|
On October 07 2010 09:32 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:32 Ketara wrote:
Which maps were removed Diamond? Just Kulas? Yes. It's time for a very long pissed off post on the battle.net forums.
No.. according to OP.. Kulas and Oasis
EDIT:
On October 07 2010 10:05 smegged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:59 wonderwall wrote:
Incredibly suprised when I queued for 1v1 and got a new map though. I guess Blizzard listened when the community said Desert Oasis is an idiotic map which is so different it screws up conventional strategies.
They listened to the "community" about DO, but didn't listen to the community about putting in non-terrible maps. The people who didn't like DO had legitimate grievances, but the map itself only had one bad feature on it - the long distance to natural. If they had have fixed that it would have rivaled the ICCup maps IMO. Just because people have to adjust their strategies for it does not mean that a map is bad, so long as one race is not too strong on it.
more like... got some bad hate about DO and Kulas (by bad hate i mean bad stats) and decided to put one of their non ladder (now ladder) maps into the system
|
If you make a custom map on a 2v2 map and set the teams as 1v1 it won't spawn you in the same base or side (i.e. twilight fortress same base wtf)
|
if blizzard edited shakuras so that you can only spawn in cross positions on the map, that'll actually turn it into a decent map. anyone on SEA play the new maps yet?
I've only ever had diagonal or horizontal spawn positions on shakuras. this is only in the 5 games ive played on it though. Never vertical positions directly opposite each other.
|
On October 07 2010 10:07 wonderwall wrote:Show nested quote +Just because people have to adjust their strategies for it does not mean that a map is bad, so long as one race is not too strong on it. When you need to have an entirely different build order for one specific map that doesn't seem like good design to me and just needlessly complicates things.
Thats how it should be imo...
|
Love how they "fixed" DO and then just removed it, lol.
Can't wait to see the Shakuras clusterfucks and cheeses in GSL2.
|
On October 07 2010 10:07 wonderwall wrote:Show nested quote +Just because people have to adjust their strategies for it does not mean that a map is bad, so long as one race is not too strong on it. When you need to have an entirely different build order for one specific map that doesn't seem like good design to me and just needlessly complicates things.
In the long run, this kind of variety actually makes for a better and more watchable game for spectators. It actually adds a lot of value and interest when players have to do things differently because of a map. It's kinda the whole point of terrain in the first place.
|
On October 07 2010 10:10 smegged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:07 wonderwall wrote:Just because people have to adjust their strategies for it does not mean that a map is bad, so long as one race is not too strong on it. When you need to have an entirely different build order for one specific map that doesn't seem like good design to me and just needlessly complicates things. In the long run, this kind of variety actually makes for a better and more watchable game for spectators. It actually adds a lot of value and interest when players have to do things differently because of a map. It's kinda the whole point of terrain in the first place.
Yeah I must say I disagree with you. I think different builds is kind of the entire point of different maps. Different things work better on different maps, thats what makes them interesting. Game would be a bit stale if you could just go identical build regardless of map.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On October 07 2010 10:09 wonderwall wrote:Show nested quote +
if blizzard edited shakuras so that you can only spawn in cross positions on the map, that'll actually turn it into a decent map. anyone on SEA play the new maps yet?
I've only ever had diagonal or horizontal spawn positions on shakuras. this is only in the 5 games ive played on it though. Never vertical positions directly opposite each other.
interesting. it might actually mean blizzard tweaked the spawn positions so that you cant spawn vertically from each other. further updates on your experiences on that map would be appreciated.
|
On October 07 2010 10:10 smegged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:07 wonderwall wrote:Just because people have to adjust their strategies for it does not mean that a map is bad, so long as one race is not too strong on it. When you need to have an entirely different build order for one specific map that doesn't seem like good design to me and just needlessly complicates things. In the long run, this kind of variety actually makes for a better and more watchable game for spectators. It actually adds a lot of value and interest when players have to do things differently because of a map. It's kinda the whole point of terrain in the first place.
^This post is so good! kinda upset that people dont like the crazy maps but at least blizzard listened and put out a few more maps for the community to test out. Cant wait to try them
|
I wonder why Blizzard fears 3-player maps?
|
Ugh, these maps are worse than the maps they replace.
Can't we see some decent maps already? Current map pool stifles creativity and rewards stupidity.
|
I don't love the new maps, but if you want new maps the great news is that Blizzard is even willing to change maps.
|
Just played the plateau map. I think it could be interesting with some of the strategies that might happen. And of course how different games will be based on spawns. I'd wait a bit before completely ruling that map out. Play it first. Still need to play it more times though obviously to make an accurate opinion.
|
i dont know but im kinda sad about DO. i was starting to like this map for these crazy build xD
|
On October 07 2010 10:13 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:10 smegged wrote:On October 07 2010 10:07 wonderwall wrote:Just because people have to adjust their strategies for it does not mean that a map is bad, so long as one race is not too strong on it. When you need to have an entirely different build order for one specific map that doesn't seem like good design to me and just needlessly complicates things. In the long run, this kind of variety actually makes for a better and more watchable game for spectators. It actually adds a lot of value and interest when players have to do things differently because of a map. It's kinda the whole point of terrain in the first place. Yeah I must say I disagree with you. I think different builds is kind of the entire point of different maps. Different things work better on different maps, thats what makes them interesting. Game would be a bit stale if you could just go identical build regardless of map.
I actually think you agreed with me.
I was arguing FOR Desert Oasis specifically BECAUSE it created different styles of play and forced players to adapt.
|
I can't believe the people screaming in this thread like the sky is falling. First off, why don't people reserve judgment until they have all the information? Secondly, why don't people learn to play with what you're given? Not everything has to be the same. There are technical maps, there are macro maps, there are aggressive maps. You're not always gonna get exactly what you happen to feel like playing.
It reminds me of the people who insist that Macro style is the "correct" way to play SC2... but the problem is that you risk straight up losing to an aggressive all-in. If you really want to be competitive, you should learn to play with whatever is in front of you.
|
They should seriously stop putting those rocks everywhere.
|
On October 07 2010 10:15 Of The Room wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:10 smegged wrote:On October 07 2010 10:07 wonderwall wrote:Just because people have to adjust their strategies for it does not mean that a map is bad, so long as one race is not too strong on it. When you need to have an entirely different build order for one specific map that doesn't seem like good design to me and just needlessly complicates things. In the long run, this kind of variety actually makes for a better and more watchable game for spectators. It actually adds a lot of value and interest when players have to do things differently because of a map. It's kinda the whole point of terrain in the first place. ^This post is so good! kinda upset that people dont like the crazy maps but at least blizzard listened and put out a few more maps for the community to test out. Cant wait to try them
I'm all for new maps, the problem is they love these extremely cramped maps where taking 3rd and 4th bases is really difficult and extremely tough to defend. Which is pretty imbalanced against Zerg.
Oh why Blizzard, why can't we just have ICCUP maps in the ladder? Swallow your pride and give us those awesome maps please!
On October 07 2010 10:17 smegged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:13 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 10:10 smegged wrote:On October 07 2010 10:07 wonderwall wrote:Just because people have to adjust their strategies for it does not mean that a map is bad, so long as one race is not too strong on it. When you need to have an entirely different build order for one specific map that doesn't seem like good design to me and just needlessly complicates things. In the long run, this kind of variety actually makes for a better and more watchable game for spectators. It actually adds a lot of value and interest when players have to do things differently because of a map. It's kinda the whole point of terrain in the first place. Yeah I must say I disagree with you. I think different builds is kind of the entire point of different maps. Different things work better on different maps, thats what makes them interesting. Game would be a bit stale if you could just go identical build regardless of map. I actually think you agreed with me. I was arguing FOR Desert Oasis specifically BECAUSE it created different styles of play and forced players to adapt.
Hehe yeah, I was referring to the guy you were quoting  I was agreeing with you disagreeing with the other guy xD
|
I was looking at jungle basin and was like, "hey this doesnt look too bad..." then I was looking around some more and I was like, "wait, where would I take my 3rd?" and then cried a little bit.
Then I looked at Shakuras and was scanning the NW base and was like, "not bad, nice easy expansion with a ramp and... holy shit is that the ramp to another bases natural RIGHT beside my ramp?". Also, no thanks to getting my gas tanked at my natural and everything getting tanked at my 3rd.
|
I'm all for new maps. The thing that doesn't make sense is this:
1) Had DO
2) Fixed DO
3) Removed DO and Kulas Ravine
4) Added 2 new maps that were not good enough to be on the map list at first but now magically are?
Unless of course they renovated them...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
