EPTThere is a "add poll" option when you are editing the post.
New ladder maps! - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
There is a "add poll" option when you are editing the post. | ||
|
smegged
Australia213 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:08 Perscienter wrote: Wrong. Old bw maps are a good new starting point. Noone says, that we should impede an evolution of that maps. For future balance patches, it would have been vital to keep Desert Oasis in the map pool. The map statistics need to be monitored. I've been telling this everyone since the release. I actually do think the old ICCup maps are too big for SC2, mainly because there are less units in each race in a 200/200 army due to food cost inflation between games. For Terran in particular, holding distant positions would be nearly impossible were it not for planetary fortresses. Too much of SC2 is about critical mass armies and the game has been designed around that fact. Having said that I'd much rather err on the side of maps that are too large than maps that are too small. | ||
|
tipakee
United States127 Posts
the second option form the right is add poll, just type in the voting options | ||
|
Lexvink
Canada310 Posts
God... I hate Blizzard.... | ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:18 smegged wrote: I actually do think the old ICCup maps are too big for SC2, mainly because there are less units in each race in a 200/200 army due to food cost inflation between games. For Terran in particular, holding distant positions would be nearly impossible were it not for planetary fortresses. Too much of SC2 is about critical mass armies and the game has been designed around that fact. Having said that I'd much rather err on the side of maps that are too large than maps that are too small. lol this makes no sense whatsoever map control is what DEFINES this game, the fact that its harder to do as the game drags on is an element of an RTS | ||
|
Gentso
United States2218 Posts
| ||
|
Radio.active
United States121 Posts
| ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:15 tipakee wrote: Can someone with some credentials explain to me how both of theses maps are "shit" for zerg. They seem to have very easy naturals to take with a very few angles of attack onto those naturals. Or is that the problem? Zerg = Crap off 2-base. Easy natural... Have a look at Jungle Basin and tell me where you're safely going to take a 3rd base? | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:08 zomgtossrush wrote: I laff when 90% of this thread is trying to get BW maps converted, not understanding that we are talking about 2 completely different games. I wonder when ppl will realize that they should stop trying to be nostalgic and be realistic. Bringing in BW maps, while cool, wouldn't help with game balance. The BW maps you saw from proleague were designed for BW. With 100's of hours testing, they were made to be balanced. Some succeeded pretty well, others did not. Trying to toss away their research and jam their maps into this game is almost disrespectful to them. Are new better maps needed? Yes. Should you cry for old iccup maps? No. Metalopolis considered by many to be the most balanced map, is extremely similar to an old WCG map called Gaia. | ||
|
smegged
Australia213 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:17 JustPlay wrote: As a zerg player I'm really sad to see Kulas go. It was the only map I was confident against both P and T on. Being able to expand to the gold was a very strong option, the distances were pretty large, and it was easy to defend 3rd/4th expansions. Cliff on the natural was pretty dumb, but outside of that expected abuse it's better than most of the map pool. It would have been nice if these maps were removed instead: Desert Oasis (even worse vs T with the rocks, better vs 4 gate with the rocks) Steppes of War (horrid) Blistering Sands (bad) Delta Quadrant (void cheese, anti-zerg expansion) Edit: I find it odd that they added two terrible maps instead of something like Crossfire or another 4 player map. Desert Oasis was a beautiful map that encouraged out-of-the-box play. It just needed to have the natural moved a bit closer to the main. The other three are extremely awful though and nothing could make them good. However, removing the back expansion rocks on DQ would make it acceptable (if not perfect). | ||
|
whipple
United States13 Posts
Shakuras seems surprisingly good as I play it out. Jungle will be nice for free FE. I'm surprised no Crossfire. | ||
|
Kolvacs
Canada1203 Posts
Sorry, but the only reason anyone says they like that map is cause Day[9] said he did!  | ||
|
sureshot_
United States257 Posts
At least they got rid of Desert Oasis, playing protoss on that map was horrid. | ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:22 whipple wrote: I guess I'm the "n00b" crowd who prefers faster, more action packed games. Shakuras seems surprisingly good as I play it out. Jungle will be nice for free FE. I'm surprised no Crossfire. bigger maps dont mean less action, quite the contrary, it just gives you the ability to get yourself back into a game if you have the skill to do so, while conversely allowing you to seal the deal on a game if you have the skill to do that | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
blizzard fails me again  | ||
|
Camlito
Australia4040 Posts
| ||
|
smegged
Australia213 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:20 mOnion wrote: lol this makes no sense whatsoever map control is what DEFINES this game, the fact that its harder to do as the game drags on is an element of an RTS That is true, but what I meant is that with the food cost increases in SC2 compared to BW, forces are spread more thinly in the late game than they were in BW if you play on the same size of map. I don't think the difference is huge, but maybe a ~20% reduction in map size might be more appropriate for SC2. The thing is, if they were a little smaller then I really think that Blizzard might be more inclined to use them as well as for newer players they would be closer to the maps that they've already played on. | ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
| ||
|
whipple
United States13 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:24 mOnion wrote: bigger maps dont mean less action, quite the contrary, it just gives you the ability to get yourself back into a game if you have the skill to do so, while conversely allowing you to seal the deal on a game if you have the skill to do that That's really just completely false. Longer distances nerf all kinds of early aggression and harass, I really don't think there's any debating that. Being the aggressor already carries enough risk if it is botched. Long enough rush distances and everyone will just macro up and a+move large armies at each other. | ||
|
JustPlay
United States211 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:22 smegged wrote: Desert Oasis was a beautiful map that encouraged out-of-the-box play. It just needed to have the natural moved a bit closer to the main. The other three are extremely awful though and nothing could make them good. However, removing the back expansion rocks on DQ would make it acceptable (if not perfect). On DO: I've had horrible ZvT experiences there. I'd rather get thor or tank dropped at may natural on LT every game than have to deal with terran harassment on D.O. You can't even poke back at him like you can on other maps. On DQ: Yeah, the rocks are troublesome. Without the rocks it'd be a pretty interesting map although the inner natural is just too safe. The outer natural would still be a bit too open, but I wouldn't want to thumbs down it nearly as much. On October 07 2010 12:27 whipple wrote: Bigger maps encourage harassment because losing your aggression force doesn't mean that your opponent is going to waltz in to your base 5 seconds later and kill everything. You have enough time to reinforce, and because of the travel distance you should be able to fend your opponent off. Longer distances nerf all kinds of early aggression and harass, I really don't think there's any debating that. Being the aggressor already carries enough risk if it is botched. Long enough rush distances and everyone will just macro up and a+move large armies at each other. | ||
| ||
