EPTprotoss and terran can wall off, zerg cannot wall off
why can't they make maps without a wall off choke point so it's actually balanced?
New ladder maps! - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
spacetrig
New Zealand11 Posts
protoss and terran can wall off, zerg cannot wall off why can't they make maps without a wall off choke point so it's actually balanced? | ||
|
Sixes
Canada1123 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:21 Artosis wrote: i haven't played vert. positions vs terran on it yet. but lets look at how its awesome: the natural can be defended. thats a huge improvement on like 6 of the current ladder maps? huge props for being able to defend the natural. metal has2 close spots also, so maybe it will turn out like that where you love far spots, but close ones are hard. but dunno yet! gotta play more! I have yet to hear of anyone spawning vertical ... At some point the odds of 1/3 chance not happening over xx games becomes so low we can assume the vertical positions don't happen ... In which case it does look like an amazing map. Have you always spawned cross positions on it? | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:21 Artosis wrote: i haven't played vert. positions vs terran on it yet. but lets look at how its awesome: the natural can be defended. thats a huge improvement on like 6 of the current ladder maps? huge props for being able to defend the natural. metal has2 close spots also, so maybe it will turn out like that where you love far spots, but close ones are hard. but dunno yet! gotta play more! hehe okay :D I like the positive attitude hehe, probably a much better approach. I just can't help the QQ rage that boils inside. But if Artosis says it it must be true. | ||
|
whipple
United States13 Posts
| ||
|
allurhorses
25 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:09 Effen wrote: i like how every thread still turns into a zerg cry thread. blizzard removes the one map that zergs hated most, and then they still complain. unreal lol Terran is the race most benefitted by gimmicky stuff like rocks (they can float CC's and kill rocks fast with several very early units), gold patches (mules), cliffs (tanks), short distances, etc. Zerg is the race most hurt most by the same things, cause lings absolutely suck at taking down rocks, they NEED that expansion but there are motherfucking rocks in the motherfucking way, they die to cliff drops, and they need long distances to macro up. That's why zergs "cry". Now, I have some hopes for Jungle Basin and Shakuras (if it is indeed impossible to spawn in close spots), but still, there's your reason. | ||
|
Yoshinaka
New Zealand50 Posts
| ||
|
Beef Noodles
United States937 Posts
Looks like I have Jungle down  | ||
|
Hypatio
549 Posts
Anyways, Shakuras looks like crap, whereas Jungle has some potential. I will have to ladder on it first, however. Too bad they can't use ICCup maps, though. x( | ||
|
TheLight
Australia410 Posts
Has anyone ever had those positions? | ||
|
AssuredVacancy
United States1167 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:21 Artosis wrote: i haven't played vert. positions vs terran on it yet. but lets look at how its awesome: the natural can be defended. thats a huge improvement on like 6 of the current ladder maps? huge props for being able to defend the natural. metal has2 close spots also, so maybe it will turn out like that where you love far spots, but close ones are hard. but dunno yet! gotta play more! How would you play jungle though? In ZvT the terran can wall off and get a CC after making 1 marine, or even before. Then it'll be 2 base + mules vs 2 base. In ZvP same thing happens, the protoss can 2 gate, put pressure on zerg early and expand to backdoor. Or the protoss can just 4 gate, put a pylon behind the rocks at your backdoor, kill the rocks, and kill your nat(you won't have spinecrawlers there unless you know he's doing this, in which case he can just walk back to your front and kill your main). Basically I think in jungle T/P gets away with a really fast expansion with very few units, but it's hard to match it up with an expansion of your own because taking a third is pretty hard to hold. | ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
McLink | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
| ||
|
RidL
Netherlands39 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:26 Sixes wrote: I have yet to hear of anyone spawning vertical ... At some point the odds of 1/3 chance not happening over xx games becomes so low we can assume the vertical positions don't happen ... In which case it does look like an amazing map. Have you always spawned cross positions on it? I'm not 100% sure, but if you play on melee 1v1 settings all spawns are always possible. Now it could be that map settings are on 2v2 for this map, but I really doubt that would be done for one map. That being said, vertical positions Shakuras doesn't seem worse than for instance Steppes of War (although it is slightly closer rushdistance, I think). And non-vertical positions are awesome since your third is just the natural of other main on your side, which makes for a REALLY easy fourth. | ||
|
Bloodba7h
Canada20 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:44 Bloodba7h wrote: It's always left to right positions, never vertical. You can check for yourself in the editor. Check it out: Map -> Team Placement (advanced) 1v1a - bottom left spawn, enemy in top right or bottom right 1v1b - top left spawn, enemy in top right or bottom right 1v1c - top right spawn, enemy in bottom left or top left 1v1d - bottom right spawn, enemy in bottom left or top left They all show placement of non-vertical positions. Basically, you'll always be using the middle of the map (or the area behind the destructible rocks in your main). Good job Blizz. Except I can't 6 pool to victory every time now. Bad job. | ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
On October 07 2010 11:22 Hokay wrote: I remember in one of the Blizzcon SC2 development panels, Blizzard said players love small to medium size maps because of faster action and pressure (or something along those lines), not big maps. Looks like blizzard is following up on what they believe. I for one don't mind small maps as long as they can be played out as a long game too. I can see the logic in their thinking, especially since they want to draw in a new crowd for this spectator sport. It will be easier to draw in a new audience with faster action rather than technical, long macro oriented games. Also frankly, I find macro games in SC2 much less interesting than BW macro games, simply because of unlimited unit selection. However, I do think mixing in a few big, more macro-oriented maps don't hurt, so that in tourneys players are required to showcase a full spectrum of skills. Also, I don't know why people are trash talking these maps. I will play these over Iccup ones anyday. | ||
|
youngminii
Australia7514 Posts
| ||
|
ZomgTossRush
United States1041 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:49 Bloodba7h wrote: If this is true, then i can see alot of Incineration Zone tactics being used, with fast backdoor rushes. | ||
|
Spaceball
United States213 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:42 iCCup.Diamond wrote: I made my rant post, doubt it will achieve much but I had to do it. I feel like I missed a lot of things however.... McLink Good post. If anyone agrees then they should definitely head over to the b.net forums and "like" the thread, since there is a better chance of getting blizzard's attention that way. | ||
|
Dox
Australia1199 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:07 vica wrote: I dislike how Blizzard is making small maps to promote aggression and fast paced play to please the casuals. Wow, only 2 months before idiots started screaming about "casuals ruining the game" this time. What exactly is the basis for that statement? | ||
|
john0507
164 Posts
And thank god those are gone. | ||
| ||
