|
On March 29 2011 23:37 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 22:37 PolSC2 wrote:On March 29 2011 22:14 Zachatron wrote:
I feel like these gsl maps are just opening the doors for a whole new set of strategies based on FE and drops and will force even slower races to push ideas of mobility.. it's quite exciting This. You shouldn't think of the new big maps as restricting gameplay. You should think of the new big maps as a chance for different and unique strategies to be developed and refined. exactly and you dont have to go muta on big maps...just think of ways you want to play.
Yup, I really expect to see alot more worm play from zerg, as well as splitting of roach groups similar to terrans who mass marines and attack multiple locations to weaken an army. Terrans I hope will be doing more "map splitting" with forward PFs to cut the map size down for more control, and protoss warp prisms with speed increase might become a standard.. who knows!?! the possibilities are endless.. thats why the game is so popular with veteran players that have been playing for 10 years now without ever getting bored =] If you are open about it, the shifts and changes will always keep the game fresh, and these maps are just the newest shift.
|
I like these bigger maps because games feel longer and not so thin and compact. I like to use nydus a lot but on maps like meta or ST its hard to land a nydus down without it being killed off 20 seconds after being made. Even having mutas on these new maps makes it eisier to move around the only problem I've seen is scouting for proxies and such
|
On March 29 2011 23:28 TimeSpiral wrote:
As the maps get bigger, and bigger, the harder the game gets. The game is so hard as your opponent is skilled. Longer maps of course favour longer games.
|
I think another legitimate concern with the shift toward larger maps is zerg scouting and overlord speed. They are just too slow in the early game for the "reactionary race" to reach the opponents base, gather relevant info, then react.
|
I am sorry but a lot of you are missing my point.
Typhoon and Shakuras feel thin and compact?
What kind of strategies will come into play on huge maps that are not allready being utilized on Shakuras, Typhoon, Meta or ST?
I believe that we allready see a lot of drop play, nydus and attacking multiple places at the same time on these maps.
What I dont think we will see anymore is relatively early timed attacks, pool before hatch, reapers, possibly hellions, fast banshees ect.
What I think we will see more of is ling/bling/muta, especially in ZvZ and PvP will still be about 4gating on maps like Tal´Darim with no ramp and a wide open entrance to your base and natural.
|
On March 29 2011 22:51 Dismantlethethroat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 22:13 flodeskum wrote:
Well if blizzard is going to insist on having every expo being 8 minerals + 2 gas then I don't really want to see the GSL maps on ladder. Not without a lot of layout changes. Taldarim altar is just ridiculously easy in pvz due to the easy fast 3 bases. On that map, any good zerg will have 5-6 bases by the time you have 3.
Usually they'll have 3-4 but even if they have 6 it won't really matter since you can max out so fast while teching to everything with fast 3 bases.
Well, at least I find it really easy as P and really hard as Z... and as luck would have it I seem to get this map a lot more as z than p...
|
My two biggest beefs are:
- They removed the small maps from play
- Unless you're a pro, the big maps are SOOOOOO BORING to watch. Go eat dinner, clean the bathroom, do the dishes, and come back kinda boring.
|
|
|
Larger maps might kill or weaken a number of one or two-base all-ins, but I don't think anyone is mourning that loss.
On March 30 2011 00:29 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 23:28 TimeSpiral wrote:
As the maps get bigger, and bigger, the harder the game gets. The game is so hard as your opponent is skilled. Longer maps of course favour longer games.
Longer games favor better players. The average ladder player doesn't have much of a plan past the mid-game.
|
On March 29 2011 23:15 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 22:39 mnck wrote:
There is almost no multitasking required in making 2 base timing attacks compared to securing and fighting for the 3rd and 4th base in a long, drawn out macro game.
Bigger maps make macro and multitasking more important while micro and decision making are still as important as ever. Bigger maps increase the skill required to produce results and greate a more competitive game with more room to improve.
You claim that big maps reduce the number of strategies you can pull off and I say is is absolutely false. On big maps, with more room to expand, and more mineral lines to secure, you don't always need play the same style as on smaller maps. Defensive macro play will be a lot stronger, and more rewarding. The new infestor builds popping up as a result of patch 1.3 in ZvT is a good example. Using the infestors, you can easily secure more expansions by denying all aggression and getting ahead in upgrades and tech. This is an example of the new types of strategies that become available only on big maps. You don't always need to go mutalisks as Zerg to do well, many other units have great uses on big maps. I personally feel the bigger the maps, the more unit diversity we're seeing. On small tightly packed maps, 2 or 3 base timing attacks dominate so much the best strategy will always be to get the most cost effective army faster than your opponent and deciding the game.
If players figure out how to dodge the big scary balls of mech armies and protoss deathballs, then isn't that in itself a contradiction of your own statement? That is a new strategy devised to fight off the big scary pushes, and are only available on big maps because of the amount of space available. This forces meching player to put more effort into controlling the map and deciding where the battle is fought. This will bring out new ways of thinking strategy.
If the game is more balanced or not, on the big maps, I don't know. But the game should be balanced around big maps and long games, not short maps and short games based on timing attacks. Longer and bigger maps, always require more skill to play, and thus makes for better competition. The focus of balancing a game should be to make skill the factor that determines who wins and who doesnt.
The problem on huge maps is that a 2 base timing attack will hardly be viable anymore. Neither will an early pool or even a 14 pool, 14 gas visa versa. Only viable zerg opener is hatch first. Mutas are insanely good compared to roach/hydra or infestors cause of the mobility they bring to the table. I am not arguing in favor of small maps like DQ or Slag Pits but imo maps dont have to be bigger than Typhoon or Shakuras to display the full arsenal of builds and strategies that every race has to offer without compromising timing attacks an early harras.
2 base timing attacks work in BW for all races. It still works here. It's just that you actually have to plan and time your attack (as in, a real timing attack) rather than just walking over 3 feet and sieging outside someone's base (like Steppes of War).
|
On March 30 2011 01:17 Offhand wrote:Larger maps might kill or weaken a number of one or two-base all-ins, but I don't think anyone is mourning that loss. Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 00:29 [F_]aths wrote:On March 29 2011 23:28 TimeSpiral wrote:
As the maps get bigger, and bigger, the harder the game gets. The game is so hard as your opponent is skilled. Longer maps of course favour longer games. Longer games favor better players. The average ladder player doesn't have much of a plan past the mid-game.
If by all-in you mean boxing all your workers and going, then yeah. No one is going to miss that. But, I've found that most people classify an attack as all-in incorrectly.
I don't think there is anything 'wrong' with a one or two-base timing.
|
Big macro based maps are always better, not only do they allow for long exciting games but also they allow the better player to win more so than the short rush distance maps that are incredibly difficult for zergs. Short maps or medium sized maps are good to have 1-2 but most should be large macro maps as this is an economy management based RTS and what not a better way to manage an economy on a huge macro based map. GSL still includes maps that are medium sized like Xel Naga Caverns and Shakuras plateau.
|
I share the concerns of the OP. Most of the replays I have seen on these massive maps involve each player getting a 200/200 army, jostling around for position for up to 10 minutes, then eventually a big battle that has a significant luck factor. Often there isn't a decisive winner and the cycle is repeated.
Long games almost always have lengthy periods of passivity from both players, that is not exciting. If I am watching a game I want to see constant action, back and forth. I really do feel that the variety in play is reduced.
Personally I would like to see a good range of maps in the pool, some smaller, some larger. But perhaps not at either extreme like Steppes, or Tal'darim.
I hate this assumption that the only skilful way to play is the long macro style. Sure the longer the game goes on the higher the likelihood of the "better" player winning, but for exactly the same reason that they are more likely to win a best of 7 than a a best of 1. If you win a game then it makes no difference how long it took, every win is a win. You wouldn't say in tennis that the best players win in 5 sets, all it indicates is that the players are very closely matched.
|
Its funny how fast people start crying on e they are out of their comfort zone! As soon as something fresh comes out, you get these "I'm scared to play differently" posts. Lol @ only muta play. Embrace the fact that you can try new stuff because the map is bigger (ffs especially if your Zerg), stop whining because your habits have to change.
|
As a new player whos main focus is to improve my macro tremendously, I enjoy these large maps. It seems that I can focus on my macro a lot more in a match, and not worry a lot about any early rushes into my base. As I've improved my gameplay, I find its much more satisfying to get 2 bases early and play strong in the mid game, and these maps seem to make that much easier for me.
|
On March 30 2011 03:11 DeusXMachina7 wrote:
As a new player whos main focus is to improve my macro tremendously, I enjoy these large maps. It seems that I can focus on my macro a lot more in a match, and not worry a lot about any early rushes into my base. As I've improved my gameplay, I find its much more satisfying to get 2 bases early and play strong in the mid game, and these maps seem to make that much easier for me.
That may be one of the best IDs I've seen on TL yet!
Well done!
|
My only concern with the new maps is that Blizzard nerfed Terran mobility very hard.
|
On March 30 2011 00:37 DaCruise wrote:
I am sorry but a lot of you are missing my point.
Typhoon and Shakuras feel thin and compact?
What kind of strategies will come into play on huge maps that are not allready being utilized on Shakuras, Typhoon, Meta or ST?
I believe that we allready see a lot of drop play, nydus and attacking multiple places at the same time on these maps.
What I dont think we will see anymore is relatively early timed attacks, pool before hatch, reapers, possibly hellions, fast banshees ect.
What I think we will see more of is ling/bling/muta, especially in ZvZ and PvP will still be about 4gating on maps like Tal´Darim with no ramp and a wide open entrance to your base and natural.
That's not true at all. Shakuras Plateau is definitely not big enough for heavy drop play, especially with the way the attack paths and expos are structured (it's slightly better in this version, it was downright horrible in the previous version). Typhon Peaks is approximately the same size is the GSL maps. Meta and ST are extremely position dependent, and the way they are structured means drop play is much weaker lategame because of short attack routes. This is all from my experience, at least. ling/baneling/muta should not be a problem because each race has very good options to counter it. Especially ZvZ, where like 4 infestors kills an incredible amount of mutas with no losses. In fact, I think GSL maps are the most fun ZvZ because you get to lategame so much more often, and then you can start abusing roach drops + burrow, which you really can't do on smaller maps because the game never gets to that point or if you drop, he can just counter and win. It becomes a game of multitasking rather than a game of "can I react properly and 1a well?" It actually becomes a fun game.
Also, you sacrifice "relatively early timed attacks" to get rid of a lot of build order wins.
|
On March 29 2011 23:28 TimeSpiral wrote:Imo, there is a direct relationship between map size and general difficulty.Elaboration(1) Every game has an opener, and early game. (2) The vast majority of your games have a mid-game. The game is often won or lost in this stage of play. (3) You will have a decent amount of end-game scenarios. (4) Extreme late-game scenarios are rare. I did not think Blizzard would ever add the super-sized GSL maps to the ladder pool because of their inherit difficulty level. The bigger the map the more likely it is that mid game will transition into end game and even extreme late game scenarios.
Can you imagine Bronze and Silver level players duking it out on Tal-Darim Alter? Wow. That sucks for them pretty hard. As the maps get bigger, and bigger, the harder the game gets. But, is there a certain point where tactics and strategies become rewarded less because of the map size in 1v1 matches? It almost feels like the maps could potentially get to the point where they are too big for 1v1. It is conceivable to have multiple mains, ultra-high econ, and to have matches where neither of you can win (read: kill each other) for a long, long time. I'm not saying this is "bad" yet, but ultra-huge maps with 16 expos just seems a little much for 1v1. Do we really want every 1v1 on these maps to be 60+ minutes long? Do we really want three or four 200/200 clashes? I don't know whether they are good or bad yet. I'm on the fence. I see potential for both arguments. I was and am under the impression that there is a size-threshold for maps in this game in its current incarnation. Travel time, supply lines, total resources; all of these things should be relative to in-game timings. Examples (exaggerated for emphasis)+ Show Spoiler +(a) The spine crawler has a build time so that in many scenarios you can get up some defensive spines if you see a push moving out. On these ultra huge maps you can build a hatch, a queen, drone for a bit, then throw down some spines and they will be done by the time the army actually reaches your base.
(b) On XC the defender can squeeze an extra round of units out by the time it takes the offender to walk across the map. The an extra round pops out during the fight, if there is an engagement. On these ultra huge maps the defender's army is twice as big as yours by the time you get there and they have a Nexus :/
(c) 2 rax used to punish a 15h. Now, if you 2rax by the time you get there there are three hatches, fully droned, and baneling speed is done. I don't know whether I'm for or against the trend towards super huge maps. I think as long as Blizzard and the tournament scene retains maps of all sizes and doesn't allow for too many of these huge maps we will be fine. But if the map pool is eventually all GSL-sized maps I think that will be bad for the game.
I also think as expansions come out and new mechanics are entered into the game they should directly address the new map sizes. I also think we need to be mindful that it is possible that some maps are simply 'too big' and some are 'too small.'
I annihilate late game. No worries for me. I love late game units. The only time I hate them is when Terran's go mass BC rofl. However, that being said, these maps are refreshing, and reward macro more as opposed to smaller maps where cheesing is rewarded.
|
On March 30 2011 03:41 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 00:37 DaCruise wrote:
I am sorry but a lot of you are missing my point.
Typhoon and Shakuras feel thin and compact?
What kind of strategies will come into play on huge maps that are not allready being utilized on Shakuras, Typhoon, Meta or ST?
I believe that we allready see a lot of drop play, nydus and attacking multiple places at the same time on these maps.
What I dont think we will see anymore is relatively early timed attacks, pool before hatch, reapers, possibly hellions, fast banshees ect.
What I think we will see more of is ling/bling/muta, especially in ZvZ and PvP will still be about 4gating on maps like Tal´Darim with no ramp and a wide open entrance to your base and natural. That's not true at all. Shakuras Plateau is definitely not big enough for heavy drop play, especially with the way the attack paths and expos are structured (it's slightly better in this version, it was downright horrible in the previous version). Typhon Peaks is approximately the same size is the GSL maps. Meta and ST are extremely position dependent, and the way they are structured means drop play is much weaker lategame because of short attack routes. This is all from my experience, at least. ling/baneling/muta should not be a problem because each race has very good options to counter it. Especially ZvZ, where like 4 infestors kills an incredible amount of mutas with no losses. In fact, I think GSL maps are the most fun ZvZ because you get to lategame so much more often, and then you can start abusing roach drops + burrow, which you really can't do on smaller maps because the game never gets to that point or if you drop, he can just counter and win. It becomes a game of multitasking rather than a game of "can I react properly and 1a well?" It actually becomes a fun game. Also, you sacrifice "relatively early timed attacks" to get rid of a lot of build order wins.
I really like this response. I especially like the last sentence. There is nothing worse than a BO Loss. I absolutely support the idea of being rewarded/punished for BO but I hate a straight up loss ...
Incidentally, the one play that is a guaranteed loss*, the DT rush, is almost completely unaffected by the huge maps. If anything it makes the DT opener even stronger because it is harder to punish :/
I have hope for the larger maps, but am still under the impression that there is a sweet spot and that "too big" is certainly possible given the current mechanical architecture of the game (which will change over time, possibly to accommodate larger maps).
*For Terran, assuming you do not have an ebay it is an auto-loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
