• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 17:17
CEST 23:17
KST 06:17
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202551RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams6Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 732 users

New ladder maps! - Page 16

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 14 15 16 17 18 35 Next All
charlie420247
Profile Joined November 2009
United States692 Posts
October 07 2010 03:27 GMT
#301
both these new maps look awfull. they suffer from the exact same flaw all the other maps suffer from. there too freakin small and premote one basing, allins, cheese, and just plain arnt good. why the fuck cant we have fighting spirit, match point, or any of the other good tried and true macro maps. people wonder why zerg suffers so hard. imagine bw iccup with maps like sc2s ladder maps. zerg players would have no chance.
there are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who dont.
mOnion
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
United States5657 Posts
October 07 2010 03:28 GMT
#302
On October 07 2010 12:26 smegged wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 07 2010 12:20 mOnion wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:18 smegged wrote:
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.


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.


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
☆★☆ 7486!!! Join the Ban mOnion Anti-Trolling Initiative! - Caller | "on a scale of machine to 10, how bad is that Zerg?" - LZgamer | you are the new tl.net bonjwa monion, congrats - Rekrul | "Cheeseburgers dynamite lilacs" - Chill
Percutio
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States1672 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-07 03:31:59
October 07 2010 03:28 GMT
#303
So some thoughts to make Jungle Basin good:

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.
What does it matter how I loose it?
Sylvr
Profile Joined May 2010
United States524 Posts
October 07 2010 03:28 GMT
#304
On October 07 2010 12:21 Subversion wrote:
Show nested quote +
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?


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
Profile Joined May 2010
Argentina1737 Posts
October 07 2010 03:29 GMT
#305
If I'm getting this right... shakuras plateau is now a 1v1 map? if so... LOL @ vertical positions...

Subversion
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
South Africa3627 Posts
October 07 2010 03:29 GMT
#306
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
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada201 Posts
October 07 2010 03:30 GMT
#307
i cannot even start to explain how upset i am about this. Zerg already is having a rough time as it is.
smegged
Profile Joined August 2010
Australia213 Posts
October 07 2010 03:30 GMT
#308
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.
"I'm usually happy when I can see Dark Templar, Its when I can't see them that I get angry." - Altar
whipple
Profile Joined August 2010
United States13 Posts
October 07 2010 03:30 GMT
#309
On October 07 2010 12:27 JustPlay wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

Show nested quote +
On October 07 2010 12:27 whipple wrote:
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.
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
Profile Joined July 2010
United States812 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-07 03:32:49
October 07 2010 03:31 GMT
#310
Wish they would have made new maps with some of the things we have been wanting, to test them out (ie longer rush distances). Instead we just get the same time of map that already came with the game.


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.
(ಥ_ಥ)
The Stapler
Profile Joined August 2010
United States326 Posts
October 07 2010 03:32 GMT
#311
damn you, Blizzard!

putting Strategy in my strategy game....silly, Blizzard you're not Xzibit


mOnion
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
United States5657 Posts
October 07 2010 03:32 GMT
#312
On October 07 2010 12:30 whipple wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 07 2010 12:27 JustPlay wrote:
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:
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.
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.


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
☆★☆ 7486!!! Join the Ban mOnion Anti-Trolling Initiative! - Caller | "on a scale of machine to 10, how bad is that Zerg?" - LZgamer | you are the new tl.net bonjwa monion, congrats - Rekrul | "Cheeseburgers dynamite lilacs" - Chill
Blisse
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Canada3710 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-07 03:34:11
October 07 2010 03:33 GMT
#313
On October 07 2010 12:28 mOnion wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 07 2010 12:26 smegged wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:20 mOnion wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:18 smegged wrote:
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.


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.


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.
There is no one like you in the universe.
Dox
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Australia1199 Posts
October 07 2010 03:33 GMT
#314
Hundreds of people throwing their hands in the air and complaining about imbalance on a map they haven't played yet... Jeez. I welcome the opportunity to play different styles and builds because of the possibilities these maps implicate. Doing the same old build on every map 'cos I can get away with it isn't very fun. And I play random...

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.
@NvDox | Plantronics Nv: Rossi . mOOnGLaDe . deth . JazBas | @NvSC2 | @NvCoD | @NvLeague | @NvHearthstone | @NvDotA2 | @PLT_MF
Magdain
Profile Joined June 2010
United States58 Posts
October 07 2010 03:33 GMT
#315
On October 07 2010 12:27 whipple wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 07 2010 12:24 mOnion wrote:
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



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
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
South Africa3627 Posts
October 07 2010 03:35 GMT
#316
On October 07 2010 12:29 Subversion wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


On October 07 2010 12:28 Sylvr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 07 2010 12:21 Subversion wrote:
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?


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 safely reasonably going to take a 3rd base?

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
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
United States2906 Posts
October 07 2010 03:36 GMT
#317
I'm pretty sure Shakuras Plateau has been on the ladder for 2v2 at least; I remember playing it with my friend.
面白くない世の中, 面白くすればいいさ
mOnion
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
United States5657 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-07 03:39:07
October 07 2010 03:36 GMT
#318
On October 07 2010 12:33 vica wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 07 2010 12:28 mOnion wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:26 smegged wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:20 mOnion wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:18 smegged wrote:
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.


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.


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.


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
☆★☆ 7486!!! Join the Ban mOnion Anti-Trolling Initiative! - Caller | "on a scale of machine to 10, how bad is that Zerg?" - LZgamer | you are the new tl.net bonjwa monion, congrats - Rekrul | "Cheeseburgers dynamite lilacs" - Chill
smegged
Profile Joined August 2010
Australia213 Posts
October 07 2010 03:40 GMT
#319
On October 07 2010 12:28 mOnion wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 07 2010 12:26 smegged wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:20 mOnion wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:18 smegged wrote:
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.


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.


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.
"I'm usually happy when I can see Dark Templar, Its when I can't see them that I get angry." - Altar
Blisse
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Canada3710 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-07 03:43:05
October 07 2010 03:41 GMT
#320
On October 07 2010 12:36 mOnion wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 07 2010 12:33 vica wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:28 mOnion wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:26 smegged wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:20 mOnion wrote:
On October 07 2010 12:18 smegged wrote:
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.


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.


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.


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.
There is no one like you in the universe.
Prev 1 14 15 16 17 18 35 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 13h 43m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .248
Nathanias 241
ForJumy 88
ProTech65
StarCraft: Brood War
ivOry 9
Dota 2
monkeys_forever617
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1388
Stewie2K906
Foxcn605
Super Smash Bros
Liquid`Ken10
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu672
Other Games
summit1g4579
FrodaN3007
Dendi717
C9.Mang0194
PPMD35
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV47
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• musti20045 20
• davetesta12
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 50
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• imaqtpie1669
• Shiphtur487
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
13h 43m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
16h 43m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 12h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 16h
CSO Cup
1d 18h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 20h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.