EPTNew ladder maps! - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
charlie420247
United States692 Posts
| ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:26 smegged wrote: 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. what is this food inflation you talk about? if anything there are more units on battlefield since workers mine smarter so you need less of them | ||
|
Percutio
United States1672 Posts
Fix the gas on the top that supposedly requires an extra worker. Remove the extra tall grass entrance to the third Widen the gap between the natural expo and the area outside the main so that Protoss can't warp units into the natural. Push the thirds closer to the mains in order to make them easier to defend and to make attack paths to the middle expansions longer. Put Python style wide ramp expansions above the third expansions with the ramps facing the center of the map. Maybe: Make the proposed "fifth" expansions can be gold mineral expansions with 1 less node. Add mineral only expansions (Probably near the mains on the opposite side of the natural). Add rocks to the small ramps for the center expansions. Put small sight range xel naga towers surrounded by tall grass between the cliff of the mains and the wide ramp that leads to the third expansion's tall grass area. Add tall grass on the opposite side of the destructible rocks near the natural. | ||
|
Sylvr
United States524 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:21 Subversion wrote: 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? Why does everything have to be "safe"? Do you realize how boring this game would be if every map had completely linear bases with 1 out-facing entrance each? | ||
|
Doko
Argentina1737 Posts
| ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:23 sureshot_ wrote: These maps still favor certain races, and they're not even new. Jungle Basin looks like it could be decent. They need to make the ridiculously far 3rd expansion a gold imo. No one in their right mind is going to take that. The map itself looks like a zerg nightmare and a protoss/terran field day. Shakuras Plateau looks the exact opposite. At least they got rid of Desert Oasis, playing protoss on that map was horrid. Sure, its great for Zerg if you don't mind your natural being shelled by siege tanks... from Terran's natural. Or if you don't mind being like 8 seconds away from your opponent, making the threat of counter-attack and muta harass to keep Terran in his base completely negligible. If thats what you're into, this map ROCKS for Zerg. | ||
|
Zerker
Canada201 Posts
| ||
|
smegged
Australia213 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:23 Kolvacs wrote: Desert Oasis = BULLSHIT MAP. Sorry, but the only reason anyone says they like that map is cause Day[9] said he did!  Day[9] said he liked it? News to me. I have always liked it, even in its original form as it encouraged different styles of play and adaptation. I don't want every game I watch to be the exact same builds and strategies, with the only difference being the quality of execution. | ||
|
whipple
United States13 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:27 JustPlay wrote: 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. 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. Harassment, maybe. I'd say harassment is equally viable regardless of rush distance, except for maybe mutas which get really nerfed by close positions. But early aggression gets killed by long rush distances. Especially for Terran. | ||
|
Combine
United States812 Posts
But early aggression gets killed by long rush distances. Especially for Terran. If anything, early aggression is more boring. I don't want to see someone get attacked super early and have no way to come back from it. | ||
|
The Stapler
United States326 Posts
putting Strategy in my strategy game....silly, Blizzard you're not Xzibit | ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:30 whipple wrote: Harassment, maybe. I'd say harassment is equally viable regardless of rush distance, except for maybe mutas which get really nerfed by close positions. But early aggression gets killed by long rush distances. Especially for Terran. not true its just harder. for all races actually. I cant 2gate as well but you cant get conc shells before i have a stalker, you might have to MICROOOOOOOOOOO | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:28 mOnion wrote: what is this food inflation you talk about? if anything there are more units on battlefield since workers mine smarter so you need less of them This is why you don't post when you have no idea what you're talking about. In Brood War, as worker numbers increased, they got in each other's way and you lost mining time. Thus, it took a lot fewer workers to saturate a base. Mining smarter has nothing to do with mining more minerals or income. They take away two maps most people veto, and add two maps that most people will certainly veto again. Interesting. I'm hoping it was just a slip-up on their part, and they actually meant to add two completely new maps. | ||
|
Dox
Australia1199 Posts
On October 07 2010 09:41 VirtuallyLost wrote: holy shit blizzard... i guess zerg won a tournament you nerf us indirectly with maps huh. FUUUU JUSTIN BROWDERR Who is Justin Browder? Hurr durr. | ||
|
Magdain
United States58 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:27 whipple wrote: 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. Think about what you're saying, the last sentence in particular. Aggression can be risky currently because on most ladder maps your natural expansion is 30 seconds away from your opponent. If the map is bigger you can be more aggressive, because if your aggression fails you're not instantly vulnerable to a counterattack. | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:29 Subversion wrote: Sure, its great for Zerg if you don't mind your natural being shelled by siege tanks... from Terran's natural. Or if you don't mind being like 8 seconds away from your opponent, making the threat of counter-attack and muta harass to keep Terran in his base completely negligible. If thats what you're into, this map ROCKS for Zerg. On October 07 2010 12:28 Sylvr wrote: Why does everything have to be "safe"? Do you realize how boring this game would be if every map had completely linear bases with 1 out-facing entrance each? Have a look at Jungle Basin and tell me where you're There, fixed. If taking that 3rd was an advantage for me, I'd agree fully. You should have to risk something in order to gain a reward. But that's not the case here. Zerg needs at LEAST 3 bases to keep up with a Terran or Protoss 2-base. So you can extremely safely have 2 bases, while my 3rd is as hard/harder to defend as gold bases in other maps? I have to fight tooth and nail to hold on to a base that can only put me EVEN with you. But I get why playing an imbalanced map in your favour would be more "fun". | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
| ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:33 vica wrote: This is why you don't post when you have no idea what you're talking about. In Brood War, as worker numbers increased, they got in each other's way and you lost mining time. Thus, it took a lot fewer workers to saturate a base. Mining smarter has nothing to do with mining more minerals or income. They take away two maps most people veto, and add two maps that most people will certainly veto again. Interesting. I'm hoping it was just a slip-up on their part, and they actually meant to add two completely new maps. would you actually like to take this to discussion on BW mechanics? in that game you made workers ALL GAME LONG there was never any talk of "when to stop" or "what optimally saturated a base" it was all workers all the time. they didn't get in each others way at all, they just took longer to get to minerals cuz the pathing was shitty. whereas in SC2 the workers go directly to the fucking minerals AND they just patched out the 7% delay. incredibly efficient workers means you need less of them. On October 07 2010 12:36 EchOne wrote: I'm pretty sure Shakuras Plateau has been on the ladder for 2v2 at least; I remember playing it with my friend. it was a 2v2 map that blizzard ppl including David Kim played on for a stage match at blizzcon | ||
|
smegged
Australia213 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:28 mOnion wrote: what is this food inflation you talk about? if anything there are more units on battlefield since workers mine smarter so you need less of them Many core units cost more food than their broodwar equivalents. Siege tanks cost 3 up from 2 Hydras cost 2 up from 1 You need more workers (double the number of gas workers) Thors cost a lot more food than goliaths (and against zerg perform a similar role) There was also the addition of Roaches and Marauders, both of which are early game 2 food units that have no BW equivalent. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:36 mOnion wrote: would you actually like to take this to discussion on BW mechanics? in that game you made workers ALL GAME LONG there was never any talk of "when to stop" or "what optimally saturated a base" it was all workers all the time. they didn't get in each others way at all, they just took longer to get to minerals cuz the pathing was shitty. whereas in SC2 the workers go directly to the fucking minerals AND they just patched out the 7% delay. incredibly efficient workers means you need less of them. They went directly to the minerals. They just didn't go BACK directly. You didn't stop simply because you took more bases. If we go into this, it extends beyond simple worker and mineral interaction, but Brood War gameplay. So we'll stop here. | ||
| ||
