react for a 4 gate, but you suggest wasting 100/100 just to get +1 so you can counter 4 gate.
Not sure if you realize this but that 100/100 you "wasted" helps for the entire rest of the game also... +1 melee ling are badass for 3 gate FE too unless the toss has super nice FF. Can usually snipe at least a few sentries, and keeping sentry numbers down is key shit.
On February 06 2011 12:38 ChThoniC wrote: How do you get speedlings from 2 bases when your ramp constantly has forcefield on it?
Are you saying it's not possible to get speedlings out of 2 bases before a 4-gate push starts?
Are you saying you prevent 4-gate and apply pressure with pure speedling? What league are you in?
You know who else said that you can crush a 4gate with pure speedling, IdrA. Search for "JP and Friends": watch the first Youtube video with IdrA, in that video you will see IdrA crush a 4gate by Cruncher (who happened to win the TLopen) with pure speedling; then he goes on to recommend that people do that to defend 4gate.
You're ignoring the whole part about where only half of your speedlings can get down the ramp because it's blocked by forcefield. The ramp that is un-defendable because of how far it is from the main and natural.
It's like another Blistering Sands, except your ramp is even farther from your natural and there's no backdoor rocks to help you later in the game or to help you get around your force-fielded ramp. It's just a bad design.
On February 06 2011 12:38 ChThoniC wrote: How do you get speedlings from 2 bases when your ramp constantly has forcefield on it?
Are you saying it's not possible to get speedlings out of 2 bases before a 4-gate push starts?
Are you saying you prevent 4-gate and apply pressure with pure speedling? What league are you in?
You know who else said that you can crush a 4gate with pure speedling, IdrA. Search for "JP and Friends": watch the first Youtube video with IdrA, in that video you will see IdrA crush a 4gate by Cruncher (who happened to win the TLopen) with pure speedling; then he goes on to recommend that people do that to defend 4gate.
You're ignoring the whole part about where only half of your speedlings can get down the ramp because it's blocked by forcefield. The ramp that is un-defendable because of how far it is from the main and natural.
It's like another Blistering Sands, except your ramp is even farther from your natural and there's no backdoor rocks to help you later in the game or to help you get around your force-fielded ramp. It's just a bad design.
Did you even watch it? He got all of his lings out before they could FF his ramp, it's not as nearly as hopeless as you are making it out to be.
On February 06 2011 08:42 ChThoniC wrote: For example, it is impossible for a Zerg to do anything but one base on #3 against Protoss, because any 4-gate rush can infinitely block the unprotectable ramp while taking potshots at the expansion.
When did people get this idea that Zerg cannot defend a 4-gate without static defenses at their natural? I have found that +1 speedlings can counter most forms of early 4-gates without the need for spine crawlers.
So what you mean is every game no matter what I need to get super fast evo chamber and get +1 because my opponent might go 4 gate, right? Man that's stupid thinking, you need to react for a 4 gate, but you suggest wasting 100/100 just to get +1 so you can counter 4 gate.
People are saying that a map is bad because he comes, makes a forcefield and you won't have any reinforcements from your main, but you are giving an advice which has nothing to do with a problem.
So what you mean is every game no matter what I need to get a spawning pool before 50 food because my opponent might attack me, right? Man that's stupid thinking,..
Strategy in RTS games have constraints, you can't do anything you want when you want it just because you feel like you should...
Not important to most people but I noticed that on the new 4 player map that starting positions were off and not as near to the minerals as they could of been. The top left spawn was so far off I actually just started laughing the first time i spawned in that position. Does not give me a lot of faith in the map makers I hope the 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 maps are done correctly.
Picture
Edit: Blue Teal Purple Spawns are off the rest seem ok
On February 07 2011 09:04 Artisan wrote: Not important to most people but I noticed that on the new 4 player map that starting positions were off and not as near to the minerals as they could of been. The top left spawn was so far off I actually just started laughing the first time i spawned in that position. Does not give me a lot of faith in the map makers I hope the 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 maps are done correctly.
Picture
Love the file name. That's effing hilarious.
Are they being paid for this? Seriously, Blizzard, just hire the iCCup team. It'll make you look a lot less foolish.
Hire iccup? Why not ask for them for free. To be frank iccup isn't perfect. Yes they do have the occasional map that is really good, but many of their maps are imbalanced. I'm not comparing them to blizzard's but I'm just describing them by themselves.
You really think they would hire mapmakers when they can just find maps for free? (Which has been the "traditional" way, a la Kespa).
Sure money can help them focus on it, but there are always people devoted enough regardless of money. Anyways, the benefit a mapmaker gains is recognition and just being satisfied and happy.
If they hire a team it better not be iccup but a team Blizzard themselves made. Meaning they check to make sure each member is outstanding and everything. But again hiring is quite... "untraditional" and unnecessary.
Anyways, think of this. Would Blizzard really hire a team from a website that helped people pirate Starcraft so easily? It's like they're hiring hackers to help make sure there are no bugs in the game.
On February 07 2011 09:04 Artisan wrote: Not important to most people but I noticed that on the new 4 player map that starting positions were off and not as near to the minerals as they could of been. The top left spawn was so far off I actually just started laughing the first time i spawned in that position. Does not give me a lot of faith in the map makers I hope the 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 maps are done correctly.
Picture
Two things:
1) Terran would be imba with those spawns olololol
2) Why did you mine 500+ minerals, build something, cancel it, and then probe rush?
Neo lost temple is pretty good for blink stalker PvZ. You can blink hurt stalkers onto the gold patches. Plus, there is a new area behind that gold that you can blink onto, and attack at a different angle (so spines don't all attack you)
I have been getting murdered by blink stalker all ins because of the odd ramp placement of most of these maps, its like warpgate heaven since you cant rely on spine crawlers for defense and reinforcements get cut by forcefield thanks to the ramp that aims outwards directly into the opponents attack patch.
On February 07 2011 09:18 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: You really think they would hire mapmakers when they can just find maps for free? (Which has been the "traditional" way, a la Kespa).
OGN did not just "find" some maps for free on b.net, lol.
The naturals are WAY too wide in my opinion, it doesn't reinforce macro games at all, just makes people want to 1 base. These maps are pretty bad in general, but better than what we have. the new LT is great, I don't mind the natural's choke being a bit more wide open, that's a nice feature, but the expansions on test map 2, 4 and 5 are just way to wide. It's like they saw xelnaga being balanced and just thought having wide naturals is good when that's not always the case. I also very much dislike testmap 3, just isn't very good at all. If I have to say which ones are the best i'd say testmap 1 and testmap 5 are probably the only ones worth keeping.
btw, test map 5 is New Antioch in the blizzard maps and testmap 2 resembles the 8 person map, High Ground. New Antioch was definitely changed for the better but still not the best map, at least blizzard is going in the right direction.
OGN did not just "find" some maps for free on b.net, lol.
You're putting words into my mouth...
I didn't say they found it on bnet. There are many ways of "finding" things. In this case, community and fan made maps that they (Kespa) "approved" and implemented.
these are actually really annoying. i expand a lot, and it seems that if you plan on ever going beyond 2 bases you have to kill rocks everywhere, there is no quick 3rd options in most situations. also, the amount of paths and rocks into naturals and 3rds is going to make expand play a nightmare. yea, the maps are bigger but i'm pretty disappointed so far.
OGN did not just "find" some maps for free on b.net, lol.
You're putting words into my mouth...
I didn't say they found it on bnet. There are many ways of "finding" things. In this case, community and fan made maps that they (Kespa) "approved" and implemented.
OMAT=OnGameNet Mapping And Architecture Team.
Hired by OGN to make maps,Mapdori is an official KeSPA Mapzone where they pay the map makers if their maps are good.
Rose.Of.Dream is an official KeSPA mapmaker who gets paid to make maps(Eg:Fighting Spirit).They are hired mapmakers,who used to be community mapmakers.
I don't know if it has been noted yet but zergs should make killing the rocks closest to their main on testmap1 (lost temple 2) high priority. Or any race against terran (including other terrans) because siege tanks can hit the gold from the bases that were once islands (the geysers anyway). I don't think it will end up being that big of a deal is if you arent spawning close positions to the terran chances are it will be easy for you to take out the rocks with little resistence and if it is close positions as zerg you will likely pick somewhere else for you 3rd or 4th.
Test map 1 is pretty sick its a lost temple without cliff drops and without islands. There are ramps leading to the new "islands" with rocks blocking the passages. Also the middle is a lot bigger and favors big engagements which may make it easier for them roach armies?
People who say "you can make +1 zergling to counter 4gate" are clueless. "But... Idra said so". Sorry, +1 speedlings are good against 4gate, but it's way harder to deal with a 4 gate with pure speedling than going with a bunch of roach and some ling plus spine. I almost always crush a 4gate with that mix, while speedling can be destroyed if the protoss is actually smart enough to build zealots and sentries and not go for a pure stalker and a pair of zealots.
On February 07 2011 18:42 WhiteDog wrote: People who say "you can make +1 zergling to counter 4gate" are clueless. "But... Idra said so". Sorry, +1 speedlings are good against 4gate, but it's way harder to deal with a 4 gate with pure speedling than going with a bunch of roach and some ling plus spine. I almost always crush a 4gate with that mix, while speedling can be destroyed if the protoss is actually smart enough to build zealots and sentries and not go for a pure stalker and a pair of zealots.
There are different kinds of 4gate. +1 speedlings are better in certain situations (where P isnt going sentries). If P goes 4gate with one gass you know he won't have enough sentries, thus going +1 sling is the right decision.
I pray for LT without cliffs, but now without the islands (or, with them connected with the rest of map...) i think that the matchs will be very long [and lazy].
Anyway, now we have a map that a Zplayer can play and [maybe] confront Tplayers.
*This replay, OMFG, one of the most horrible matchs that i ever see. 2 noobies fighting for a place in the Noobies Community.
just the sight of third bases that can actually be taken and wider spaces for zerg on a few of these maps gives me hope that blizzard actually gives a fuck about fixing this game. I haven't even opened starcraft in three weeks. i've just been so sick of having to work twice as hard as protoss and three times as hard as a terran just to beat them.
maybe this will give me an incentive to stop replaying every RPG i've ever owned and get back to this game, huh?
Interesting. TestMap 2 reminds me a lot of Rivalry, wonder if they looked back at that old map.
Any change to the map pool is good IMO, it gets stale so fast with the current ladder system. Also like that there seems to be at least some maps that don't have those goddamn shared bases in 2v2 - now get that for all types of teamgames and I'm happy.
Ive had a few games on testmap2 and spawned a few times on the right side, top and buttom.
With plays like a 3 barracks stim timing the rocks between the 2 naturals take no time to take down, and the rush distance comes really hardcore, specially playing zerg. in those positions it feels like it becomes more like stepps, where you gotta be super aware and cut probe production to actually stay alive.
I really wish none of these maps had any rocks at all. I mean, they're so unnecessary. Xel'Naga is my favorite map to play on, and I think it would be ten times better without the rocks at the gold and blocking the path to the third expansion.
The one occasion where I don't have an issue with the destructible rocks/debris is on, say, Scrap Station. Or using it to cover up the Xel'Naga Towers (an ICCUP map had this feature. Pawn Re maybe? I forget.)
But seriously. If Blizzard just got rid of all the rocks on these new maps, and perma-blocked off some of the shorter paths, these maps would be SO much better. I'm hoping they'll listen to that kind of feedback.
I think these maps are a step in the right direction. Blizzard hears the community that the current map pool is pretty broken and they're trying to address that. You gotta give some respect for.that. However, these maps aren't the answer. Some of them are okay, but they still suffer from being developed by such a limited group of people. Blizzard needs to seriously consider accepting some can-made maps onto the ladder pool. That's the best way that Blizzard can maintain the control that they want while also giving the players the better maps that they need.
Match making not currently find games for me. I've been waiting 10 minutes and still no luck. Also, my new laddering acct is only plat so it shouldn't be hard to find games :/
On February 08 2011 09:43 [NoiSe] wrote: The maps may not be exactly what we wanted, but they're still new maps, and that's awesome.
Hopefully they start doing this monthly, and in retail instead of PTR.
The goal of a PTR is tot est things before they come out, thus putting the maps on it BEFORE the retail. Blizzard is very careful about this; they can't change things weekly like they did in the beta. They put maps in the PTR version to try and get rid of bugs/glitches/imbalances, and if there are too many they will simply not put it in the the retail. It's perfect like that IMO.
On February 06 2011 17:47 NineteeN wrote: I confess, I was really excited about new maps. However, I'm growing more and more aggravated at Blizzards hatred of easy-to-defend naturals and obvious thirds. In this sense, Lost Temple is what I like to see (cross positions/ close by air only). None of these maps have easy-to-defend naturals, and that makes me sad.
My guess is that it's for the zerg players. Zerg players want more attack area to surround and flank. But it makes it harder for T or P to FE. Basically tells me to 4 gate on these maps first before expanding. But let me tell you, it is much easier to 4 gate a zerg natural if it's wide open. Metal or Xel'Naga is great to 4 gate on because you can attack from any angle to avoid any crawlers or tuck yourself in behind the minerals (every zerg will get pissed at you if you do that, it's impossible for them to dig you out). Or even worse in the case of XN, you can just walk right into their main and FF the ramp.
On February 06 2011 22:03 Mooncat wrote: Man I really wish Blizzard would finally let go of their stupid rocks & watch towers. A few well placed rocks with maybe double their current HP similar to BW would be nice and maybe one watch tower per map max., but they're totally overdoing it imho.
Edit: Apart from that, at first glance the new maps do seem better than the current ones.
What's wrong with rocks and towers? In the case of gold, it has to be there or zerg will just FE to it. And when taking a third they fall down easily enough that it's trivial.
On February 06 2011 17:47 NineteeN wrote: I confess, I was really excited about new maps. However, I'm growing more and more aggravated at Blizzards hatred of easy-to-defend naturals and obvious thirds. In this sense, Lost Temple is what I like to see (cross positions/ close by air only). None of these maps have easy-to-defend naturals, and that makes me sad.
My guess is that it's for the zerg players. Zerg players want more attack area to surround and flank. But it makes it harder for T or P to FE. Basically tells me to 4 gate on these maps first before expanding. But let me tell you, it is much easier to 4 gate a zerg natural if it's wide open. Metal or Xel'Naga is great to 4 gate on because you can attack from any angle to avoid any crawlers or tuck yourself in behind the minerals (every zerg will get pissed at you if you do that, it's impossible for them to dig you out). Or even worse in the case of XN, you can just walk right into their main and FF the ramp.
On February 06 2011 22:03 Mooncat wrote: Man I really wish Blizzard would finally let go of their stupid rocks & watch towers. A few well placed rocks with maybe double their current HP similar to BW would be nice and maybe one watch tower per map max., but they're totally overdoing it imho.
Edit: Apart from that, at first glance the new maps do seem better than the current ones.
What's wrong with rocks and towers? In the case of gold, it has to be there or zerg will just FE to it. And when taking a third they fall down easily enough that it's trivial.
If the benefit of taking a base such as the gold is high enough, it should be in a place where it is at increased risk of being scouted and killed. The fact you need to cover for shoddy mapmaking by saying "shit, they can take and hold this too easily, I know, ROCKS" is really really bad.
And it's awful for zerg. If it's not crossrespawn than this map is just like steps of war, because your naturals are ridiculously close may be even closer then on steps of war.
But that's not the end - there is highground right in the middle between your bases. So what will be the common scenario in ZvT on this map? Let's suppose Zerg spawn on topright and terran on bottomright.
Terran either allin with marrins + scv because rush distance is very(i mean VERY) close or terran takes his natural and tank push. T can just place some tanks on highground on the way to your base and may be bunker with marines. This highground will defend shortest way to terran base and allow him to easily threat zerg. Then terran destroy rocks and push right into your base - nice.
All what zerg can do in such situation is try to allin from 1 base and over game before any tanks, or try to take long way through the center(because shortest way is blocked by tanks on highground) and base trade with terran, but 1 plan fortress o some well placed tanks will make it almost impossible.
In any case i'm not surprised that we won't see this map on gsl. Imho even steps of war is better for tvz then this map.
I don't really like the new maps as zerg, even after playing them all weekend. The wide open naturals kind of suck, you can't cover your natural + your ramp with one spine crawler and it takes longer to link them with creep so I would either die to 2rax pressure or have to expand way late, not sure how zergs will adjust to these if they go live. Then to make it worse if you spawn close position you get REALLY close positions on some maps.
Blizzard should quit it and just buy the maps from the iccup mapmakers, I'm pretty sure they will be happy to get 1k a piece for a well done, depurated map.
I guess the reason they don't want to support the iccup map makers is because iccup basically encouraged piracy during all the time it existed, it just does not make sense from a business ethics standpoint...
On February 10 2011 02:33 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Blizzard should quit it and just buy the maps from the iccup mapmakers, I'm pretty sure they will be happy to get 1k a piece for a well done, depurated map.
I guess the reason they don't want to support the iccup map makers is because iccup basically encouraged piracy during all the time it existed, it just does not make sense from a business ethics standpoint...
They dont have to buy iccups maps, they already own them. Theyre just to ignorant to use them.
I tend to think a more open natural is better for Zerg. The chokepoint doesn't benefit you as much as it does the other races (unless you like getting a bunch of Spine Crawlers). Ok, it'll help against Hellion harass and the like, but you'll also have a much harder time punishing T/P FE builds and I don't think it really helps you at all against the majority of attacks.
These maps don't actually look too bad. Its definitely about time they started expanding the map pool and these look a whole lot better than the previous offerings.
On February 10 2011 05:27 KissKiss wrote: I tend to think a more open natural is better for Zerg. The chokepoint doesn't benefit you as much as it does the other races (unless you like getting a bunch of Spine Crawlers). Ok, it'll help against Hellion harass and the like, but you'll also have a much harder time punishing T/P FE builds and I don't think it really helps you at all against the majority of attacks.
These maps don't actually look too bad. Its definitely about time they started expanding the map pool and these look a whole lot better than the previous offerings.
Yeah but current zerg strategy depends on the ability to defend a FE, not on the ability to punish a P/T FE. I don't think it's as big a deal in ZvP but in ZvT it is pretty horrid, other than hellion harass 2rax pressure also becomes very difficult to deal with because you already have so little time to prepare a defense, zergs really depend on having one spine crawler to assist with defense but it doesn't seem viable with the new maps. Then at the same time P/T will just sim city their natural so the choke is almost irrelevant, I see this hurting zerg play far more than it helps it. It would be different if the maps had longer rush distances to offset this but some of them can be stupidly close.
There a so many new maps out right now, I feel like I can only learn so many maps at once. As well, there is no guarantee any of these maps will be in the next patch, so I'd rather not fall in love with(play 40 times in a row) a map only to have it not make it into the next patch, just my feelings.
Blizzard should quit it and just buy the maps from the iccup mapmakers, I'm pretty sure they will be happy to get 1k a piece for a well done, depurated map.
I guess the reason they don't want to support the iccup map makers is because iccup basically encouraged piracy during all the time it existed, it just does not make sense from a business ethics standpoint...
Yup. Also, there is still hope. Although they probably won't put iCCup maps in, it's possible they'll put in a couple GSL maps (especially Crossfire SE since it's so close to a Blizzard map, and if not I hope they put in the non-GOM-edited Crossfire at least).
We'll just have to wait til the ladder reset/new season. If you see the interview recently of Dustin Browder, he says the new season has been pushed much later than he wanted; he wanted seasons of about 3-4 months.
So, on a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rank these maps?
Test Map 1: 8/10. Are there any Zergs who would be sad if Lost Temple was replaced by this? No cliff shenanigans and the more open center are reasons enough to approve. I'm still not a fan of close spots, but in no way is this anything but an improvement.
Test Map 2: 9/10. On far positions, this map is fantastic. It's basically a 4-player Xelnaga caverns with the main/natural/third setup, except with an easier to take and hold third. The worst positions for Zerg are vertical, but that short nat-to-nat distance can't be rushed early due to the rocks (which means, incidentally, that this map uses rocks in the same way the GSL map Crevasse does), and the rocks going to the side of your nat are easier to defend than the rocks going into your main on Shakuras. Vertical positions TestMap2 is far better for Zerg than close Metal or close LT (or close Shakuras?), and far distances are great. I think this is the best map Blizzard's ever made (though you can argue if that's a low bar or not).
Test Map 3: 5/10. I don't hate it....but I don't really like it either. The ramp placement actually makes SCV all-ins hard to beat again. If the ramp were moved to be closer to the expansion...close positions would still be pretty damn close.
Test Map 4: 2/10. This map has no defining features that aren't both terrible and well-qqued over.
Test Map 5: 1/10. If they disabled close spawns, this map would be merely mediocre.
EPT![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4781217/Maps/test%20map%201.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4781217/Maps/testmap3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4781217/Maps/testmap2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4781217/Maps/testmap4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4781217/Maps/testmap5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/heH29.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/aqra3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8ACcp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z92Bi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eJdpa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E2y1c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lmrwm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/onMQn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://asialadders.battle.net/war3/images/ladder-revise/minimaps/Wetlands.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1DpaX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/L7Tkg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/joiwN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/psMeD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giISF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ne0wM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ca8qV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/6MymP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2iYTH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dDzvBl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MOn2ql.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hGzrRl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kad5Ml.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fhdYhl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GIzsEl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rVX94.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/3B9Lb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/BW3ve.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/eG15P.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/JPaC3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/DTtJ8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/jrZHE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/W7ei6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/OmhkK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/fyhz4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/09fRsl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/kgypj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/UuMtc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/4IvvT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/fJ2Z3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/UwHVU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/GoJZa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vDQTc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/0PQuh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/F9wst.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/BStIk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/aZ3JO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/4Oh8j.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/RYs0a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YpOpS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/h9bgF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Isuzy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/716GT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/152_Desperado.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/123_Neo%20Arkanoid.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2LXMb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/4k7cW.jpg)
.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/x2BVS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/pucza.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Tq3kP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/aWFqI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YqBok.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/gfPze.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/6931/reallyblizzard.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-187257.jpg)
