EPTNew OSL Maps - Page 7
| Forum Index > News |
|
tKd_
United States2916 Posts
| ||
|
Jayson X
Switzerland2431 Posts
| ||
|
fOrTT
United States123 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Guybrush
Spain4744 Posts
 | ||
|
paavst
171 Posts
| ||
|
homeless_guy
United States321 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
mapdori goes down every hour with people wanting to get their hands on the map | ||
|
ReiKo
Croatia1023 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15348 Posts
I hope the forest won't make watching the game too much of an annoyance. Other than that, I think we're going to see some pretty cool games on both maps. | ||
Chill
Calgary25981 Posts
Troy is not bad, considering it looks like a fairly standard map with this geyser trick put in. I'd expect to see Reaver/Sair in every PvZ, considering there's 4 islands and the chokes to the mains are basically useless. PvT looks pretty easy on it as well; Again 4 islands and Vulture harass is basically negligable. Not to mention when Carriers start harassing mains and closing the chokes continually. TvZ will probably be fine because it's usually unaffected by gimmicks like this, and the terrain looks fairly standard. I expect to see A LOT of facepalm moments where you get super annoying because the guy dropped you and closed your choke. Forest map... ugh. Taking away naturals didn't work in Nemesis, and it's not going to work on this piece of shit. Seems like Zerg are going to have a field day (again) on this map in both matchups, considering melee-based Zerg is viable in all matchups. I'm not looking forward to PvT either. Dragoons missing Mines, Zealots roaming free, ugh. If anything, this map will have good mirror matchups, but I think every other matchup is going to suck ass to watch on this (if they play standard). I'm looking forward to a lot of shitty games with stupid builds and ridiculous tactics. Hooray! (I hope I'm wrong) | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Chill, I'm pretty sure you and 50 other people say that every fucking year lol. "If they play standard," Well hopefully they're not retarded enough to play standard on a non-standard map. One of the most frustrating things about being a mapper is that people are unwilling to try new things. If people like you had your way, we'd all still be playing Lost Temple and Hunters. On Demon's Forest, I fully expect heavy Firebat ratios to become a standard part of Terran player's unit mixes Maybe with mines to screw up lurkers. That or Terran will bunker up in their main and do drop kind of strategies.PS: The definition of standard changes with maps anyway. Remember a time when FE with Terran or Toss seemed ridiculous? | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25981 Posts
On January 12 2008 01:28 PsycHOTemplar wrote: Map creator of Troy's name is "Kim-Eung-Seo" not "Kim Eun-suh." Chill, I'm pretty sure you and 50 other people say that every fucking year lol. "If they play standard," Well hopefully they're not retarded enough to play standard on a non-standard map. One of the most frustrating things about being a mapper is that people are unwilling to try new things. If people like you had your way, we'd all still be playing Lost Temple and Hunters. Yes we do, and look at Nemesis, Loki, Persona. Who was right? Edit: Forgot BGH (Baekmagoji) Edit 2: The point is that an ideal map allows every strategy to be viable. Perhaps it pushs you in one direction because of terrain or whatnot, but they should all be viable. Having a completely dominant "winning" strategy because of people "trying new things" is beyond stupid and is the definition of a terrible map. You don't force gameplay decisions with maps, that's not the job of a mapper. | ||
|
amatoer
Germany212 Posts
the maps look very weird.. cant wait to play them | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Ex: Think of every final in the past two years. How many of those had one player 'overcoming a map unfavourable to his race?' How many 'upsets' have happened, based on what people though about the map? ;P Edit 2: The point is that an ideal map allows every strategy to be viable. Perhaps it pushs you in one direction because of terrain or whatnot, but they should all be viable. Having a completely dominant "winning" strategy because of people "trying new things" is beyond stupid and is the definition of a terrible map. You don't force gameplay decisions with maps, that's not the job of a mapper. Almost all maps today FORCE you to pretty much FE every game. How the fuck is that making all strategies viable? How often do you see one base strategies? NEVER, and you wanna know why? Because the maps make them near impossible to play! You'll never see a Terran with a StarPort before he's expoed these days, but it used to happen all the time. And I'm not saying any map should have a dominant "winning" strategy. I'm saying that strategy shouldn't always be macro whore. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25981 Posts
I don't know how you are PRO imbalanced maps? This is StarCraft, not MapQuest, and the role of the mapper is to remain have as little affect on the gameplay as possible. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
 When did I say I was pro imbalance? I've never said I was pro-one-dominating strategy either. Infact, I'm pretty sure it's nearly impossible for one strategy to always dominate in StarCraft, because the reason this game is so good, is that it's a game of incomplete information. But you don't seem to agree with that. You seem to treat it like a game of chess, where the more exact counters you know, the more standard your moves, the better a player you are. Well guess what. Chess is a game of complete information. There is never a consistent best move in StarCraft (unless it's a tiny map where you know for a fact what your opponent has to be doing). Anyway, I guess we can agree to disagree ;P I'm pretty sure Troy is gonna be an awesome map when it hits the circuit, and Demon's Forest has some potential. | ||
|
Texas
Germany2388 Posts
Thanks for posting live2win. Thanks a lot. | ||
|
No_eL
Chile1438 Posts
On January 12 2008 01:54 Chill wrote: I'm not talking about statistics, I'm talking about Zergs getting the shit kicked out of them on Baekmagoji and being unable to lose on Persona. I'm talking about shitty games, not the results and statistics. Notice how I didn't include Blue Storm, Katrina, or countless other statistically imbalanced maps? Because it's a very interesting map, with a little of flare and viability despite being imbalanced. I don't know how you are PRO imbalanced maps? This is StarCraft, not MapQuest, and the role of the mapper is to remain have as little affect on the gameplay as possible. I don't think so, the rol of a mapper its make an entertaining map, affect the gameplay ITS THEIR JOB... are very few maps "balanced", and its too difficult to see what will happened in Pro scene... the mappers receive money, but they many times make mistakes, you, me or anyone in this forum are incapable of know the future, but sooner or later, the pro players and statistics of their games will prove the job of the mappers, and the only thing that i can be sure is that the JOB OF THE MAPPERS WILL AFFECT THE GAMEPLAY AND THE SHOW =) | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25981 Posts
On January 12 2008 02:07 PsycHOTemplar wrote: If that were true, there'd be no such thing as a map without a cliff above the natural. The role of the mapper is to keep StarCraft interesting. Zerg can't lose on Persona? I believe Jaedong, the latest hot stuff lost on it When did I say I was pro imbalance? I've never said I was pro-one-dominating strategy either. Infact, I'm pretty sure it's nearly impossible for one strategy to always dominate in StarCraft, because the reason this game is so good, is that it's a game of incomplete information. But you don't seem to agree with that. You seem to treat it like a game of chess, where the more exact counters you know, the more standard your moves, the better a player you are. Well guess what. Chess is a game of complete information. There is never a consistent best move in StarCraft (unless it's a tiny map where you know for a fact what your opponent has to be doing). Anyway, I guess we can agree to disagree ;P I'm pretty sure Troy is gonna be an awesome map when it hits the circuit, and Demon's Forest has some potential. Okay great, take my obvious exaggeration and apply one example and declare it defeated. In between you talking down to me, you sputter some blatant lies. Yes there are dominant strategies, as in "If a race does this build on this map, he will win more than he will lose." This is a dominant build. Even if the other player does the counter build, he is losing more. That is a direct fault of the map maker, and takes strategy and diversity away from the game. My entire point rests on the fact that StarCraft is a game of incomplete information. When you select your initial build you often haven't even scouted at that point, so you try to maximize your chance to win by taking into account your opponent, current trends, and the map. If the map provides such a dominant strategy, all these mind games become moot. You are forcing players to mindlessly do this build and win more than they lose, and damning the opponent to try all-ins because he has no other option. You are obviously a mapper, and I am obviously a player, so our opinions cannot be unskewed. I think you are giving way too much freedom to impact the game. We'll have to wait and see how these maps turn out. | ||
| ||
