EPTFurther, do you only consider tanks or collossus as well?
GSL Custom Maps Info - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
Further, do you only consider tanks or collossus as well? | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50584 Posts
On January 09 2011 22:07 sashkata wrote: I love Tal'Darim Altar! So many expos and no stupid rocks blocking them. Love it! every expo except for the nats are blocked by rocks according to what people say. | ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
On January 09 2011 22:23 BLinD-RawR wrote: every expo except for the nats are blocked by rocks according to what people say. oh they are not displayed on the map picture on tl. I think it's here to prevent zerg to mass expand too easily | ||
|
NexUmbra
Scotland3776 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182734¤tpage=30#594 | ||
|
DarthXX
Australia998 Posts
 | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On January 10 2011 01:30 DarthXX wrote: I always wondered why they never had Rich Vespene Geysers. The Terrazine Gas mission in campaign kinda indicated to me that it was implemented, but then removed. Good to see these might be added to GSL Workers came out on wrong side of the rich vespene geysers until recently, so thats why we haven't used them. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
On January 10 2011 01:30 DarthXX wrote: I always wondered why they never had Rich Vespene Geysers. The Terrazine Gas mission in campaign kinda indicated to me that it was implemented, but then removed. Good to see these might be added to GSL They are in the map editor, just not used in any actual maps from Blizz (no idea if any customs use them). You can easily add them to maps though. | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
| ||
|
DarthXX
Australia998 Posts
On January 10 2011 01:33 monitor wrote: Workers came out on wrong side of the rich vespene geysers until recently, so thats why we haven't used them. Interesting, I'm curious as to what the best method for implementing these would be. I can't imagine having both high yield minerals and gas at 1 expo, or maybe it would work as it would be a much higher priority target. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
On January 09 2011 21:32 Weavel wrote: So you think that progamers want cheesy and short games? almost all of bw iccup maps had destructible or resource blocked areas, yet no one complains about that... | ||
|
forelmashi
421 Posts
really ++++++ 10/10. huge step forward in terms of depth and professionalism. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
The more I think about it, the more angry I get at the way SC2 was balanced, the balancing was all done in alpha/beta with the same maps we see now! That means that a new map thrown in the pool that is too big might throw off the careful balance blizzard has been working towards. VERY INTERESTING INDEED. | ||
|
DarthXX
Australia998 Posts
On January 10 2011 03:27 emc wrote: What we need ARE bigger maps, but testing has shown that the larve mechanic makes it too easy for a zerg to drone hard then make an army when he needs to. Does this mean the overall game balance is decided by how big or small a map is? That seems rediculous to me that SC2's balance is based on the maps. If more big maps are introduced into the ladder pool, will blizzard have to tweak the way zergs macro works? Will they keep it the same and figure a few small maps in the pool will balance that out? The more I think about it, the more angry I get at the way SC2 was balanced, the balancing was all done in alpha/beta with the same maps we see now! That means that a new map thrown in the pool that is too big might throw off the careful balance blizzard has been working towards. VERY INTERESTING INDEED. That's what happens when you balance the game off a small selection of (also small) maps. But as pointed out earlier, T/P econ builds havn't really been explored much as the timing pushes are much more effective. | ||
|
Madsquare
Germany157 Posts
We are talking about the very fundamentals of the game. This is something that was screwed up by blizzard and it cant be changed to easily. It would require another beta and all that things. That is the reason why SC2 is the way it is. Maybe it will be changed with HotS but I wouldnt bet on it. I dont see it as too problematic however. There have been several good games, and there is a distance (its pretty close to meta cross pos) that you can hit to make cheese less attractive but possible. I think we are actually fine concerning maps and rush distance with what the TL community has produced. The problem are blizz maps like jungle basin, steppes, Delta quadrant that have insanly short distances. These can be dealt with however - by replacing them with better suited maps. cheers, madsquare. | ||
|
NastyMarine
United States1252 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On January 10 2011 04:15 NastyMarine wrote: it makes me angry when i see a map like Crossfire... its basically Peaks of Baekdu Its Sin Peaks of Baekdu, indeed. | ||
|
[wh]_ForAlways
United States235 Posts
| ||
|
ilion
United States65 Posts
On January 09 2011 21:16 baskerville wrote: "it seems they are intentionally looking for bigger maps to prevent cheese and short games." it seems blizz and every other platform of sc2 wants the spectator factor to be higher than the progamers factor...mmmm, how not weird at all edited typos More spectators= more money for progamers. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
One thing to consider is the supply ratio of works to army will be an important strategic decision to make. It seems many players in SC2 think that no amount of workers is too many, but I think larger maps will help us to understand where this balance may lie. | ||
|
DarthXX
Australia998 Posts
| ||
| ||
