|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
GOM recently sent out a press release. Part of this release was the following:
"신규 맵도 적용된다. 지난 GSTL(Global StarCraft® II Team League) Feb.에서 크레바스, 십자포화 SE, 종착역, 탈다림 제단 등 4개 맵을 적용해 박진감 넘치는 경기를 선보인데 힘입어, GSL Mar.에서도 동일한 4개의 신규 맵을 적용해 e스포츠 팬들의 호평을 이어갈 예정이다. GSL Mar. 코드 S의 최종 우승자를 가릴 결승전은 오는 3월 19일에 펼쳐질 예정이며, 우승자에게는 5천 만원, 준우승자에게는 2천 만원의 상금이 주어진다."
As far as I can tell, this section of the release states that all four of the new maps introduced in the GSTL will be used in the GSL. Previously, GOM had stated that two to four of the new maps would be used.
The March GSL, which is perhaps inaccurately named, begins on February 22nd.
|
great news!
gsl4 will be grrrreat
|
Here's what it comes up as when thrown in the google translator, if anyone is curious.
New maps will be applied. Last GSTL (Global StarCraft ® II Team League) Feb. crevasses in, crossfire SE, terminus, four maps, including taldarim altar to apply is introduced thanks to a thrilling game, GSL Mar. in the same four new maps Continue to apply to e-sports fans will be well received. GSL Mar. S Code to cover the eventual winner of the finals will be played on the following March 19 and 50 million won for the winner, junwooseungja who is given a prize of 20 million won. "
|
Good news to have this finally confirmed. Would have been terrible to go back to Steppes...
|
*edit*
Did not mean to double post, pelase delete this.
|
|
|
being a member of a quality team just became MUCH MUCH more important
really hope Blizzard adds the GSL maps to ladder. game is already imbalanced anyways with current ladder map pool.
|
Not so sure if i'm happy about this.
First of all I think the new maps are a bit overrated. I simply think they are just too big.. I definately think maps like steppes, blistering and LT/meta close spawn suck but the other end of the spectrum is just as bad imo.
Sure at first it will be nice to see some more macro games but I think the post from Lalush earlier demonstrated nicely that you can't macro that hard in sc2. Because of the supply cap and way bases saturate there is simply no use in having more then 3 bases running at the same time, only terran can function with many more bases because they have a way to increase economy without supply usage (the OC). Ironically zerg especially can't use many bases that effectively because their required usage of queens forces them into having even more 'economy' into supply so they can't even benefit from 5 simultaneous bases.
What will mostly happen with these maps imo is protoss owning. Builds like 16 nex or 1 gate FE vs terran or forge FE vs zerg seem to be extremely strong on these maps and with the way the game is protoss has by far the easiest time in a macro game.
I would go as far as predicting that 3 out of the last 4 will be protoss with the new map pool.
Last thing I dislike about it is that many GSL games I watch will be on maps that I hardly play myself making it a lot less fun for me to watch, I really hope the ladder will update with these maps soon.
|
Oh my goodness! This is excellent news! I cannot wait to see more play on these maps!
|
On February 15 2011 11:34 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
great news!
gsl4 will be grrrreat
it will be gsl 5
|
On February 15 2011 11:54 Markwerf wrote:
Not so sure if i'm happy about this.
First of all I think the new maps are a bit overrated. I simply think they are just too big.. I definately think maps like steppes, blistering and LT/meta close spawn suck but the other end of the spectrum is just as bad imo.
Sure at first it will be nice to see some more macro games but I think the post from Lalush earlier demonstrated nicely that you can't macro that hard in sc2. Because of the supply cap and way bases saturate there is simply no use in having more then 3 bases running at the same time, only terran can function with many more bases because they have a way to increase economy without supply usage (the OC). Ironically zerg especially can't use many bases that effectively because their required usage of queens forces them into having even more 'economy' into supply so they can't even benefit from 5 simultaneous bases.
What will mostly happen with these maps imo is protoss owning. Builds like 16 nex or 1 gate FE vs terran or forge FE vs zerg seem to be extremely strong on these maps and with the way the game is protoss has by far the easiest time in a macro game.
I would go as far as predicting that 3 out of the last 4 will be protoss with the new map pool.
We should probably run the tournament first to confirm any of this, yeah? I feel that Protoss will probably be the favored race on the new maps but I don't feel we can say for sure until we give it a shot.
Another thing is that even with Lalush's post in consideration, long games in SC2 are usually more entertaining than otherwise. The best games from GSTL were largely on the new maps.
|
|
|
Lalush post shows in terms of numbers that you can't macro as hard.
But it is not perfect. It shows that number wise you'll be at a disadvantage if you macro too hard, but it doesn't take into account rush distances, choke points, defensive units and defensive positions. That stuff you can't put on paper.
|
This is awesome! I love the new maps and how they play out. I definitely agree that we will see more zerg/protoss in the top 8 this season.
|
40 minute long games gogogogo, I'm so glad they're using these the games on them in the GSTL were amazing.
|
Loved the new maps, this might be the best GSL season yet.
|
Thank god they confirmed this. It was very likely that they would be using the new maps, but there was a feeling of scepticism somewhere in my heart that they wouldn't.
Anything is better than Steppes of War/Blistering Sands/Delta Quadrant. They did remove Jungle Basin as well, yes?
|
Gonna be the first season I buy a ticket then, great news.
|
This is great news. I hope that other tournaments adopt the GSL maps, too. I know that TSL3 will be using come of the GSL maps.
|
|
|
|
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
Glad to hear. They definitely provide for some entertaining games.
|
|
|
I feel that the GSL maps might be a little overrated (Number of good games on a GSL Map: Squirtle vs MVP), but they beat Steppes, Delta, Jungle, and Blistering.
I wouldn't have minded Crevasse being thrown out and replaced with a whole new map, though.
|
Should have been expected. These games were so much better on those maps than the close-rush maps. There's still going to be a place for maps a bit bigger than Xel`Naga, but maybe not as big as Tal`Darim, so the map-makers will have options.
And, yes, they're huge, but the games actually haven't been insanely longer. There's just more of an option for longer games. And 1 mistake doesn't end the game. Like MVP vs Boxer, + Show Spoiler +on any normal Blizzard map, MVP loses that after his attempt at the 3rd gets killed
We're still going to see rush games, but they'll take more skill/timing than they used to.
|
Canada5565 Posts
Woww. Dreams do come true!
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50123 Posts
On February 15 2011 12:18 Ribbon wrote:
I feel that the GSL maps might be a little overrated (Number of good games on a GSL Map: Squirtle vs MVP), but they beat Steppes, Delta, Jungle, and Blistering.
I wouldn't have minded Crevasse being thrown out and replaced with a whole new map, though.
Crevasse changes are intreguing....all in all this is the GSL to watch.
|
new maps have made the games soo much better. cant wait for the gsl!
|
On February 15 2011 12:18 Ribbon wrote:
I feel that the GSL maps might be a little overrated (Number of good games on a GSL Map: Squirtle vs MVP), but they beat Steppes, Delta, Jungle, and Blistering.
I wouldn't have minded Crevasse being thrown out and replaced with a whole new map, though.
MVP v Bomber?
They've only been used in one teamleague, relax.
|
So fucking excited!! Blizzard, please watch these games and observe how amazing they will be!
|
Yay, now if only blizzard takes and puts them in the map pool.....
|
Well that's unexpected, didn't think they'd roll them out this season with the.. experimentation still going on on some of them. I wonder if the players knew already or if this is their week to get acquainted to the things if they didn't team league, though I guess that shouldn't be a problem with the hours those people put in. It shall certainly be an interesting season, one way or the other.
|
Just goes to show...
no matter how bad your maps are...
theyre still better than steppes of war. I mean seriously, it's about time that tournaments quit using the unit tester as an official map.
|
|
|
Yes!!!! I too really want these in the ladder map pool. Great maps to play on (even if there are size issues).
|
Yeah to me it isn't that bigger maps are better, it is simply that the current maps were horrible.
I just feel the game is way worse off if a map is a bit to big then a bit to small, especially with the current patch and metagame.
And what people need to understand, it isn't as much about the number of expansions or even the macro, it is the recovery time. On those small maps you are really just gearing up to a moment where there is either a big single battle or a big single mistake in build order and the game is basically over. The bigger maps will be more forgiving and you might actually see more "comeback" games and I think the chances of a better player coming out victorious on a larger map increase.
However, it could really change the game up and I could see protoss being very strong with Warpgate but we don't know that for sure. Gateway units will be able to rally into the fight fast but your bigger units now have to rally even further, so it creates an interesting dynamic. Picking off rallying collossi or thors for example is a much more viable strategy on the bigger maps.
Time will tell, but I think the tl;dr - Might as well try the bigger maps because even if they are bad they can't be worse than some of the garbage maps they've been using.
|
Good there are not many Protoss in this GSL or it would have been all Protoss in final four.
|
Anyone doubting these maps' ability to produce exciting games need not look further than the GSTL.
|
On February 15 2011 13:33 kommunalka wrote:
Anyone doubting these maps' ability to produce exciting games need not look further than the GSTL.
I can even 100% agree with this. The GTSL games were out of hand on the GSL maps.
|
FANTASTIC news. At last, we can finally get rid of the all-in filled maps known as Jungle Basin, Delta Quadrant, Steppes of War, and Blistering Sands. I see that there are a few haters of these maps, though I think it is difficult to argue that the old maps are better than the new ones.
I for one am excited to see some more exciting BW-esque macro games on Taldarim and Terminus. So far, most of the games that I've seen on those maps have been quite good, and they're all quite refreshing to watch after having tons of games on the old Blizzard maps, which are getting stale from overuse.
|
I hope these maps get played alot. Will be a good way to evaluate on whether the races are balanced on bigger maps.
Personally, I expect protoss to dominate. But we'll see.
|
Even if it's imbalanced it's not a terrible idea to still field them out. It'll tell us what exactly is imbalanced and what not.
edit: I mean about huge maps.
|
I certainly don't expect the game to be perfectly balanced on these larger maps, and possibly less balanced than on the current map pool, but that is perfectly ok with me, as I think Blizzard will move towards balancing the game on these larger type maps, which is absolutely the direction the game should be moving right now, and I have no idea why Blizzard thought it would be a good idea to remove the large maps in the beta instead of balance the game for them.
With these larger maps, I think things like buffing siege tanks, giving hydra's a speed upgrade, and other much needed changes are more likely. Ultimately I think the game needs a supply cap increase, as maxed armies are simply pathetic as it is, but I don't think we can expect to see something that drastic until HOTS.
|
Terrans not playing bio all game.
Protoss having reasonable thirds.
Zergs not bitching about every freaking map.
This is a good change, now put them on the ladder.
|
Thank goodness. Let's hope MLG goes for custom maps too!
|
This must suck for the very few players(Idra?) without practice partners. No way for them to really experience the new maps except through custom games against random people.
overall though I think it's fantastic, and it'll make the next GSL way better.
|
now this, i will probably pay money to see =]
|
i didnt see all of the games from the gtsl. how balanced are the new maps? i remember lots of tvps, tvts and pvps, since very few zergs were sent out.
|
I hope to see more warp prisms, nydus worms, and mass orbital commands.
|
this sucks ass for idra. He's got literally no one to practice with. All the liquid guys are wayyy too busy and i dont think any of the other foreigners there like him. Good luck idra!
|
On February 15 2011 13:47 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
I certainly don't expect the game to be perfectly balanced on these larger maps, and possibly less balanced than on the current map pool, but that is perfectly ok with me, as I think Blizzard will move towards balancing the game on these larger type maps, which is absolutely the direction the game should be moving right now, and I have no idea why Blizzard thought it would be a good idea to remove the large maps in the beta instead of balance the game for them.
With these larger maps, I think things like buffing siege tanks, giving hydra's a speed upgrade, and other much needed changes are more likely. Ultimately I think the game needs a supply cap increase, as maxed armies are simply pathetic as it is, but I don't think we can expect to see something that drastic until HOTS.
Yeah I totally agree. Nice thing is now we also get to see how much we can "balance" with just aggressive map editing. For example, I love how GOM saw toss turtling to the 200/200 deathball on Crevasse, and after the GSTL the mapmakers nerfed the protective rocks and inbase expo some. Now it's not such a no-brainer to go fast in-base expo, but it is still very viable.
|
On February 15 2011 12:18 Ribbon wrote:
I feel that the GSL maps might be a little overrated (Number of good games on a GSL Map: Squirtle vs MVP), but they beat Steppes, Delta, Jungle, and Blistering.
I wouldn't have minded Crevasse being thrown out and replaced with a whole new map, though.
There were 13 games played on the new maps in the gstl. Of those, two (squirtle mvp and mvp bomber) were some of the best games I've seen. Beyond that, and ignoring the zvz's and pvp's for being the terrible matchup they are, I would say that the average quality of the remaining games far exceeded the average quality of games on Blizzard's maps.
Is it perfect? No. Is it a lot better? Hell yes.
|
Really glad to hear that they're using the new maps. When I saw games on those maps in the GSTL, it was almost like seeing SC2 for the first time. I gave Blizz the benefit of the doubt even as the community was questioning (pre-beta) why their maps seemed so small and choke-heavy, but now I feel that it's definitely time for the change to these larger more BW-esque maps.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=192434
This thread says that it starts on the 21st, are you sure it's the 22nd, or did they change the dates since then?
|
On February 15 2011 14:17 Rokk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 12:18 Ribbon wrote:
I feel that the GSL maps might be a little overrated (Number of good games on a GSL Map: Squirtle vs MVP), but they beat Steppes, Delta, Jungle, and Blistering.
I wouldn't have minded Crevasse being thrown out and replaced with a whole new map, though. There were 13 games played on the new maps in the gstl. Of those, two (squirtle mvp and mvp bomber) were some of the best games I've seen. Beyond that, and ignoring the zvz's and pvp's for being the terrible matchup they are, I would say that the average quality of the remaining games far exceeded the average quality of games on Blizzard's maps. Is it perfect? No. Is it a lot better? Hell yes.
We're also watching a macro game that's far less developed then 2-3 base at most play that was the norm before.
|
I suppose this is pretty good news.
However I do feel i prefer watching them play on the regular maps, purely because i have experience on these maps and i can relate to some of the games.
I suppose i will become familiar with these maps!
|
Jinro v Idra match, then March GSL with four new macro maps, all of this happening simultaneously with my February break...I think my brain just came.
|
great news  should help keep the scene fresh!
|
While this is indeed great news, I fear that there will be plenty of cheeses due to the map unfamiliarities.
|
To be honest, I was wanting to see even more of the new maps during team league so GOM and other leagues could really see if they are more fun to watch and play. I really appreciated the games I saw on the new maps during the team league. It was nice to see different rush styles being used, not to mention the MvP v Squirtle game which blew my mind.
The only problem I really see is from a commentating perspective. For example, in a Ro64, 45 min sets in a Bo3 could potentially make GSL days go up to 6 hours.
I do think every game I've watched on the new maps are far less boring when they pick up. These maps give more room for Zergs to expand, more time for Protoss to get their deathball up, and Terran the ability to reposition tank-lines and use massive drop harass.
|
|
|
doesnt anyone else think this is bad for the community in general? the opinion that the maps are too big aside (I dont have much of an opinion on the GSL maps), this will create a rift in the community between GSL and ladder/all the other tourneys that use ladder maps.
Yes, Blizz needs to be more on top of the game so to speak and be proactive with generating new maps, but I'm not sure if I like this.
|
I think this makes it more likely to see these maps make it on Blizz ladder.
|
So are these maps just being added to the current map pool, or are any maps being removed?
|
On February 15 2011 15:32 atombombforpeace wrote:
So are these maps just being added to the current map pool, or are any maps being removed?
I believe they removed Blistering, Steppes and one other map in exchange for these new maps.
|
great news! The new maps are awesome, the epicness of GSTL proved it.
And we finally have a start date, thank you! I've been looking for a date for the start of GSL March for 4 days, how hard can it be for GOM to post it in their calendar ?!
|
On February 15 2011 15:34 Demonace34 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 15:32 atombombforpeace wrote:
So are these maps just being added to the current map pool, or are any maps being removed? I believe they removed Blistering, Steppes and one other map in exchange for these new maps.
Blistering, Steppes, Jungle and Delta.
Xelnaga, Scrap Station, Metalopolis, Lost Temple, and Shakuras are being kept.
I wonder why 9 maps is becoming the standard pool size for SC2, when it it's 4 or 5 for SC1 tournaments. I suppose more maps and down-voting is better for everyone involved than fewer maps with no downvoting, though.
|
On February 15 2011 16:01 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 15:34 Demonace34 wrote:On February 15 2011 15:32 atombombforpeace wrote:
So are these maps just being added to the current map pool, or are any maps being removed? I believe they removed Blistering, Steppes and one other map in exchange for these new maps. Blistering, Steppes, Jungle and Delta. Xelnaga, Scrap Station, Metalopolis, Lost Temple, and Shakuras are being kept. I wonder why 9 maps is becoming the standard pool size for SC2, when it it's 4 or 5 for SC1 tournaments. I suppose more maps and down-voting is better for everyone involved than fewer maps with no downvoting, though.
Generally, SC1 tournaments are at most Bo3 or Bo5, so it would be reasonable for them to have fewer maps. GSL tournaments go up to a Bo7 in the finals, so they probably need more maps to be used throughout the tournament.
However, SC1 Proleague does use a pool of 7 maps for it's Bo7 format. Also, the GSTL finals was a Bo9, and all 9 maps were used that night. Generally, tournament organizers probably don't want map repeats, so they probably have a map pool that is large enough to allow for no repeats.
|
On February 15 2011 11:54 Markwerf wrote:
Not so sure if i'm happy about this.
First of all I think the new maps are a bit overrated. I simply think they are just too big.. I definately think maps like steppes, blistering and LT/meta close spawn suck but the other end of the spectrum is just as bad imo.
Sure at first it will be nice to see some more macro games but I think the post from Lalush earlier demonstrated nicely that you can't macro that hard in sc2. Because of the supply cap and way bases saturate there is simply no use in having more then 3 bases running at the same time, only terran can function with many more bases because they have a way to increase economy without supply usage (the OC). Ironically zerg especially can't use many bases that effectively because their required usage of queens forces them into having even more 'economy' into supply so they can't even benefit from 5 simultaneous bases.
What will mostly happen with these maps imo is protoss owning. Builds like 16 nex or 1 gate FE vs terran or forge FE vs zerg seem to be extremely strong on these maps and with the way the game is protoss has by far the easiest time in a macro game.
I would go as far as predicting that 3 out of the last 4 will be protoss with the new map pool.
Last thing I dislike about it is that many GSL games I watch will be on maps that I hardly play myself making it a lot less fun for me to watch, I really hope the ladder will update with these maps soon.
Well they've already tried small maps, why not try large maps and see what the outcome is, then maybe they can find out which is better or some common ground
|
Finally, Pro League level maps. All of these stock 1v1 maps are far too small to produce complex gameplay. Now we will see those who are skilled at all aspects of SC2 rise to the top. The likes of Rain circa GSL 3 should never surface again.
|
Was hoping for this, good to see it confirmed. Looking forward to GSL4 quite a lot.
|
Love it. Finally more macro games and much more different openings that can really change the dynamic of the game. But i'm still a little disappointed that Legacy of the Void and Gettysburg haven't made it. Those maps are awesome.
And finally we'll really get a picture of which players are great. I expect Nada to perform much better now while other players, mostly terrans and 2 base timing players, will fall behind macro wise.
I also don't worry of Protoss being super dominant just because the maps are bigger now. I mean, what has changed patch wise? Nothing. It's just that T and Z have to adjust their play against P. And bigger maps just help.
I'm just worried about the quality of Code A games. Yes, there are new players with great potential, but also many awful players from last season. Remembering those bad matches on small maps, i guess we'll see now awful matches on big maps. They just torture us longer.
I really hope Blizzard would take those maps into the ladder map pool. LT changes are ok, but the other maps are just slightly better,or, to say, not that worse than the ones who dropped out.
Edit: It will be GSL 5 btw =/
|
I AM SO EXCITE!
Seriously, these maps were great. The GSTL was amazing, even though there weren't as many zerg's as I would like to see. I cannot wait for the next season. And GSL is on cable in Korea now?!?! Wonderful.
|
|
|
very good news! I hope that will put some pressure on Blizzard mapmakers, that is want the people wants!
|
On February 15 2011 13:47 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
... and I have no idea why Blizzard thought it would be a good idea to remove the large maps in the beta instead of balance the game for them.
...
In testing, before the beta, blizz thought zerg got too strong on maps the size of shakuras or larger to the point where it got out of hand.
On topic: This is great and hopefully it will show just what is imbalanced and what isnt with maps of this size. No doubt though the overall entertainment value will go up. Games might drag on longer when there are 2 players not that great but it will still be better than the rush fests and other crap we've had to deal with on the current maps and considering the players in code s I see this as a non issue. Code A on the other hand...
That's fantastic! No more lost temple with retarded cliff drops. This is indeed turning out a great day!
|
Sweet! I loved the games on the new maps.
|
On February 15 2011 11:56 norlock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 11:34 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
great news!
gsl4 will be grrrreat it will be gsl 5
GSL 2, in fact.
(The first three were the GSL open)
On topic: Definitely good news. Saying that these maps are bad is just as premature as saying that these maps are amazing. It's all far too early in the day to call, but imho, we've got enough data points on the maps that are being left out and it's time to take a gander at something new - these maps are as good a place as any to start looking.
Hoping for a great GSL - tentatively gonna tip Nestea for the first ever season double :o (GSTL+GSL).
|
Excellent, love the bigmaps with no close spawn, macro games all the way.
|
Slightly offtopic, but what were the bigger maps that blizzard took out during the beta? Would they be worth a revisit?
|
+ Show Spoiler +
That's fantastic! No more lost temple with retarded cliff drops. This is indeed turning out a great day!
They also edited Metalopolis with a smaller ramp so it takes more buildings to block off. In case they didnt change that last time I read about it.
|
On February 15 2011 13:47 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
I certainly don't expect the game to be perfectly balanced on these larger maps, and possibly less balanced than on the current map pool, but that is perfectly ok with me, as I think Blizzard will move towards balancing the game on these larger type maps, which is absolutely the direction the game should be moving right now, and I have no idea why Blizzard thought it would be a good idea to remove the large maps in the beta instead of balance the game for them.
With these larger maps, I think things like buffing siege tanks, giving hydra's a speed upgrade, and other much needed changes are more likely. Ultimately I think the game needs a supply cap increase, as maxed armies are simply pathetic as it is, but I don't think we can expect to see something that drastic until HOTS.
excuse me?? BUFFING them? care to elaborate?
|
Great to see, it was somewhat expected but seeing it confirmed is awesome.
|
On February 15 2011 18:12 Angelbelow wrote:
Slightly offtopic, but what were the bigger maps that blizzard took out during the beta? Would they be worth a revisit?
The beta map pool was pretty much identical to the current map pool except we had Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine instead of Xel Naga Caverns and Shakuras Plateau. There was also a map called "Incineration Zone" that was quickly taken out during beta. Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine weren't removed until well after the game's release.
Kulas Ravine can be considered to be a "macro" map, though it was also a universally hated map due to it's bad layout. Desert Oasis was just a strange map with a strange layout, though it produced some nice games (Jinro vs Socke at MLG Dallas). Incineration Zone was in the beta map pool for too short a time for any notable games to be played, though according to the layout it was definitely not a macro map.
I don't think Blizzard had actually taken out any macro maps besides Kulas Ravine, though that was a bad map.
Also, I'm sure the main reason that people are so tired with the current map pool is that many of our current maps were used since Day 1 of the Beta, and we are quickly approaching the 1 year anniversary for the start of the public beta. Also, some of our current maps (such as Lost Temple, Blistering Sands, and Scrap Station) were showcased extensively in prerelease preview matches, so it is quite understandable that many of the beta veterans are probably extremely pissed off at how slow the map pool has been evolving.
|
I enjoy watching the occasional all-in play that will not really be possible on the new maps.
DQ was really dumb but im kinda sad steppes and blistering are gone. Of course it's stupid when there is nothing but all-in play (bitByBit much?) but now we will see macro only and thats not for the better imho but we shall see...
|
Didn't watch the GSTL so don't know anything about the new maps except that they're bigger, looking forward to it.
|
On February 15 2011 19:03 plainsane wrote:
I enjoy watching the occasional all-in play that will not really be possible on the new maps.
DQ was really dumb but im kinda sad steppes and blistering are gone. Of course it's stupid when there is nothing but all-in play (bitByBit much?) but now we will see macro only and thats not for the better imho but we shall see...
You will probably see all-ins on these new maps that will be.."all-in" proxy 2gates, proxy racks, proxy starport banshee, 6pool etc. All-ins where you actually are at a disadvantage when they dont work are good for the game(none of this current close spawn metal/lt bunker rush/bring all scv stuff where youre still ahead if you dont win).
|
Expected but i am still happy that its confirmed
GOM is taking control and just doing it their own way, this means no more Stepps and the rest of the trash in the tournament.
|
I really don't see blizzard adding any maps to their map pool that they themselves didn't create. So at best maybe we see the original Crossfire?
|
Hmmm... oh well. At least it will be a change. They didn't have too much of a public test though.
|
Sweet! they had me really worried for a while there
|
|
|
Sick! I really hope that Blizzard will add them to the ladder as well.
|
Very good decision on their part.
|
Personally I think GOM should completely eliminate the blizzard maps and design the whole map pool themselves. As it is right now NONE of blizzards maps are actually very good, some are just far worse than others. Although Xel/Metal/Shakuras might be balanced, they're not actually "good" maps. Would love to see how GOM would design small/medium sized maps.
|
On February 15 2011 19:13 vyyye wrote:
Didn't watch the GSTL so don't know anything about the new maps except that they're bigger, looking forward to it.
Off-topic, but I've gotta say the GSTL finals alone were easily worth the $5 cost. I'd highly recommend watching them if you've got the time and the cash. It also lets you get a peek at how these maps are going to play if you can't wait the whole 6 days before they show up in the GSL
|
I kept wondering how Blizzard would ever be aloud to buff Terran again...but now it becomes clear. The emphasis on 200/200 armies that these maps provide will put a hurtin' on Terrans.
|
Man, playing Steppes as a zerg makes me want to take a monitor and throw it out of the window..
The more maps are introduced, the more shitty maps will become history.
|
On February 15 2011 11:34 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
great news!
gsl4 will be grrrreat
gsl5 tho, but new maps are awesome
|
Good stuff.
Now Blizzard needs to step up and incorporate some of the big tournament maps (GSL as well as ICCup) into the ladder and it'll be perfect.
|
Wee sounds great. Even if the maps fail Gomtv will know what to change in order to make the game/maps more balanced .
Ps: time to enjoy more sun in south africa :D holidays rock
|
Awesome!
Cannot wait for the new season to start. Will buy a ticket again for sure
|
Honestly this kinda sucks for those players that want to ladder. I mean when you ladder you wont get these maps then your forced to play on them in the GSL and worse local tourneys prob start using them too just to mimic the GSL.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 15 2011 11:54 Markwerf wrote:
Not so sure if i'm happy about this.
First of all I think the new maps are a bit overrated. I simply think they are just too big.. I definately think maps like steppes, blistering and LT/meta close spawn suck but the other end of the spectrum is just as bad imo.
Sure at first it will be nice to see some more macro games but I think the post from Lalush earlier demonstrated nicely that you can't macro that hard in sc2. Because of the supply cap and way bases saturate there is simply no use in having more then 3 bases running at the same time, only terran can function with many more bases because they have a way to increase economy without supply usage (the OC). Ironically zerg especially can't use many bases that effectively because their required usage of queens forces them into having even more 'economy' into supply so they can't even benefit from 5 simultaneous bases.
What will mostly happen with these maps imo is protoss owning. Builds like 16 nex or 1 gate FE vs terran or forge FE vs zerg seem to be extremely strong on these maps and with the way the game is protoss has by far the easiest time in a macro game.
I would go as far as predicting that 3 out of the last 4 will be protoss with the new map pool.
Last thing I dislike about it is that many GSL games I watch will be on maps that I hardly play myself making it a lot less fun for me to watch, I really hope the ladder will update with these maps soon.
I think you are right about protoss being favored (and your reasoning for why, tho I would add the power of warp-in as well, as its greatly amplified by a big map), however I dont think there are enough strong protoss players in this GSL for the top 4 to be 3/4 toss ^^
Anyway, these new maps are a lot more fun to play than most old maps, and definitely less imbalanced than Steppes or Delta for instance. Sooooooooo, I think its worth it, even if they arent perfect.
|
On February 15 2011 11:34 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
great news!
gsl4 will be grrrreat
I believe its technically GSL5 if you go by the champs; Fruitdealer, MC, Nestea, and MVP
But yes im looking forward to both code A and Code S
|
gonna be nice to see how balance turns out on bigger maps. im expecting more zergs and toss make it to later stages.
|
Excellent, now we should be able to see how the changing of maps will effect gameplay, since it will be used at the highest level for testing.
|
I just think that with the insane distances it give Protoss enough time to mass up its insanely powerful units, rendering a lot of attacks useless. But I guess we'll see.
|
I'm not exactly sure about that. On the one hand, i think it is very good to kick maps like Steppes, Blistering and so on. But on the other hand, i think that they slightly overreacted with the size of those. I think they should scale that a little down and take the size of maps like Shakuras (which is, in my opinion, the best map atm).
|
On February 16 2011 03:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 11:54 Markwerf wrote:
Not so sure if i'm happy about this.
First of all I think the new maps are a bit overrated. I simply think they are just too big.. I definately think maps like steppes, blistering and LT/meta close spawn suck but the other end of the spectrum is just as bad imo.
Sure at first it will be nice to see some more macro games but I think the post from Lalush earlier demonstrated nicely that you can't macro that hard in sc2. Because of the supply cap and way bases saturate there is simply no use in having more then 3 bases running at the same time, only terran can function with many more bases because they have a way to increase economy without supply usage (the OC). Ironically zerg especially can't use many bases that effectively because their required usage of queens forces them into having even more 'economy' into supply so they can't even benefit from 5 simultaneous bases.
What will mostly happen with these maps imo is protoss owning. Builds like 16 nex or 1 gate FE vs terran or forge FE vs zerg seem to be extremely strong on these maps and with the way the game is protoss has by far the easiest time in a macro game.
I would go as far as predicting that 3 out of the last 4 will be protoss with the new map pool.
Last thing I dislike about it is that many GSL games I watch will be on maps that I hardly play myself making it a lot less fun for me to watch, I really hope the ladder will update with these maps soon. I think you are right about protoss being favored (and your reasoning for why, tho I would add the power of warp-in as well, as its greatly amplified by a big map), however I dont think there are enough strong protoss players in this GSL for the top 4 to be 3/4 toss ^^ Anyway, these new maps are a lot more fun to play than most old maps, and definitely less imbalanced than Steppes or Delta for instance. Sooooooooo, I think its worth it, even if they arent perfect.
this says all !!!! macro games are incoming
|
Sick. Excited. Wanna See more of Crossfire, don't particularly think its good for Zerg, however i think it would be interesting for TvP if it goes to the late game.
|
Awesome, those maps were really well done. Hopefully they implement them in the map pool on battle net!
|
Can't say I'm a huge fan of Tal'darim altar. The map is just simply enormous, and your third only has one gas. ZvP on this map is pretty rediculous, as it's impossible to stop a protoss from gettin on three bases, while your three base economy is noticeably weaker than usual.
/balance whine.
That said, i'm glad they're adding the rest of these maps. Should be good.
|
Great! Anyone who doesn't like this needs to watch (GSTL spoilers) + Show Spoiler + from the GSTL.
|
On February 16 2011 03:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 11:54 Markwerf wrote:
Not so sure if i'm happy about this.
First of all I think the new maps are a bit overrated. I simply think they are just too big.. I definately think maps like steppes, blistering and LT/meta close spawn suck but the other end of the spectrum is just as bad imo.
Sure at first it will be nice to see some more macro games but I think the post from Lalush earlier demonstrated nicely that you can't macro that hard in sc2. Because of the supply cap and way bases saturate there is simply no use in having more then 3 bases running at the same time, only terran can function with many more bases because they have a way to increase economy without supply usage (the OC). Ironically zerg especially can't use many bases that effectively because their required usage of queens forces them into having even more 'economy' into supply so they can't even benefit from 5 simultaneous bases.
What will mostly happen with these maps imo is protoss owning. Builds like 16 nex or 1 gate FE vs terran or forge FE vs zerg seem to be extremely strong on these maps and with the way the game is protoss has by far the easiest time in a macro game.
I would go as far as predicting that 3 out of the last 4 will be protoss with the new map pool.
Last thing I dislike about it is that many GSL games I watch will be on maps that I hardly play myself making it a lot less fun for me to watch, I really hope the ladder will update with these maps soon. I think you are right about protoss being favored (and your reasoning for why, tho I would add the power of warp-in as well, as its greatly amplified by a big map), however I dont think there are enough strong protoss players in this GSL for the top 4 to be 3/4 toss ^^ Anyway, these new maps are a lot more fun to play than most old maps, and definitely less imbalanced than Steppes or Delta for instance. Sooooooooo, I think its worth it, even if they arent perfect.
Are you winning games vs P on the new maps? Watching MVP vs Squirtle was depressing, it felt like there was very little MVP could have done. And I'm curious as to how Zerg's supposed to win ZvP on these maps.
|
Very good, but I still would want some iCCup maps in GSL's map pool but still good news :D
|
How the hell is Idra going to train now?
|
On February 15 2011 17:52 FarbrorAbavna wrote:
In testing, before the beta, blizz thought zerg got too strong on maps the size of shakuras or larger to the point where it got out of hand.
It seems like creating three races with markedly different performance on different-sized maps is bad design. Shouldn't it be possible to balance the game such that Zerg aren't automatically massively favored on big maps and disfavored on small ones?
The warp-in mechanic also makes protoss 4gates slightly wacky; with all the other races, the amount of stuff they can hit you with at any given point in the game depends on map distance, but not so with protoss, since even if they want to hit you with stuff that walked there from their bases they can warp in new guys to a proxy pylon while the old guys walk.
|
might balance out zerg abit... i look foward to seeing how the pros handle it befoer i attmept it ^_^
|
WOO no more Jungle Basin and Steppes! Yay! :D
|
All 4 maps are heavily protoss favored because of the warp-in mechanic. They have the best of both worlds since they benefit from the defenders' advantage of long travel times and yet give their opponent zero defender advantage with instant warp ins.
In short, Warp-gates are extremely IMBA on large maps.
|
I think you are right about protoss being favored (and your reasoning for why, tho I would add the power of warp-in as well, as its greatly amplified by a big map), however I dont think there are enough strong protoss players in this GSL for the top 4 to be 3/4 toss ^^
Anyway, these new maps are a lot more fun to play than most old maps, and definitely less imbalanced than Steppes or Delta for instance. Sooooooooo, I think its worth it, even if they arent perfect.
Mech play mech play mech play?
Oh Jinro you will try to show your fans some more of your sexy mech play right? :D
And hopefully own everyone and win GSL5.
|
If you're cutting Lost Temple, I see no reason to not also cut Metalopolis.
I think they should just use custom versions with close spawns disabled. Blizzard's job is to make Zerg able to play on close spawns, but the GSL's job is to get maps balanced however possible, even in messy stupid ways.
|
On February 16 2011 13:00 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +I think you are right about protoss being favored (and your reasoning for why, tho I would add the power of warp-in as well, as its greatly amplified by a big map), however I dont think there are enough strong protoss players in this GSL for the top 4 to be 3/4 toss ^^
Anyway, these new maps are a lot more fun to play than most old maps, and definitely less imbalanced than Steppes or Delta for instance. Sooooooooo, I think its worth it, even if they arent perfect. Mech play mech play mech play? Oh Jinro you will try to show your fans some more of your sexy mech play right? :D And hopefully own everyone and win GSL5.
Unfortunately, Mech play is weak on large maps as well because of the reinforcement delay. I've won plenty of 200/200 vs 200/200 battles vs toss where I have the perfect army comps and get off money EMPs, but my surviving army would get cleaned up immediately by the 15 chargelots that get warped during or immediately after the battle. Terran just cannot rebuild after a large battle as fast as Toss.
|
I like the map, but man, TvT with tanks and vikings line on these maps are ridiculous
|
On February 16 2011 08:56 Robstickle wrote:
How the hell is Idra going to train now?
Wow, you're totally right. I hadn't even thought of that.
I guess he's gonna have to make some friends or something like that.
|
Yuck huge maps suck.
Games in SC2 shouldn't be 40 min or longer unless yer close to stalemate or turtle-Terrans. Imho
Keep the speed in the game, less macro and space
Yes, I am a Zerg
|
totally had the wrong browser tab, sorry
|
On February 15 2011 11:54 Markwerf wrote:
Not so sure if i'm happy about this.
First of all I think the new maps are a bit overrated. I simply think they are just too big.. I definately think maps like steppes, blistering and LT/meta close spawn suck but the other end of the spectrum is just as bad imo.
Sure at first it will be nice to see some more macro games but I think the post from Lalush earlier demonstrated nicely that you can't macro that hard in sc2. Because of the supply cap and way bases saturate there is simply no use in having more then 3 bases running at the same time, only terran can function with many more bases because they have a way to increase economy without supply usage (the OC). Ironically zerg especially can't use many bases that effectively because their required usage of queens forces them into having even more 'economy' into supply so they can't even benefit from 5 simultaneous bases.
What will mostly happen with these maps imo is protoss owning. Builds like 16 nex or 1 gate FE vs terran or forge FE vs zerg seem to be extremely strong on these maps and with the way the game is protoss has by far the easiest time in a macro game.
I would go as far as predicting that 3 out of the last 4 will be protoss with the new map pool.
Last thing I dislike about it is that many GSL games I watch will be on maps that I hardly play myself making it a lot less fun for me to watch, I really hope the ladder will update with these maps soon.
edit: read it wrong, sorry.
Either way I'm pretty sure zerg has the easiest time in a macro game.
Zergs with many bases only harvest the gas, to make gas intensive units for the late game. They still benefit greatly by having multiple bases.
The maps are in the custom map pool, there's nothing stopping you from playing them.
|
Good news. The new maps are awesome compared to the previous ones.
|
now if huk could make up and down matches <3
|
On February 15 2011 12:18 Ribbon wrote:
I feel that the GSL maps might be a little overrated (Number of good games on a GSL Map: Squirtle vs MVP), but they beat Steppes, Delta, Jungle, and Blistering.
I wouldn't have minded Crevasse being thrown out and replaced with a whole new map, though.
Number of good games on Blizzard maps throughout the history of SC2: 0
GSL maps win.
|
I'm going to miss Jungle. It was such a fair map in every match up :p It's good to see that gsl is trying to push the macro game more. Hopefully there won't be as many crap players in code A now.
|
I've heard that Crevasse now has only one gas geyser in the backyard natural because Toss seems way too strong on that map.
|
finally, non trash maps for gsl
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
