|
IMO, if they're going to include mega-huge maps, they need to include medium and small maps too. I'm all for macro games. I like long epic back and forths. I also like crazy insane micro battles with workers and tier one units which you won't see often on GSL maps.
A bunch of people have said something like, "These new maps take you newbs out of your comfort zone. Practice, adapt, and grow a pair." Well.... How about y'all do the same thing and learn how to not insta-lose on steppes or close position meta. Noobs are always beating better players with cheese/1/2 base timing attacks? Sounds like the 'better player' fucked up somewhere and got pwned. He should adapt, practice, and grow a pair and not whine that his greedy macro build got destroyed by a 3 rax.
Variety in maps is fun. Lets keep getting maps of all shapes and sizes. While I haven't heard of it happening anytime soon, I would be bored to tears if the ladder pool became mostly giant GSL maps.
|
On March 29 2011 23:09 optical630 wrote:
people complaining about these maps need to spend more time playing instead of theorying.
ive had the best games of sc2 ive ever played on the new maps. GSL games more exciting to watch
Yeah i've played some of the Best TvX on these maps. And to say 1 base and cheese is not viable. Or to say mech is not viable is bull. I got cheesed my first game on Tal  and Goody beat NesTea with Mech.
Mech is hard and on Small maps like Steppes out Right OP. Plus t difference from BW Mech is much more mobile. Tanks are good against stalkers in adequate numbers(Tankmode). Hellions roast Zeals. Ghost BAM Emp. Viking Cloud Snipe Collosi then land to help in raping poor poor Protoss.
Yes in mech you have to do more in comparison to Toss. But thats a trade off with playing mech. The main trick is position and sniping the enemies key units. Collosi, Immortals.
Plus do you really like 3 rax that much to actually care? You can still 3 rax. Its just not as strong and requires Superior micro to execute.
Learn some 2 base timing pushes.
|
I feel like the game could use a little bit more balancing first. It's no secret that Terran has strong early game timing pushes and become weaker towards the end game, and vice versa for Zerg. Because of the mechanics of the game, it's really hard to say that all large maps will make for nothing more than longer games.
As it is, I've already seen most Terrans taking a FE on the big maps but
+ Show Spoiler [TSL] +Morrow vs Jinro in the TSL, Morrow utterly annihilated Jinro's walll
|
On March 30 2011 04:13 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 03:41 Saracen wrote: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.
so you are saying that as a terran you autolose against dt rush if you dont build an ebay? no...
a dt rush is not to kill your opponent but to keep him in his base and gain mapcontrol while taking an expo,macroing up and so on.
oh and i love your post saracen...tahts exactly how i feel about the issue in this thread.
edit: rogzardo your post does not contribute anything. you dont get that close positions are the death for every zerg because if you build just one drone and the other guy pushes its over. its fact that one race has a clear advantage over another race when you fight off in close positions.
|
On March 30 2011 04:43 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 04:13 TimeSpiral wrote:On March 30 2011 03:41 Saracen wrote: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. so you are saying that as a terran you autolose against dt rush if you dont build an ebay? no... a dt rush is not to kill your opponent but to keep him in his base and gain mapcontrol while taking an expo,macroing up and so on. oh and i love your post saracen...tahts exactly how i feel about the issue in this thread. edit: rogzardo your post does not contribute anything. you dont get that close positions are the death for every zerg because if you build just one drone and the other guy pushes its over. its fact that one race has a clear advantage over another race when you fight off in close positions.
Lol. I am of the opinion that zerg has a disadvantage on small maps, and an advantage on large maps. So, I think both types of maps should be included in the pool.
Anyone who disagrees is a total fag.
|
Map size doesn't really matter for zerg. You have less options anyway.
For instance, when you take the smaller maps, both T and P can open with all kinds of strong builds that lead nicely into midgame play. For zerg, any (agressive) non-FE opening is considered an all-in (speedling, baneling bust, 7 RR). This in itself seems like a racial problem (not really due to units, but the fact that the zerg really needs to get its economy up and running before it gets strong).
Yes, it's sad that bigger maps remove some of the openings from P and T, but that makes the game more balanced at least. Better would have been if Zerg could do similar openings that don't immediately lead to an economic setback... maybe HotS can fix that.
|
On March 30 2011 04:54 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 04:43 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On March 30 2011 04:13 TimeSpiral wrote:On March 30 2011 03:41 Saracen wrote: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. so you are saying that as a terran you autolose against dt rush if you dont build an ebay? no... a dt rush is not to kill your opponent but to keep him in his base and gain mapcontrol while taking an expo,macroing up and so on. oh and i love your post saracen...tahts exactly how i feel about the issue in this thread. edit: rogzardo your post does not contribute anything. you dont get that close positions are the death for every zerg because if you build just one drone and the other guy pushes its over. its fact that one race has a clear advantage over another race when you fight off in close positions. Lol. I am of the opinion that zerg has a disadvantage on small maps, and an advantage on large maps. So, I think both types of maps should be included in the pool. Anyone who disagrees is a total fag.
So wrong. On some big maps TvZ, Terran just goes to 3 base pushes marine-tank across the map and continuously denies 4th and 5th bases to zerg with drops. The only thing zerg can defend it with is their mutas. So zerg starts their 4th at an outlying base, terran sends 1 dropshop to kill it, zerg sends mutas to kill the drop, main force pushes up a little further and resieges. Watch Haypro vs Ganzi on Terminus Re in Code A this last season. Ganzi set up position in the middle of the map with his tanks and marines, eventually established a PF there as his 4th, and just denied extra bases to zerg with drops as his first priority and pushed as second priority. Eventually, he ended up on Haypro's front step. Granted, Haypro made some mistakes, but never in the game did it look like he had any sort of racial advantage.
In ZvP, if protoss has an easy third base, it makes their deathball that much easier to get.
|
I am of the opinion that zerg has a disadvantage on small maps, and an advantage on large maps. So, I think both types of maps should be included in the pool.
Anyone who disagrees is a total fag.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
This thread is LOL.
When they included Tal Darim I was so happy. People here making a big deal out of Tal'Darim. This is the biggest map in the map pool, but this is single map. You have many rushing maps on ladder pool and you can downvote 3 maps. So if you don't like it don't play it and let us have fun kk?
|
The problem with small maps in tournaments is that matches on them will inevitably be far too volatile. In a tournament setting, you'd want to reward the better player as consistently as possible.
|
This thread is mindblowing. Several weeks ago people were clamoring for larger maps so that SC2 ladder could be more competitive and fun, and match the GSL map pool. Now people are saying that large maps are going to HURT the game? Come on TL...
SC2 is supposed to be about more than 2base timing attacks and allins. Having more maps that encourage lategame play can only be good for the game's future. The 2base attacks will always have their place, they will still be situationally viable, but the game shouldn't revolve around them like it has.
EDIT: @OP:
If you think that having more space and time to play with on larger maps will limit the compositions or builds you can execute, then you clearly don't know many builds that revolve around more than 1 or 2 bases. Sure, large maps will limit early rushes to SOME extent, but they open the way for more strategic play in the mid and lategame (how you decide to take your third, whether its through harrassment, or aggressive pushing, turtling, drops, constant aggression, etc.).
Large maps limit a certain subset of builds and expand a larger set. But if you only know the small set of early builds and think infestors can't be viable mid/late game or that only one unit composition will be usable, then yes, you will feel limited, because you are.
|
Have you watched the GSL?
The diversity of strategies and tactics for the big maps vs. small maps is night and day.
The big maps make the game better. Not just a little bit better... ALOT better.
|
Terran on big map is 100% viable, zerg on small map is 100% viable, protoss on a dance floor is less viable but there's no dance floor map just yet.
We've all seen games where we thought T had the advantage but got crushed, and same with Z. It means it's possible. But you'll tell me "YAH DUDE BUT THE STATS SAYS THAT BLAH BLAH BLAH". The stats says stfu and the 8 out of 10 people who lose to zerg on scrap station have to learn from the other 2 who actually got it. It is 150% possible that over 90% of the progamers actually don't understand X or Y specific situation because they haven't seen it enough. Being a progamer doesn't mean they went thru everything, it only means they managed to win enough to get there. That doesn't mean, in any way shape or form, that they know every possible strategies.
+ Show Spoiler +Dimaga vs MVP in the first game that crashed, who the hell would have thought MVP would make a planetary fortress wall? No one. Not even him, he didn't go in this game thinking about making a planetary fortress wall to hold off freaking ultrafestor mad pushes. He adapted, cuz he's good, he didn't follow a cookie cutter build order that he read on forums, he didn't piss his pants at the idea of going TvZ on a huge map. He grabbed his balls and came up with something smart, on the fly.
New plays come out, and just because you think something can't work, doesn't mean it can't work, what people think is in most cases, extremely limited, and we all have to push and think harder to come up with new ideas. Doing the same thing over and over on the ladder, in fear of losing points if you try something new, will NEVER help any match ups evolve.
Big maps helped a lot, they did more good than bad to the game, and it shows.
|
From a ZvT perspective
To some extent, the diversity seen in play on the larger maps is because they are relatively new and they haven't been solved yet with respect to which unit compositions are best for T and P. Only zerg has an obvious choice, and I believe there will eventually be a de facto standard based solely on how ridiculously good mutalisks are on huge maps like Tal'Darim.
Terran players especially are experimenting with different styles because the solution to combating mutalisk+bling while maintaining pressure is not clear. Mech, though obviously powerful, is obscenely slow and the marine+tank combo is still limited by the sluggishness of tanks.
From my experience, with good overlord spread, a watchful eye on the positioning of the Terran armies, and aggressive muta harassment, it's pretty hard to screw up a match against Terran on these larger maps.
I think maps that are ~Metalopolis sized make for the best matches.
|
I like big maps as a zerg. It makes for a safe fast expand and easy early macro. If they FE, its a quick 3rd. They might proxy or rush air, but in both situations I still feel fairly comfortable. I much prefer the strong mid game and late game style rather than defending early and having my back against the wall.
|
Canada13408 Posts
going to be honest the only concerns I have are related to the fact that collossi like to get stuck on random parts of cliffs on tal'darim in the map pool and this is problematic. Thats the oonly issue i have.
|
On March 30 2011 04:43 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 04:13 TimeSpiral wrote:On March 30 2011 03:41 Saracen wrote: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. so you are saying that as a terran you autolose against dt rush if you dont build an ebay? no... a dt rush is not to kill your opponent but to keep him in his base and gain mapcontrol while taking an expo,macroing up and so on. oh and i love your post saracen...tahts exactly how i feel about the issue in this thread. edit: rogzardo your post does not contribute anything. you dont get that close positions are the death for every zerg because if you build just one drone and the other guy pushes its over. its fact that one race has a clear advantage over another race when you fight off in close positions.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
The DT rush is designed to kill. The follow up bonus, if it doesn't kill, is forcing mobile detection.
No e-bay, DT rush in the base = auto loss.
|
Dimaga did rather well against mvp with infestor/ultras
Don't rule out strategies, because stuff still gets figured out
|
On March 30 2011 07:02 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 04:43 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On March 30 2011 04:13 TimeSpiral wrote:On March 30 2011 03:41 Saracen wrote: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. so you are saying that as a terran you autolose against dt rush if you dont build an ebay? no... a dt rush is not to kill your opponent but to keep him in his base and gain mapcontrol while taking an expo,macroing up and so on. oh and i love your post saracen...tahts exactly how i feel about the issue in this thread. edit: rogzardo your post does not contribute anything. you dont get that close positions are the death for every zerg because if you build just one drone and the other guy pushes its over. its fact that one race has a clear advantage over another race when you fight off in close positions. That's exactly what I'm saying. The DT rush is designed to kill. The follow up bonus, if it doesn't kill, is forcing mobile detection. No e-bay, DT rush in the base = auto loss.
Uh, no it isn't. If the Protoss is crossing his fingers hoping he'll be able to kill everything in your base with DTs then he is bad. If you fail to scout, scan, or build an ebay, or have a techlab starport, you are also bad and deserve to lose to the rush. A 4gate is actually designed to kill somebody and is far more all-in than a DT rush.
|
imo steppes should be back in the map pool. i don't think there was anything particularly "imbalanced" about the map except the short rush distance. now that there is taldarim to balance it out, it should go back in.
as opposed to jungle basin/old lost temple, where it wasn't so much about the size of the map but the terrain
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
