|
This one encourages a mobile force.
I see where a lot of people's criticism is coming from, and this would definitely apply if this were a BW map. Blizzard seems to be trying to force a certain style of play on this map (I'm inferring this out of the above quote), making all of these criticized aspects seem intentional to me. I guess we'll see how this map design philosophy plays out once beta comes out.
Speaking of beta; hopefully, the fact that they're working on maps now is a sign that its coming soon.
|
On December 22 2009 10:02 Sentient66 wrote:
It looks too small to me. I don't want to make any criticisms because I haven't played SC2, but if this were an SC1 map, I'd be pretty disappointed. Not enough room to set up a good flank as zerg, and it looks very linear to me. Seems like it would favor terran in SC1.
This article talks about why 1vs1 maps are smaller now and how it should effect gameplay.
http://kr.starcraft2.com/features/gameplay/multiplayer.xml
|
Very Odd map. This would not work at all in SC1 with all the downward ramps to each base. Lucky ramps in SC2 are just chokes.
The positions that you need to secure to hold each expansion are quite unique. It looks like for almost every expansion you would want to secure a different position on the high ground near it. The blocked ramps may actually be used more for agression by the player who is on the low side of them to allow them easier access to the area their opponent is trying to hold to secure their 4th as much as they could be used to allow access to both natural expansion. I can't wait to see how this plays out.
The areas at the top right and bottom left to look a bit odd in this picture. But based on the size of the trees I'd say that they are not pathable terrain. They are drops to nowhere. Probably looks fine ingame.
|
no way we can judje until we play the map in SC2
from BW perspective, though - it would be terran paradise, especially vs P
|
On December 22 2009 11:41 TestSubject893 wrote:I see where a lot of people's criticism is coming from, and this would definitely apply if this were a BW map. Blizzard seems to be trying to force a certain style of play on this map (I'm inferring this out of the above quote), making all of these criticized aspects seem intentional to me. I guess we'll see how this map design philosophy plays out once beta comes out. Speaking of beta; hopefully, the fact that they're working on maps now is a sign that its coming soon.
I guess the confusion would come from the fact that this map would encourage an immobile force if it was a BW map. With no beta, it is hard to see why it encourages a mobile force in SC2.
|
looks as good as any of the sc1 maps
|
Map looks pretty boring and too small to move your army around
|
United States4796 Posts
David Kim favored, sorry.
|
Definitely a map for Terran players when we look at it from a BW perspective. I wonder if cliff-jumpers will change it at all for SC2.
|
Looks to be high yield minerals in the middle. Almost cant see them from the screenshot.
|
|
|
Wonderful map, i liked it alot.
Its not boring and the central ramp bring flavor to it.
I dont think there should be minerals on upper-right and lower-left diagonals. This would make the map dumb. Why every corner must have min-gas?
But to make this area usable, perhaps they could be exploited as an alternative to cross the map without using the ramp. And the yellow mineral bases are too much close.
Its so wrong to judge the balance so this is not a factor to me.
|
Well they said this map is to encourage a mobile force. So drops, cliff jumpers, etc. There are lots more mobility options in sc2 than there are in BW.
|
On December 22 2009 10:05 EximoSua wrote:
Blue Storm!
Yeah, very similar.
match point too, but thats basically blue storm with a different tileset
|
lol @ people complaining of imbalances when they game isn't even out yet
|
On December 22 2009 13:09 El.Divino wrote:
David Kim favored, sorry.
David Kim > T, P, Z, F, J, B.
NERFFFFFF
|
This actually looks quite plan and simple if u analyze it.
|
Weird map..
My issues with it from a general standpoint of mapmaking, not game balance.
1) Empty space to the top right and bottom left corners. This would have been GREAT areas for valuable expo's. Since it could be assaulted from up a cliff. If you wall it off from the other player's half of the map you can have a awesome "outsideresque" map.
2) Too many ramps to go up to. Basically whenever you're going anywhere it is through a ramp. My suggestion would be to clear some of the middle to allow flanking positions for larger armies. But make sure to keep the cliff AND wall on the cliff near to the "future" top right and bottom left valuable expo's.
3) Mineral and gas positions should be tweaked a bit, ESPECIALLY at the 3rd expo(The one on the cliff, below the wall) Those geysers are so vulnerable, but I guess that was the intention.
4) The cliffs which lead to the empty areas in the corners appear to be unequal. The upper one is obviously passable by reapers, yet I'm unsure about the lower one.
5) High Yield minerals in the middle are only 4 fields? I guess you accounted for the fact that *IF* in the unlikely occurrence someone takes either of those expo's he's basically taking both of em.
6) obviously a unfinished version of the map, I'd like to see some terrain eye candy. Perhaps its just this top down view of the entire map, but it seems kinda bleak, spice it up!
|
Cant wait to get my hands on those Xel'Naga watch towers.
|
United Kingdom12041 Posts
Loving the look of this map. :>
One thing I love is to even consider securing your fourth you need to be putting pressure on your enemy. I like that in a map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
