EPT[D] Open Naturals - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
| ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
In all seriousness though, the only race this really impacts is Terran. I think Protoss will be totally fine securing their natural with the help of a MC. But, in my burning hatred of all Terran players, anything to make Terran not be able to easily wall off their natural is a good thing. Would be a nice way to even out a difficult match-up and reward Zerg aggression that is normally...pointless if Terran just sets up an easy walloff. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
I dunno how many people will actually show up to play a tournament with such weird maps, but I am sure we can get at least enough to run the tournament and if we can get a major figure to tweet about it we can get a good amount of viewers as well. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
I would definitely be down to play in a tournament on these maps. | ||
|
Elldar
Sweden287 Posts
On October 02 2013 06:45 moskonia wrote: If more people make new open nat maps I don't mind organizing a tournament with open naturals. I can also put in a few old maps like XNC and metalopolis if not enough maps are made, but I would love to see what interesting new ideas for making open naturals we can come up with. I dunno how many people will actually show up to play a tournament with such weird maps, but I am sure we can get at least enough to run the tournament and if we can get a major figure to tweet about it we can get a good amount of viewers as well. If any big tournament would have a weird maps I don't believe pros would skip that tournament. Maybe someone would whine since "learning" weird map is harder then playing on a standardize map. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
What I was talking about is a community tournament, which could get some publicity because of its niche. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
Lings are much faster than in BW and with injects you can make a lot of them much faster. Hence why this is a problem in SC2 and not as much in BW. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
On October 04 2013 04:44 DinoMight wrote: Not walling is simply not an option in PvZ. You die to speedlings or you need to keep a bunch of army at your Nexus at all times. Lings are much faster than in BW and with injects you can make a lot of them much faster. Hence why this is a problem in SC2 and not as much in BW. I think my map solves it very elegantly, since the minerals are only open from one side, it mean if you put a unit between 2 minerals it can only be attacked by 1 ling at a time, unlike 1 on either side like on normal maps. That fact makes it so you can leave 1 unit at the mineral line and it will guard the mineral line from runbys, this is the same as on hard wall-ins where you leave 1 unit at the wall. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On October 04 2013 02:50 moskonia wrote: And even when GOM has relatively good and unusual maps like Icarus then Artosis is still complaining because he hates everythingt hat deviates from his standard epic macro game.I doubt weird maps will get into a tournament since it can backfire for the tournament if the map is bad, almost no one takes these risks, only gom. What I was talking about is a community tournament, which could get some publicity because of its niche. Icarus was pretty cool, you saw a lot of fresh strategies on this map. Not a single Z game I ever saw there was infestor/bl at the end of WoL. Any map where roaches are the standard meta vs T is certainly interesting. | ||
|
Just_a_Moth
Canada1951 Posts
It is harder to take initially but easier to hold once you get up and running. Will hopefully force more midgame play. | ||
|
SpeedyTuyper
England28 Posts
| ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
You could argue that the best way for practice is doing only 1 build and that this will hurt the low leaguers who want to improve, but I would argue that if the maps were really different from each other at the highest level, then macro would not be the most valuable skill to learn. | ||
|
SpeedyTuyper
England28 Posts
On October 05 2013 17:50 moskonia wrote: Whats wrong with having maps that put a greater emphasis on micro? The game does not care about how you win, but simply the win. I know a few cases of players that got to GM simply by doing some kind of all-in or cheese, and there is nothing wrong with it. By the way I don't see how the leagues will get easier, if you would have a large variety of maps then players who can adapt and think about builds specific to certain maps will get higher ranking, while players who do 1 build and simply macro will get a lower ranking. You could argue that the best way for practice is doing only 1 build and that this will hurt the low leaguers who want to improve, but I would argue that if the maps were really different from each other at the highest level, then macro would not be the most valuable skill to learn. It will make the leagues easier because the people that have a inflated win rate because of a map with a open natural (the ones that can micro) will not be able to macro at the same level as the rest of the people in the league so when it comes to a normal map with a closed natural they wouldn't be able to do some all-in that is micro intensive aswell and they will lose games more easily. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
SpeedyTuyper
England28 Posts
On October 05 2013 21:51 moskonia wrote: For some the ladder will be easier, but for others it will be harder, depends on your style and how well you can adapt, but overall I think it would make for a better game and a longer lasting game, because there the metagame would need to adjust based on maps. The meta does change depending on the map, large maps its standard to expand before any tech whereas on smaller maps its standard to open up with some kind of offensive production building first like barracks or pool. Also depending on the map you may go air over ground if the ground rush distance is long but air rush is short, its just not many people in the lower leagues know how to analyse a map to know what is best to do. | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
| ||
|
xsnac
Barbados1365 Posts
| ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
| ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
Today, every map's third is quite similar. No one dares to try something newer on the Third. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
On October 06 2013 07:04 xsnac wrote: from my pov ( protoss ) if you make open naturals i cant forge expand . and in mind with gate expand zerg can abuse me with going hatch before pool or 2 hatch before pool and be ahead . FFE does not have to be possible in order for a map to be good, you simply have to learn to adapt. Anyways FFE is possible, but you have to put a cannon in the mineral line as well as being ready to block the open side of the mineral line with a gateway at all times,therefore gate expand is the better choice, although FFE can be used to surprise the opponent. On October 06 2013 16:01 larse wrote: I would rather say a trend of more open and hard-to-get Third. Today, every map's third is quite similar. No one dares to try something newer on the Third. If the 3rd is hard you will see 2 base all ins all day long, since 2 base all ins are much more viable than 1 base all ins. It would be interesting to see what would happen, but I assume that it will probably only be someone tries to take 3rd and gets denied, although it depends on the map design and with clever features it can turn out nice.. | ||
| ||
