New ladder maps! - Page 17

Sylvr

United States524 Posts

October 07 2010 03:41 GMT

#321

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 didn't take out the delay. They took out the ability to bypass the delay. Reread the patch notes.

mOnion

United States5651 Posts

October 07 2010 03:42 GMT

#322

doublepost x.x

mOnion

United States5651 Posts

October 07 2010 03:46 GMT

#323

On October 07 2010 12:41 vica wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 07 2010 12:36 mOnion wrote:

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.

On October 07 2010 12:41 Sylvr wrote:

Show nested quote +

They didn't take out the delay. They took out the ability to bypass the delay. Reread the patch notes.

??? its incredibly obvious you dont actually know what you're talking about when you nitpick tiny little things like that

On October 07 2010 12:40 smegged wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

that doesn't mean anything those are just changes
zerg got roaches but lost lurker
hydra went up but there are no scourge
siege tanks are more but vulture support is traded with marine in a lot of cases
etc etc

Genome852

United States979 Posts

October 07 2010 03:49 GMT

#324

When I saw Jungle Basin, I thought it was just an inverted Steppes of War image.

Either way, I'm happy with the change (when it comes). Desert Oasis and Kulas were my least favorite maps by far.

Blisse

Canada3710 Posts

October 07 2010 03:50 GMT

#325

On October 07 2010 12:46 mOnion wrote:
??? its incredibly obvious you dont actually know what you're talking about when you nitpick tiny little things like that

that doesn't mean anything those are just changes

You said worker efficiency means less workers. I said worker efficiency does not mean anything. You argued you needed more workers to saturate a base for income. I replied you saturated faster with less workers.

Iggyhopper

United States259 Posts

October 07 2010 03:50 GMT

#326

Oh my god have you compared the two gas locations on Jungle Basin? Top left clearly has disadvantage because it's open whereas bottom right's gas is a little more near the edge. Left also has more room to hide tech in the back, but it also provides more room for drops. Bottom right, your gas is going to see the drop, but top left... ????

Subversion

South Africa3627 Posts

October 07 2010 03:51 GMT

#327

On October 07 2010 12:49 Genome852 wrote:
When I saw Jungle Basin, I thought it was just an inverted Steppes of War image.

Either way, I'm happy with the change (when it comes). Desert Oasis and Kulas were my least favorite maps by far.

And you're about to get two new least favourite maps! How exciting!

Oh... wait.. do you play Terran?

DrakanSilva

Chile932 Posts

October 07 2010 03:51 GMT

#328

jesus this is ridiculous...
hopefully they take them out of the ladder ASAP.

Merikh

United States918 Posts

October 07 2010 03:55 GMT

#329

Anythings better than xelnaga and delta 8D

mOnion

United States5651 Posts

October 07 2010 03:55 GMT

#330

On October 07 2010 12:50 vica wrote:

Show nested quote +

all you said was the difference between workers "getting to minerals" and "getting BACK to minerals"

then said something ambiguous and hit post

Toxiferous

United States388 Posts

October 07 2010 03:56 GMT

#331

If they are gonna keep releasing these poop maps then I demand more vetoes

I loved oasis man

Drowsy

United States4876 Posts

October 07 2010 03:57 GMT

#332

Ladder map pool should just be metalopolis 8 times with different terrains!!!

Shifft

Canada1085 Posts

October 07 2010 03:57 GMT

#333

DO was like my favourite map in the pool...Jungle Basin looks awful as fuck and Shakuras Plateau has a 2/3 chance of being terrible, and 1/3 chance of only being terrible against a Terran who abuses tanks.

Beef Noodles

United States937 Posts

October 07 2010 03:58 GMT

#334

@Subversion

I'm not arguing for the map, but on Jungle basin, as zerg why wouldn't you destroy the rocks at your nat and take the high ground 3rd?

You would be on 3 base with only 2 high ground ramps to defend. Seems reasonable.

Only problem I see is that Terran can get 3 easy bases with only 2 high ground ramps to defend as well. Going turtle-tank terran is gunna be really strong

Rev0lution

United States1805 Posts

October 07 2010 04:00 GMT

#335

More destructible rocks and Xel Naga watch towers, does blizzard really think these "strategic addons are ingenious?

Merikh

United States918 Posts

October 07 2010 04:00 GMT

#336

On October 07 2010 12:58 Beef Noodles wrote:
@Subversion

I'm not arguing for the map, but on Jungle basin, as zerg why wouldn't you destroy the rocks at your nat and take the high ground 3rd?

You would be on 3 base with only 2 high ground ramps to defend. Seems reasonable.

Only problem I see is that Terran can get 3 easy bases with only 2 high ground ramps to defend as well. Going turtle-tank terran is gunna be really strong

Defensive nydus

with mass crawlers baby lets go!

Ojahh

Ireland728 Posts

October 07 2010 04:00 GMT

#337

sad to see desert oasis gone, one of my favorite maps, after Metalopolis,

but Jungle Basin looks cool, from the preview, somehow never played that map as custom, will give it a couple of tries. the shakuras plateau seems an awful choice, total russian roulette

smegged

Australia213 Posts

October 07 2010 04:01 GMT

#338

If your opponent is pressuring you as zerg it is very difficult to kill the rocks in any reasonable amount of time.

No +armoured units as zerg = fail design when it comes to rocks.

neobowman

Canada3324 Posts

October 07 2010 04:01 GMT

#339

They gotta add the Iccup maps.

DreamSailor

Canada433 Posts

October 07 2010 04:01 GMT

#340

On October 07 2010 12:57 Shifft wrote:
DO was like my favourite map in the pool...Jungle Basin looks awful as fuck and Shakuras Plateau has a 2/3 chance of being terrible, and 1/3 chance of only being terrible against a Terran who abuses tanks.

Colossus can also abuse the cliffs to attack refineries ala Steppes of War.

Prev 1 15 16 17 18 19 35 Next All

Please or register to reply.

New ladder maps! - Page 17

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming