|
Hello.
So far it seems that pretty much everyone really like the big GSL maps - Tal´Darim Altar, Crevasse and Terminus Re.
As a result these maps have now been included in a lot of tournaments. However I believe we should have legitimate concerns about this trend to use those big maps in a map pool.
The main concern is that really big maps rule out a lot of builds and units that are viable on smaller maps (but in no way small) like Typhoon and Shakuras. This may not be evident just yet cause the maps are still new.
As a terran, going pure mech can much easier be exploited by his opponent as there is much more space to move around.
A huge protoss ball can also be dodged more easy.
Personally I am a zerg player and I am afraid that the only viable build vs any opponent will be ling/bling/muta. As I see it mutas are an absolute MUST HAVE on these big maps. No infestor play. No roach/hydra combo as they move too slow and need to be clumped up.
My question is: Do we really need these big maps to get good games and a balanced gameplay?
I dont think we do. In fact I think, that because the build options are more limited, we will get less entertaining games than we currently have on maps like XNC, Shakuras and Meta. I would like to add Backwater Gulch, Typhoon Peaks and Shattered Temple but I just havnt seen any pro games on them, which is a shame as I think they are great maps.
TL;DR - The big GSL maps restrict the gameplay and force the players to chose from just a few viable builds.
|
I think both the ladder as well as a tournament should feature small, medium-sized and big maps. Each size renders some strategies favourable.
A player should not rely on one strategy per race match-up, because tournaments would be boring.
Other races are jealous about our speedy muta force with a bouncing attack. I try to embrace it instead of thinking "oh no, I cannot use infestors to kill the big terran bio attack ball". I just need to keep him busy while I expand and flood him with banelings 
|
I think we need to wait & observe some more games on these maps as the metagame changes. I play terran and I am still a bit apprehensive about big maps, because terran is the slowest race and cannot easily reinforce on huge maps.
However, I have seen some amazing terran play in the GSL on huge maps that really exploits the use of dropships/banshees/etc. and terran's defensive ability to work wonders against the other races. I also think that large, slow armies still have a place in the game with bigger maps, as although it's easier to dodge them, it's also easier for the massing player to defend early rushes and secure an economic foothold.
In the end we will have to see how the game develops. It could be that SC2 was not meant to be played on bigger maps, but bigger maps might change the game for the better.
|
I think it just brings a whole new aspect to the game. You need to have a much better multitasking in the late game on these huge maps, with drops and nydus and whatever occuring all over the map ! It makes it certainly must more interesting for the viewer imo and brings back a little bit of the good old BW feeling.
|
On March 29 2011 21:54 Thall wrote:
I think it just brings a whole new aspect to the game. You need to have a much better multitasking in the late game on these huge maps, with drops and nydus and whatever occuring all over the map ! It makes it certainly must more interesting for the viewer imo and brings back a little bit of the good old BW feeling.
I disagree. All this multitasking is also needed on smaller maps and we see it constantly allready. Besides SC2 is not BW and what worked in BW may not work in SC2.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
i really agree with this. Granted, I'm only plat z, but i feel like the 3 bases basically behind one choke (Tal Darim is a LOT better than terminus RE in that regard), but i just seem to struggle.
That's part of the beauty of GSL maps, the fact that not EVERY SINGLE BASE has 8 mineral patches and 2 gas. I'd like to see a few....less rich expos
|
I think the distribution is a little too big-map heavy right now. While larger maps certainly allow for the longer games where full-term strategies can come into play, there's something to be said for early game rushes.
On larger maps, the only heavy early game rushes that seem to work well are warp gates, because they cut out the middle distance so easily. While I'm not necessarily pro-cheese, I think it's important for gameplay, not map pool, to render them beatable. Because of that, I'd like to see maybe one or two of the 4-player maps (Terminus and Tal'Darim seem pretty duplicative anyway) replaced by 2-player maps, or perhaps by 4-player maps on the scale of Metalopolis.
tl;dr - there's something to be said for maps with short rush distances.
|
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.
|
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
|
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
How do you deal with the huge number of locations to scout for proxy gates/barracks on Tal'Darim?
|
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.
|
Well I'm starting to get bored of playing zerg. It's the same bling muta fast expand build in every game. This might be caused by the reasons posted in the op.
|
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.
Conclusion
+ Show Spoiler +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.'
|
Reading mnck's post made me change my mind about big maps... As a terran player, my mech doom pushes are a backbone of my play, and I hated the new big maps for the simple fact that I'd have to multitask more for a 3rd/4th base instead of simply killing them after massing up on 2 bases on the medium/smaller maps.... I felt that the big maps were ONLY there for the QQ'ing zergies.
But as mnck says,
On March 29 2011 22:39 mnck wrote:
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.
So if you look at it that way, it's kind of a no brainer. More room for skill? yes. More competition? Yes plz. Now, to practice Tal'darim altar... lol
|
On March 29 2011 22:37 PolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
thats simply not true. early pool builds (10 or something) will be viable because people favor FE on big maps. 14 gas 14 pool is also viable you just have to play it out differently than a hatch first. with early speedlings you are in total control of the map and you can decide to put pressure on while the enemy does not know what you are up to.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Canada13389 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
|
The large maps are so ridiculously fun. I started hating on taldarim altar, but am coming around to it, especially in TvT where I can see in other matchups as well, ghosts + nukes are actually more viable. Although xel naga is still my favorite, the smaller maps late game consists of a couple of high tech units and mostly tier 1 and 2 units, but I think with the larger maps we will see a lot more tier 3 variety, and using tier 1 and 2 just for harass and mobility.... Also there is nothing like have drops going on all over the map, harassing with a couple units here and there, multiple flanks, continuous expanding, it feels a lot more fun, and I get more submersed in the game, than the usually 200/200 balls were used to seeing. I like the battle of attrition and actually having to go down multiple tech paths in a big macro game.
And like somebody said earlier the larger maps reward the better player as the game progresses, instead of the player who can think of the dumbest cheese in 5-7 minutes.
|
I don't get it.
Zerg can still use their "slower units" on these big maps. May I remind you that Terran have the slowest units in the game, even your so called "slow roaches" that zerg like to QQ about for being slow, are actually the same speed as MMM off creep and without the speed upgrade.
Your slower units are still viable on these bigger maps, just get speed upgrades and keep on top of creep spread. And walah! You now STILL have way more mobility then Terran & Protoss ^_^ even when going for your "slower" units.
|
My only complaint about the bigger maps is that when I get one of them when I'm laddering I end up being only able to play 1 game in the entire night as opposed to the 3 or 4 I'd like to. Unfortunately, certain greedier plays are really hard to punish compared with a map that is even slightly smaller.
Like TimeSpiral, I'm sort of on the fence about this. It's nice to have a game that doesn't go all-in, but it's also nice to be able to finish a few games within an hour. And the large maps tend to have long periods of "I don't want to move out, he'll have a massive army by the time I get there compared with mine, so lets keep massing to 200/200."
|
FIghting a random player on Tal'darim Alter is a fucking nightmare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
