|
Just tried to queue for a ladder game and 2 new 1v1 ladder maps have been added.
Kulas Ravine & Desert Oasis has been removed!
I will update this post with the previews for the new maps.
Update: Ok, names for the maps are Shakuras Plateau and Jungle Basin, I'm getting screenshots now.
SS for 1v1 map preferences. See page 2 for big previews.
Polls as per iCCup-Diamond's request.
Poll: What do you think about Shakuras Plateau?I dislike it. (460) 48% I like it. (312) 32% It's OK. (195) 20% 967 total votes Your vote: What do you think about Shakuras Plateau? (Vote): I like it.
(Vote): It's OK.
(Vote): I dislike it.
Poll: What do you think about Jungle Basin?I dislike it. (408) 50% I like it. (252) 31% It's OK. (156) 19% 816 total votes Your vote: What do you think about Jungle Basin? (Vote): I like it.
(Vote): It's OK.
(Vote): I dislike it.
|
what the, is this for real?
|
hes trolling just checked
|
same old same old for me (EU)
|
On October 07 2010 09:24 Slago wrote:
hes trolling just checked
yep, I don't see anything new
|
I'm currently logged into the South-East Asia server, so don't know if its up on the rest yet.
|
|
|
|
|
US server there is no changes
|
screenshots or it dint happenz
|
Can anyone on SEA confirm?
On October 07 2010 09:25 PhiliBiRD wrote:
screenshots or it dint happenz
Yes, screen shots plz. Although I bet this is a hoax.
|
On October 07 2010 09:25 Speight wrote:
I'm currently logged into the South-East Asia server, so don't know if its up on the rest yet.
post the map previews then! hurry! 
|
|
|
I wish they had put in some actual good maps.
|
Would really love to see some screenshots. No one else from SEA has posted yet to legitimately deny his claim
|
If this is legit, both of these maps are currently there in the Blizzard maps, just not in the ladder pool.
|
Azz is double checking, will update in a moment
|
Massive troll or Awesome discovery?
|
UPDATE: OK names for the mpas are Shakuras Plateau and Jungle Basin, I'm getting screenshots now
you sure you're not in customs? those aren't new there in the blizzard custom maps, and they are truely aweful :/
|
On October 07 2010 09:30 Slago wrote:Show nested quote +UPDATE: OK names for the mpas are Shakuras Plateau and Jungle Basin, I'm getting screenshots now you sure you're not in customs? those aren't new there in the blizzard custom maps, and they are trully aweful :/
If they added those 2 shit maps I will punch a innocent kitten. Please Blizzard, think of the kittens....
|
you sure you're not in customs? those aren't new there in the blizzard custom maps, and they are trully aweful :/
Well that somehow would valitdate it... only Blizzard would remove an aweful map to replace it with TWO aweful maps
|
No this is actually true, i'll get a screenshot, but Shakuras Plateau looks almost exactly like Blistering Sands :O
EDIT: Ok, maybe it was just my comp not loading it properly making me think that Shakuras was Blistering but anyways
and
|
Ok Azz confirms. It's legit.
Blizz: I cannot describe how upset I am at you right now.
|
Which maps were removed Diamond? Just Kulas?
|
On October 07 2010 09:30 Slago wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show nested quote +
UPDATE: OK names for the mpas are Shakuras Plateau and Jungle Basin, I'm getting screenshots now
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you sure you're not in customs? those aren't new there in the blizzard custom maps, and they are trully aweful :/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they added those 2 shit maps I will punch a innocent kitten. Please Blizzard, think of the kittens....
haha so true man, if blizz does this I'm gonna have to change my voted maps :/
|
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.
|
Come on guys, don't be so quick to call "troll" just because it hasn't appeared on your server yet. Take into account that he's on the SEA server, which usually gets updates before the rest (i think?)
But yeah...I'd like to see these new maps. I'm giving this guy the benefit of the doubt here...
|
Well at least neither of them have cliffable natural expos at first glance. It's definitely not as easy to get through the destructible rocks to someone's main on Shakuras as it is on Blistering, either. Still a shame that they didn't pick Crossfire instead of one of these.
|
Why is there so much beef with these maps already?? Very few games have been played on them so far, let's see what they're like.
|
Somebody needs to convert Garden of War from Warcraft 2 and put it in the rotation.
|
.. Blizzard, kittens have just been bruised, they won't recover until you donate $999,999,999 to the Make RyuChus Rich Foundation. Thank you!
|
Just checked on SEA, he is right, Jungle Basin and Shakuras Plateau, replacing Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine.
|
Oh nononononono how could they put in jungle basin, I'll ignore shakuras because don't kn ow it that well, but jungle basin is one of the most IMBA maps i've seen :/
|
Wait wait wait... why so much hate on these maps? They look Zerg decent as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
They need to just fucking hire good mapmakers instead of rolling their shitty custom maps.
It's just retarded how crappy some of their maps are.
|
You should have let me make mine last week!
I haven't played a game on either of those maps though. I'll have to try them out before I can jump on the bandwagon.
|
Jungle basin:
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/6/64/Jungle_Basin.jpg)
Shakuras Plateau:
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/7/74/Shakuras_Plateau.jpg)
Thoughts:
Jungle basin is similar to blistering sands, but there's a nat at your backdoor which is at least somewhat interesting. I think it'll be an okay map.
Shakuras is actually a pretty fun 1v1 map; I played some games on it back in Beta. It's positionally imbalanced though, since if your opponent is next to you horizontally you have a very short attack distance via the rocks, and if next to you vertically just an insanely short distance with no rocks.
By the way, why does blizzard have the word "additional" in every single map description?!?
|
Wow i just looked at shakuras plateau and the rush distance from vertical positions are literally like 10 seconds... and jungle basin = in base nat but no third?
Looks like 2 more zerg graveyards whoo
|
Can someone shop an array between the top 2 mains to show how bad this is for 1v1?
Shakuras Plateau can't really be played in other modes than team play. The "ally" bases are too close.
The back door routes creates an interesting touch to this map, where units otherwise are funnelled through the middle.
|
isnt shakuras plateau an old 2v2 map only ?
i remember it in the early beta
|
Can confirm this is active on the SEA server
Should be interesting
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
glad they removed kulas but i'm not too sure with the replacements. i guess we should reserve judgement until some games have actually been played.
|
Why jungle basin is the worst map ever for Zerg :'(
i have played it and it sucks :/
|
jungle basin is pretty crappy.
and shakuras.. the map seems so weird i really dont understand it.
but kulas gone is great.
oh and DO too.
well good that they are atleast changing the worst maps out. if the replacements were only better...
|
Shakuras Plateau was a 2v2 map during beta hmm...
|
Well for shakuras there's a 1/3 chance that the game will turn into a cheese fest as your opponent is right next to you.
Edit: maybe for shakuras players cannot spawn vertical to each other.. then the map might be decent.
|
Anybody want to play a game on one of these maps? I wanna test them out.
Heck, if you do go to TLpickup.
|
I was hoping for New Anitoch.
|
IMO those 2 maps are pretty good. Jungle bassin looks like some iccup maps and shakura plateau is exatly what people are asking for. Huge macro oriented map.
|
Shakuras is only good if you spawn cross positions. Both left/right is too close and both top/bottom means you can back door each other's mains. Ugh.
|
this is why back in BW, we need iccup and KESPA....
|
Alright so now the three maps I am going to down vote are Steps of War, Jungle basin, and Shakuras.
|
holy shit blizzard... i guess zerg won a tournament you nerf us indirectly with maps huh. FUUUU JUSTIN BROWDERR
|
Maybe they meant to put in New Antioch? Yellow played Sonkie PvZ on that map during the Blizzcon showmatch, some Blizzard dude probably to some other Blizzard dude was like "yea put it that 1v1 4 player twilight map"
In any case they should rehaul Shakuras a bit if they want to make it a ladder map. I always thought if any teamplay map could be a 1v1 map, that would be it. With some minor tweaks, I guess it could be done.
Jungle Basin is a solid choice imo and next to Crossfire I think it's one of the best non-ladder maps.
|
I just saw the new maps and...I am very disappointed. I think Blizzard is overdoing it with destructible rocks. I find that having a backdoor natural is strange enough with no "nearby" third, but adding destructible rocks makes it that much harder to defend, because it essentially opens up a 2nd front. >.<
Also, the Shakuras plateau map is just gonna be a nightmare with rush builds, because the rush distance is so small for the verticle positions.
|
Israel2209 Posts
I've played a few games on Jungle Basin, tanks on both xelnagas were a huge pain.
|
On October 07 2010 09:40 Fredz wrote:
IMO those 2 maps are pretty good. Jungle bassin looks like some iccup maps and shakura plateau is exatly what people are asking for. Huge macro oriented map.
Jungle Basin looks alright from what I see, but apperantly it's op :/... I think the rush distance is fine and imo a better map than Desert Oasis. Shakura a macro map though? I thought Kulas was a macro map, the rush distance vertically is very short in Shakuras, and well I don't see terran imbalance here screaming, but seems like a small map in my eyes, I like the different tileset though.
|
More destructable rock feature maps? DAMN IT BLIZZARD
|
Jungle Basin is a joke, this has to be troll.
|
On October 07 2010 09:40 Crabman123 wrote:
Alright so now the three maps I am going to down vote are Steps of War, Jungle basin, and Shakuras.
same.
shakuras looks like it could be decent. without the gimmicky backdoor ,different middle and less positional randomness. i mean hell top/down are stupidly close. llooks like 1/3 of steppes distance.
really dont udnerstand why they put a 2v2 map in the 1v1 ladder..
|
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
what are you talking about? they removed Kulas Ravine from the list and you haven't even tried the new ones
n1
|
can someone on SEA check 2v2 map pool?
|
So glad Kulas is gone. But these replacement maps are terrible. Jungle doesn't have a 3rd, which is so bad for Z, and Shakuras rush distance is a joke, so these maps are terrible. GG Blizz, you've just made the map pool worse. T.T God I hope they don't use these in GSL2. They replaced two maps I veto with two maps to veto. Lolol.
|
I don't like maps that only have 4 bases per person like Jungle Basin & Blistering Sands. It's too few IMO. And you can't even have a 4 base split on Jungle Basin because the middle bases can't be split realistically.
And I think Shakuras could be interesting if only they locked off 2 of the spawns and made it cross spawn only/a 2P map. Looks like a total crapshoot now.
|
Hah, I remember when Shakuras was in the 2v2 map pool... Never won a single game on it. 
Then again it was during the first week or so I had beta.
|
Checking 2v2 map pool now to see if anything has changed.
Update: Haven't played 2v2 for ages but as far as I can tell it's all still the same.
|
at least they changed some maps =)
|
I absolutely love the first responses in this thread. Nothing better than breaking news followed by cries of a lying bastard making stuff up.
|
Shakuras looks like a good map for zerg to me. Easy to defend natural. No cliffs leading up to main base expect from the natural. And the two rocks are really easy to scout with overlords.
|
Has anyone tried laddering on shakuras to see if you can spawn vertical positions to each other?
|
Awesome new maps!! Going to be so awesome, delicious Zerg tears <3
|
On October 07 2010 09:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +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 what are you talking about? they removed Kulas Ravine from the list and you haven't even tried the new ones n1
I think its pretty obvious zerg will do horrible on both maps.
|
For the love of god when will blizz allow custom ladders, we know they have the tools to do it.
|
I wish blizzard would add maps without so many fucking destructible rocks. Especially backdoors to my base. Base backdoors are a huge disadvantage for zerg.
|
Is there seriously nobody who wants to actually play a game on these maps?
I'm a tiny bit disappointed at the number of kneejerk reactions to this, really.
Everybody wants something to be done about the map pool, but the instant something is done people are saying they want Kulas back. Just a few days ago everybody was saying nothing could be worse than Kulas.
Not that the new maps are definitely good, but I'd like to actually try them.
|
Just for the record, in vertical spawns on Shakuras it takes a probe 8 seconds (real time) to get form natural ramp to natural ramp. O yeah, that's fair......
On October 07 2010 09:49 Ketara wrote:
Is there seriously nobody who wants to actually play a game on these maps?
I'm a tiny bit disappointed at the number of kneejerk reactions to this, really.
Everybody wants something to be done about the map pool, but the instant something is done people are saying they want Kulas back. Just a few days ago everybody was saying nothing could be worse than Kulas.
Not that the new maps are definitely good, but I'd like to actually try them.
Kulas makes these maps look fair and balanced. We thought nothing could be worse then Kulas, but we were wrong.....
|
Just checked, not true... But yeh we really need better ladder maps :O.
|
Lol Kulas and Blistering were already on my thumbs down (+1), I will have to try these first, before I auto thumbs down(+0) Also Jungle basin looks like zerg>Terran>Protoss and Terran>Protoss>Zerg for mid and late game (with out some crazy creep spreading).
|
On October 07 2010 09:50 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Just for the record, in vertical spawns on Shakuras it takes a probe 8 seconds (real time) to get form natural ramp to natural ramp. O yeah, that's fair...... Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:49 Ketara wrote:
Is there seriously nobody who wants to actually play a game on these maps?
I'm a tiny bit disappointed at the number of kneejerk reactions to this, really.
Everybody wants something to be done about the map pool, but the instant something is done people are saying they want Kulas back. Just a few days ago everybody was saying nothing could be worse than Kulas.
Not that the new maps are definitely good, but I'd like to actually try them. Kulas makes these maps look fair and balanced. We thought nothing could be worse then Kulas, but we were wrong.....
Can you even spawn vertical positions though? Maybe the map restricts the spawn positions so players have to spawn across each other horizontally.
|
Yep, just checked, not true for NA.
|
Man, I wanted to save my 200th post, but I have to say...
1) yes the distances on Shakuras suck for vertical positions...
but,
2) have you ever seen a more muta-harass friendly map?
|
On October 07 2010 09:49 Ketara wrote:
Is there seriously nobody who wants to actually play a game on these maps?
I'm a tiny bit disappointed at the number of kneejerk reactions to this, really.
Everybody wants something to be done about the map pool, but the instant something is done people are saying they want Kulas back. Just a few days ago everybody was saying nothing could be worse than Kulas.
Not that the new maps are definitely good, but I'd like to actually try them.
dont think anyone wants kulas back. DO i might actually prefer over these ones.
jungle basin just has a very very weird layout overall and lotsa narrow paths and a backdoor
shakuras has backdoors and top down spawns are so retardedly close(maybe they made that impossible.). also i really dont like the mid layout and the cluster of expos top/bottom in the middle. seems like 2 siegetanks can shut down like 2/3 of the expos. but with only left/right spawns and some terrain changes it might be ok.
|
I don't really see anything wrong with Jungle Basin. Sure, it won't be very easy to take a 3rd, but not all maps have to be geared toward long macro games.
I could see how Protoss could abuse some of the narrow chasms with Proxy Pylons similar to warping into the rock natural on Delta Quadrant. I don't see any major tank/thor drop abuse locations.
It looks like the towers will be majorly important on this map.
Though the back-door rocks exist, they aren't a fraction as dangerous as those on Blistering Sands as the "Sweet Spot" between the frontal assault path and the back door are huge. In fact, if you can control the meadow between the 3 ramps to the bases, you can defend/assault all 4 bases on either end of the map.
|
On October 07 2010 09:50 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Just for the record, in vertical spawns on Shakuras it takes a probe 8 seconds (real time) to get form natural ramp to natural ramp. O yeah, that's fair...... Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:49 Ketara wrote:
Is there seriously nobody who wants to actually play a game on these maps?
I'm a tiny bit disappointed at the number of kneejerk reactions to this, really.
Everybody wants something to be done about the map pool, but the instant something is done people are saying they want Kulas back. Just a few days ago everybody was saying nothing could be worse than Kulas.
Not that the new maps are definitely good, but I'd like to actually try them. Kulas makes these maps look fair and balanced. We thought nothing could be worse then Kulas, but we were wrong.....
yay so ima now to do the double ten pylon at he buttom of the ream strat to block the 6 pool
|
On October 07 2010 09:52 Nub4ever wrote:
Just checked, not true... But yeh we really need better ladder maps :O.
Wrong server. Check over the next 24 hours, I am sure all the servers are getting this.
On October 07 2010 09:52 AssuredVacancy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:50 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Just for the record, in vertical spawns on Shakuras it takes a probe 8 seconds (real time) to get form natural ramp to natural ramp. O yeah, that's fair...... On October 07 2010 09:49 Ketara wrote:
Is there seriously nobody who wants to actually play a game on these maps?
I'm a tiny bit disappointed at the number of kneejerk reactions to this, really.
Everybody wants something to be done about the map pool, but the instant something is done people are saying they want Kulas back. Just a few days ago everybody was saying nothing could be worse than Kulas.
Not that the new maps are definitely good, but I'd like to actually try them. Kulas makes these maps look fair and balanced. We thought nothing could be worse then Kulas, but we were wrong..... Can you even spawn vertical positions though? Maybe the map restricts the spawn positions so players have to spawn across each other horizontally.
Well that would be stupid. You would not have to scout one of the 4 bases. Which would de3feat the purpose of a 4 person map sort of....
God I'm so ragey right now.
|
Crappy maps. Jungle Basin was never fun. Getting a third was just awkward and hard to defend. And the 4 player map (a 2v2 from Beta) is just bleh. I don't think I'll like it for 1v1s. Will try it though before I go crazy.
|
sorry to say this guyz but just whored a protoss with a pool drone all in it was shocking :/, jungle basin i i've had 0% sucess on in esl so wont i think if i had a choice ild be terran for that map 
|
I'm excited! These maps look like fun.
FE builds seem good on Jungle Basin, and same on Shakuras. The ramps for Shakuras should help out with that tiny rush distance, and Jungle Basin lets you just go backwards to expand.
Great stuff, IMO.
|
Ok, good idea to remove DO and Kulas, but wow the additions >< Wtf get Crossfire in there
|
On October 07 2010 09:53 Beef Noodles wrote:
Man, I wanted to save my 200th post, but I have to say...
1) yes the distances on Shakuras suck for vertical positions...
but,
2) have you ever seen a more muta-harass friendly map?
Have you seen SC2 where Muta harass friendly doesn't mean anything anymore? >.>
The rush distance on Shakuras seems way too close if you spawn close positions and there seems to be no real logical third on Jungle Basin. They don't really seem to be any better than DO or KR. =/
|
Destroying those rocks on Shakuras Plateau will be crucial for zerg to succeed in flanking and harass. The middle funnel will be siege tank gore-galore otherwise.
|
As a Zerg player I'm actually really excited to try these new maps. Wondering how important the high ground control is going to be on Jungle Basin.
Also, on Shakuras if you play on left/left right/right positions.... it looks kinda like steppes of war. and your 3rd would be 100x easier to defend because you can bust down your backdoor and take the 3rd
On bottom/bottom top/top positions the destructable rocks also are pretty easy to scout and defend imo.... you could just as easily push with a nice timed roach push if you wanted to. But seriously, a spine crawler or two would help a lot if you see him coming.
|
GOd i have so many bad memories from Beta in shakuras. That's a terrible map.
|
Shakuras Plateau is really fail, but something tells me it is the first Protoss imbalanced map so far. (Although in reality it is just a big fail Zerg map).
I think Jungle Basin is going to be a lot like a technical Brood War map. For PvT/TvP getting a third/harassment is going to be huge for both sides.
I expect ZvT/TvZ is going to be tough with drops from T, but I think the rocks give Zerg the ability to make a big macro push into their third and eventually fourth expansion.
ZvP/PvZ should be awful for Zerg though.
|
On October 07 2010 09:52 Aubergine wrote:
Yep, just checked, not true for NA.
Nice troll.
I did believe the OP made it up at first though, cause everyone was saying it wasn't true -_-. Blizzard definitely has a reason for putting these two maps into the pool instead of something more standard.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On October 07 2010 09:53 Beef Noodles wrote:
Man, I wanted to save my 200th post, but I have to say...
1) yes the distances on Shakuras suck for vertical positions...
but,
2) have you ever seen a more muta-harass friendly map?
yes that is of course if you can survive long enough to make them.
|
The world has ended....
I can't believe I am saying this, but give me Desert Oasis back.... please?
|
i thought the dats for these posts were back in beta when i first checked. then i double checked. Rage mode enabled.
really, blizzard needs to put more macro based and bigger maps out there, so there can be more of a shift towards the larger positioning and control of large areas to gain advantage, not any of this 1a and see whose army wins, then roll your opponent.
|
I don't understand why they partially fixed Desert Oasis (really the only problem with it now is that long distance to natural) but then dropped it from the map pool. If anything there should be MORE maps like DO with long rush distances and interesting macro play potential.
I'm glad to see Killzerg Ravine removed, but the replacements somehow managed to be even worse.
I'm going to have to uncheck steppes and 6 pool every game on that map now so that I can turn off both of these horrid new maps. Unless Blizzard can guarantee a cross spawn every time on Shakuras, in which case it would be a worthwhile map.
|
On October 07 2010 09:55 CynanMachae wrote:
Ok, good idea to remove DO and Kulas, but wow the additions >< Wtf get Crossfire in there
As much as I personally like Crossfire, I can understand why they don't want to put it in the ladder map pool. It's probably the most challenging map to play out of all the maps in the Blizzard map pool for 1v1s. Position and scouting is so important, and learning to expand backwards instead of forwards and when to expand and all that stuff does seem rather challenging for most players.
|
Yep, just checked NA, nothing new.
I really hope this isn't a troll, because you honestly wasted alot of peoples time if it is.
|
When i read title i tho "Good ICCup maps!!"
I will not loss my hope!
|
I haven't yet had a directly vertical spawn on Shakuras Plateau after 5 games. Not a large sample size so not conclusive but they have always been horizontal or diagonal spawns.
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.
Jungle basin looks like quite a kind map for Zerg. The natural is incredibly well defended with a long route leading to destructible rocks to get into it as well as long distances from main to main.
Edit: I'm assuming this is only live on SEA servers due to Blizzard testing the waters. Sea is less popular with a smaller userbase so we end up being the guinea pigs for changes and updates.
|
On October 07 2010 09:32 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
Ok Azz confirms. It's legit.
Blizz: I cannot describe how upset I am at you right now.
Guys, it's true, at least according to iCCup.Diamond, which I'd take as a fairly legitimate source.
|
Remember the v1.1.1 patch last week? It was done in the SEA servers one day before it was applied to the NA servers. I'm pretty sure we'll see the same thing happen with these new map selections.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On October 07 2010 09:58 Smigi wrote:
Yep, just checked NA, nothing new.
I really hope this isn't a troll, because you honestly wasted alot of peoples time if it is.
can you not see the images or read people's posts? yes its legit for the SEA server. i guess we'll see the change for the rest soon unless SEA is being used as a guinea pig.
|
GUYS IT'S LEGIT. I HAD AZZ CONFIRM. HOWEVER THE CHANGE IS ONLY ON SEA CURRENTLY
Expect an epic rage post on the b.net forums tonight. I'm just calming down a bit so I can make sense.
|
Alright, Shakuras horrible like you've never seen before, Jungle Basin also retarded. All I want, is a map like Fighting Spirit or Eye of the Storm in the map pool, or something like GOOD. Honestly, these maps are CRAPPPP! No more freaking back door expansions, or rocks or back doors, or anything stupid like that, PLEASE!
|
i wonder if the phoenix was hotfixed during this.....a boy can dream
|
On October 07 2010 10:01 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
GUYS IT'S LEGIT. I HAD AZZ CONFIRM. HOWEVER THE CHANGE IS ONLY ON SEA CURRENTLY
Expect an epic rage post on the b.net forums tonight. I'm just calming down a bit so I can make sense.
Chill out dude :o the world hasnt ended here :D
|
Shakuras Plateau reminds me of Metalopolis. In diagonal spawn positions, there are long rush distances. In two adjacent spawn positions, there is a very short rush distance. In the other adjacent spawn positions it's a long ground rush distance and a short air rush distance (due to a canyon on Metalopolis and two sets of destructible rocks on Shakuras).
Given that most people think that Metalopolis is one of the better maps, I think it's pretty premature to call Shakuras a problem map when it has so much in common.
|
On October 07 2010 10:01 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
GUYS IT'S LEGIT. I HAD AZZ CONFIRM.
Thank you for confirming . I was on the recieving end of a bit of hate.
|
Both the new maps are too small. Horribile. The plateau one is like a seige tanks shot away from one ramp to the other. Jungle Basin is slightly better but still small and seems way too similar to other 2v2 maps.
This is a complete and utter joke if these 2 maps have really been added to the pool and shows how completely out of touch blizzard is with this game.
|
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.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On October 07 2010 10:03 CaptainFwiffo wrote:
Shakuras Plateau reminds me of Metalopolis. In diagonal spawn positions, there are long rush distances. In two adjacent spawn positions, there is a very short rush distance. In the other adjacent spawn positions it's a long ground rush distance and a short air rush distance (due to a canyon on Metalopolis and two sets of destructible rocks on Shakuras).
Given that most people think that Metalopolis is one of the better maps, I think it's pretty premature to call Shakuras a problem map when it has so much in common.
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 find it interesting that they made those tweaks to DO and now have apparently removed it from the map pool not too long after
|
On October 07 2010 09:53 Beef Noodles wrote:
Man, I wanted to save my 200th post, but I have to say...
1) yes the distances on Shakuras suck for vertical positions...
but,
2) have you ever seen a more muta-harass friendly map?
lololol. you realise the point of muta harass is to keep an opponent in his base right? so that he's scared to move out?
Yeah, really scary to move out when you get to opponent's base in 8 secs.
Looks like Zerg got the nerf-bat, map style.
|
jungle basin is stupid... terrans can wall off and basically CC before building any units, and it'll be 2 base + mules vs 2 base until mid-late game because getting a third is fucking hard.
|
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.
|
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...
|
Blizzard reminds me of those noob map makers that are like, "dude try this map I just made, it's so sick." NO. It's hard to make a balanced map, you can't throw together random features from other maps and hope it works. Use iccup maps or at least crossfire.
|
guess which maps the GSL2 players are gonna "excepted"
of course, it makes it into a bit of a mind-game if you wrongly anticipate your opponent thumbing-down a map, not doing it yourself and maybe being forced to play on a map you've barely had a week to practice on
|
On October 07 2010 10:16 NeoOmega wrote:
I wonder why Blizzard fears 3-player maps?
Not that the current maps are symmetrical, but is it possible to have symmetry on 3-player maps?
|
@Subversion And what happens when he's not 8 seconds away? You can come in on his main, nat, and third at LITERALLY every angle. Not to mention the cliff between the nat and main to abuse. I'm not saying it's a good map for zerg. I'm saying mutas are going to be fun.
|
lol this doesn't change anything for me.
I have steppes / DO / Kulas vetoed and now i'll have steppes / Jungle / shakuras vetoed after.
|
-Kulas = HOORAY
-DO = nooo, I had the most epic/fun ZvZ there =[ but I'm sure playing a good T on it would be a nightmare so whatever.
is this post legit though?
|
On October 07 2010 10:20 Speight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:16 NeoOmega wrote:
I wonder why Blizzard fears 3-player maps? Not that the current maps are symmetrical, but is it possible to have symmetry on 3-player maps?
Uh.. of course it is.
|
Uhm did blizzard said anything?
Since they announced patch 1.1 like 1 million years before it ,so everyone can get known to those changes (and abuse it lol) Now they changed this out of nowhere? o.O
|
GL winning once terran secures the middle in sukaras --.--
|
On October 07 2010 10:20 Speight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:16 NeoOmega wrote:
I wonder why Blizzard fears 3-player maps? Not that the current maps are symmetrical, but is it possible to have symmetry on 3-player maps?
Maps don't need to be 100% symmetrical to be balanced. Look at Tau cross from Starcraft 1.
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/3_Tau_Cross
|
WOW.. Why would they add shakuras plateau? Vertical positioning naturals are almost right next to each other. And I can't really tell from the image, but it also looks like it has destructible backdoors that leads to another destructible backdoor, fanfuckingtastic.
|
Not sure if anyone mentioned, but shakuras plateau was an old map in the beta. 1v1? humm i don't know lol
EDIT: Just caught up with the thread, and it has been mentioned several times MY B.
|
Awww just when I was starting to like Desert Oasis too. I mean, it was a fun map for me. Sure, it was different, but that just meant it was more creative. For example, it was the one map in ZvZ where you could go fast roaches and still be able to get an expo(as 5 roaches could wall off) Allowed more macro oriented play and was super fun.
I don't get why people don't like DO :/.
|
Blizzard is retarded. Desert Oasis was awesome, plus the sole badlands tileset map. They should have just renamed it after the fix and changed the tileset so people wouldn't keep stubbornly thumbs downing it. I'm glad Kulas is gone though.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On October 07 2010 10:20 Speight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:16 NeoOmega wrote:
I wonder why Blizzard fears 3-player maps? Not that the current maps are symmetrical, but is it possible to have symmetry on 3-player maps?
yes it is.
|
Urgh the thing im most bothered with i the excessive amount of rocks been thrown into blizzard maps, mechanics alright in small numbers but when theres so many it just becomes unfun and boring.
|
I just don't get what Blizzard is thinking. Let me explain how ladder map changes has to be done.
Ladder has 9 maps with 3 veto. So how should new maps to be added to ladder? By changing/replacing 4-5 maps (always more than veto option) to force players to play those maps. Now players can easily veto new maps because they don't know/like maps.
Yet again I am referring WC3 ladder map pool changes, same thing happened. 1-2 maps was changed, everyone/most vetoed those maps because those were new maps. Same old maps were still played...
Of course I have faith that Blizzard won't make same mistakes again
edit: of course some high level players used to thumb down common maps they didn't like with adding new maps to their list. Trick was that other high level players didn't do that so you could play maps you like.
edit2: Still this way there will be some bad maps but more likely good maps too. Blizzard just looks data how many times certain maps are been vetoed and replaces those next time with new maps.
|
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?"
I think you are slightly confused as to the natural positioning on Shakruas. The naturals you are intended to take I believe are on the edges of the map separated by a low ground with cliffs either side. They would only be easily attackable if you spawned directly vertical from one another which hasn't happened to me yet
|
Jungle Basin is a map int the SGL (??) and was played in the ROOT vs EG clan war yesterday, so I guess that has to be a decent map.
|
Are people saying jungle basin will be good for Z completely ignoring the fact that everywhere is tiny hallways for almost no possible surounds, as well as easily abused backdoor, plus an impossible 3rd to take, just gonna have to vote it i guess but why would they replace 2 bad maps with 2 aweful maps :/
Edit:yes i have played quite a few customs on it......... reluctantly
|
|
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On October 07 2010 10:04 On_Slaught wrote:
Both the new maps are too small. Horribile. The plateau one is like a seige tanks shot away from one ramp to the other. Jungle Basin is slightly better but still small and seems way too similar to other 2v2 maps.
This is a complete and utter joke if these 2 maps have really been added to the pool and shows how completely out of touch blizzard is with this game.
Blizzard can't be out of touch with a game they created can they?
Personally, I'm looking forward to trying them both, now I don't need to veto Kulas I can veto maybe Lost Temple as I'm so bored of that map, it always ends up especially in TvT games that last like 50 minutes whenever you're not on short positions.
I always used to veto DO and Blistering Sands as I always found them really annoying, then veto'd Kulas instead of DO when they added the rocks.
|
On October 07 2010 10:24 Too_MuchZerg wrote:I just don't get what Blizzard is thinking. Let me explain how ladder map changes has to be done. Ladder has 9 maps with 3 veto. So how should new maps to be added to ladder? By changing/replacing 4-5 maps (always more than veto option) to force players to play those maps. Now players can easily veto new maps because they don't know/like maps. Yet again I am referring WC3 ladder map pool changes, same thing happened. 1-2 maps was changed, everyone/most vetoed those maps because those were new maps. Same old maps were still played... Of course I have faith that Blizzard won't make same mistakes again
I agree with this. Hopefully they wise up eventually and learn from mistakes they make.
|
On October 07 2010 10:24 nekuodah wrote:
Urgh the thing im most bothered with i the excessive amount of rocks been thrown into blizzard maps, mechanics alright in small numbers but when theres so many it just becomes unfun and boring.
Not to mention that rocks are imbalanced by design - they are significantly more difficult for zerg to destroy in the early/mid game than for either protoss or terran.
On a different topic:
I wouldn't mind Jungle so much if zerg were designed with 2base play in mind. Unfortunately there is very few 2base strategies that can even be remotely successful for zerg.
Blizzard either need to buff zerg in the early/mid game or give each map an easily take-able third base. Anything less is by nature an imbalanced situation.
|
I like that they are updating the ladder pool, undecided on whether these maps were the ones to do it with.
|
Well atleast it's a step in the right direction, even if the maps are still horrible as hell, they're better than desert oasis
|
Oh well, guess its just two maps for the veto list =/
|
jungle basin fucken sucks
|
Shakura's doesn't look like a very good map but I don't understand how Jungle is any different/worse than Blistering Sands the only difference is that the natural is behind the rocks.
|
ugh jungle basin is such a terrible map. Please can't u make liek Agria Valley and/or Crossfire a ladder map? wtf?!
I am glad they are changing maps though. They need to do this way more often.
|
I really want them to put in Match Point!
|
DO was a nice macro map at last. Shakuras looks like a big positional gamble map.
|
On October 07 2010 10:28 Agama wrote:
Needs more ICCup maps.
Unless they remove the "ICCup" out of the name and give ownership and credit of the map to blizzard, this most likely won't be happening.
|
I'm not seeing what's wrong with Jungle Basin. It seems to me you could just expand around the outside, destroying your own back-door rocks, and control the center hill. Air harassment could be painful, though; but it's arguable as to whether that's a bad thing or not.
|
Unless they remove the "ICCup" out of the name and give ownership and credit of the map to blizzard, this most likely won't be happening.
They already gave up ownership of the map. You can't own anything created with Blizzards editor.
|
lol I never got to play Kulas once
|
On October 07 2010 10:36 Obscura.304 wrote:
I'm not seeing what's wrong with Jungle Basin. It seems to me you could just expand around the outside, destroying your own back-door rocks, and control the center hill. Air harassment could be painful, though; but it's arguable as to whether that's a bad thing or not.
It just makes things harder to defend and also zerg needs the quicker 3rd and it's tougher for a zerg to take down the rocks than toss or terran.
|
I have to questions to Blizzard:
1. WHY THERE ALWAYS MUST BE DESTRUCTIBLE ROCKS?!?!?!11?!!?!
and
2. Why they don't listen to the community and add Crossfire to the map pool?
Thanks
|
Just played a game on each of these maps. My thoughts as Terran:
Jungle Basin there's basically no reason not to fast expand. Interesting and dynamically different from the other maps. There's multiple attack paths kind of similar to Xel'Naga Caverns.
Shakuras I'm not 100% thrilled with after one game, but needs more testing. It's a really oddly shaped map, and will produce completely different games depending on spawn positions.
|
On October 07 2010 10:35 Dr.Frost wrote:
ugh jungle basin is such a terrible map. Please can't u make liek Agria Valley and/or Crossfire a ladder map? wtf?!
I am glad they are changing maps though. They need to do this way more often.
I agree, of the maps floating around the custom pool, I would have preferred Agria Valley to this Jungle Basin nonsense
|
So I asked LzGaMeR for his opinion on Jungle Basin and he said
On October 07 2010 LzGaMeR said:
Garbage
|
Didnt just about everyone love the new version of DO?
|
On October 07 2010 10:26 wonderwall wrote:Show nested quote +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?" I think you are slightly confused as to the natural positioning on Shakruas. The naturals you are intended to take I believe are on the edges of the map separated by a low ground with cliffs either side. They would only be easily attackable if you spawned directly vertical from one another which hasn't happened to me yet
That is the natural I am speaking of. How could anybody with a brain think that the low ground section was a natural when there is an expansion leading down to that section? If it is in fact impossible to spawn vertically then it is OK.
|
On October 07 2010 10:39 Archerofaiur wrote:
Didnt just about everyone love the new version of DO?
It was too complicated for new players.
|
![[image loading]](http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y56/hasire/loltanks.png)
I'm not sure I like Shakuras at all...
|
On October 07 2010 10:41 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:39 Archerofaiur wrote:
Didnt just about everyone love the new version of DO? It was too complicated for new players.
....how?
|
On October 07 2010 10:43 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:41 Half wrote:On October 07 2010 10:39 Archerofaiur wrote:
Didnt just about everyone love the new version of DO? It was too complicated for new players. ....how?
Because it was a macro map lol. Not saying I agree with it.
(edit: This is a guess of course, because the only complicating element of community made maps is that they are all built towards macro intensive games, in other aspects, they are all simpler then most blizzard maps)
|
On October 07 2010 10:43 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:41 Half wrote:On October 07 2010 10:39 Archerofaiur wrote:
Didnt just about everyone love the new version of DO? It was too complicated for new players. ....how?
I'm pretty sure that was a joke about how Browder said community made maps are too complicated to new players.
|
I'm not sure I like Shakuras at all...
still need a spotter to get sight for that tank. Also is that in a main, a natural? more info would be appreciated.
|
On October 07 2010 10:44 wonderwall wrote:still need a spotter to get sight for that tank. Also is that in a main, a natural? more info would be appreciated.
Thats the main.
And of course, you have the medic to scout, with 11 range of vision.
|
It was too complicated for new players.
I'm surprised shrinkage didn't make the list.
Diamond please post the link to that rant on Battle.net, i'd love to read it ^^
|
I don't understand why everyone wants the map to be all the same? Must not be too small, easy natual, not too many cliff so terran cannot use tank too much, lots of place to fight so your never put in a corner... and list could go on. Each race we're given specific advantage and disadvantage (balance of this goes in another thread), but if a map expose more one of your race disadvantage or one of your opponent race advantage too far it's immediatly a nerf cry.
What I'd like to say is that I like that not every map are the same. Different build order (6 pool might be very popular on Shakuras so you can attack before wall in) different strategy in unit composition to get an advantage, different unit positioning...
You know the map, you know the flaws for your race and the advantage of your oponent, why not use this knowledge to your advantage and work on something that will get you a win?
The map is the same for your opponent also. Of course imbalance where your start base side cliff is longer than your opponent one so your colossi/reaper have harder time to come up than your opponent shouldn't exist.
I really like the iCCup maps, even if I'm not able to play them enough cause they arent popular, but I feel some of them just look the same with different position and different graphics and thus doesn't promote very different gameplay.
|
On October 07 2010 10:44 wonderwall wrote:still need a spotter to get sight for that tank. Also is that in a main, a natural? more info would be appreciated.
As far as I can tell that's the main.
|
Great, two maps on do not play list replaced with two different ones
|
Why add these terrible maps to the map pool? This won't fix anything.
All the games I've watched on Jungle Basin have been super boring. No clear third expansion means that you almost have to do a two or one base all-in. Either that or tank push and starve your opponent while they sit on only two bases.
Shakuras looks like they took all the things people complain about with Blizzard maps and decided to make it into its own map. Tanks will once again make that map unplayable for anyone who wants to expand more than once. The short rush distances will make stupid cheeses the order of the day.
Expect an epic rage post on the b.net forums tonight. I'm just calming down a bit so I can make sense.
Go ICCup.Diamond!!! Fight the power!
|
On October 07 2010 10:46 kontrol wrote:
I don't understand why everyone wants the map to be all the same? Must not be too small, easy natual, not too many cliff so terran cannot use tank too much, lots of place to fight so your never put in a corner... and list could go on. Each race we're given specific advantage and disadvantage (balance of this goes in another thread), but if a map expose more one of your race disadvantage or one of your opponent race advantage too far it's immediatly a nerf cry.
What I'd like to say is that I like that not every map are the same. Different build order (6 pool might be very popular on Shakuras so you can attack before wall in) different strategy in unit composition to get an advantage, different unit positioning...
You know the map, you know the flaws for your race and the advantage of your oponent, why not use this knowledge to your advantage and work on something that will get you a win?
The map is the same for your opponent also. Of course imbalance where your start base side cliff is longer than your opponent one so your colossi/reaper have harder time to come up than your opponent shouldn't exist.
I really like the iCCup maps, even if I'm not able to play them enough cause they arent popular, but I feel some of them just look the same with different position and different graphics and thus doesn't promote very different gameplay.
I think this is a good post. It's important that out of a map pool, there is some differentiation between the maps, so that different games in a series turn out dynamically different.
However, you can arrive at that result without having maps that are badly balanced. I think iCCup is doing pretty good, with a reasonable mix of 2 player maps and 4 player maps, maps with a circular layout, maps with a vertical layout, etc.
I do wish everybody would stop being all "OMG no base can ever have a backdoor with rocks!" or "No base can ever have a close spawn point!" though. I think it's important to have one small map in a pool, and important to have one map with a backdoor. Because you want maps to be different from other maps.
And it is certainly possible to include these features in a balanced way.
|
they should have added crossfire =/
|
shakuras looks awful. wasn't it in the beta and removed from the pool pretty early on?
|
On October 07 2010 10:38 fabiano wrote:
I have to questions to Blizzard:
1. WHY THERE ALWAYS MUST BE DESTRUCTIBLE ROCKS?!?!?!11?!!?!
and
2. Why they don't listen to the community and add Crossfire to the map pool?
Thanks
Crossfire is a map where the entire middle is 10 different chokepoints. Amazing if the community consensus is that it's actually a good map. People really like beating zerg don't they?
|
51446 Posts
Rumors going around in Korea that the GSL might be using these maps LOL.
|
Why do they insist on making more blood bath maps?
Why do the think destructible rocks is such a baller feature to cover 50% of the maps with them?
Why do they make the maps asymmetrically imbalanced?
Sad to see that Blizzards map makers are so obviously clueless and incompetent...
If Blizzard/GSL have any respect for the game they would hire some KESPA and/or iCCup map makers.
|
lol im glad i quit playing before having a rage induced aneurysm from playing that ridiculous map jungle basin
never played that other map though but i can definitely confirm that the jungle basin map is absolutely ridiculous in so many ways
wtf type of 3rd/4th base placement is that seriously. blizz continues to encourage 10 minute games with terribad maps
|
Ugh. Blizz just can't seem to understand maps. You'd think people who are literally PAID to make maps would at least attempt to churn out something half-way decent...
|
On October 07 2010 10:24 Too_MuchZerg wrote:I just don't get what Blizzard is thinking. Let me explain how ladder map changes has to be done. Ladder has 9 maps with 3 veto. So how should new maps to be added to ladder? By changing/replacing 4-5 maps (always more than veto option) to force players to play those maps. Now players can easily veto new maps because they don't know/like maps. Yet again I am referring WC3 ladder map pool changes, same thing happened. 1-2 maps was changed, everyone/most vetoed those maps because those were new maps. Same old maps were still played... Of course I have faith that Blizzard won't make same mistakes again edit: of course some high level players used to thumb down common maps they didn't like with adding new maps to their list. Trick was that other high level players didn't do that so you could play maps you like. edit2: Still this way there will be some bad maps but more likely good maps too. Blizzard just looks data how many times certain maps are been vetoed and replaces those next time with new maps.
They should do what iCCup did and give bonus points for maps of the week.
This gave people an incentive to learn the new maps.
|
On October 07 2010 10:54 DTrain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:24 Too_MuchZerg wrote:I just don't get what Blizzard is thinking. Let me explain how ladder map changes has to be done. Ladder has 9 maps with 3 veto. So how should new maps to be added to ladder? By changing/replacing 4-5 maps (always more than veto option) to force players to play those maps. Now players can easily veto new maps because they don't know/like maps. Yet again I am referring WC3 ladder map pool changes, same thing happened. 1-2 maps was changed, everyone/most vetoed those maps because those were new maps. Same old maps were still played... Of course I have faith that Blizzard won't make same mistakes again edit: of course some high level players used to thumb down common maps they didn't like with adding new maps to their list. Trick was that other high level players didn't do that so you could play maps you like. edit2: Still this way there will be some bad maps but more likely good maps too. Blizzard just looks data how many times certain maps are been vetoed and replaces those next time with new maps. They should do what iCCup did and give bonus points for maps of the week. This gave people an incentive to learn the new maps.
This would make sense if you could ladder on only 1 map, but since it is random I dont think it can work.
|
On October 07 2010 10:51 faction123 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:38 fabiano wrote:
I have to questions to Blizzard:
1. WHY THERE ALWAYS MUST BE DESTRUCTIBLE ROCKS?!?!?!11?!!?!
and
2. Why they don't listen to the community and add Crossfire to the map pool?
Thanks Crossfire is a map where the entire middle is 10 different chokepoints. Amazing if the community consensus is that it's actually a good map. People really like beating zerg don't they?
As a T switching to Z, I actually like that map better as Z than I do as T.....
In tight areas you can FG, and because of the size, you can abuse muta/ling mobility pretty easily, at least long enough to get hive and 4 or 5 bases going (while he's stuck in his main and nat).....
TBH, I don't think I like either of the new maps.....
|
trolling
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 07 2010 10:46 kontrol wrote:
I don't understand why everyone wants the map to be all the same? Must not be too small, easy natual, not too many cliff so terran cannot use tank too much, lots of place to fight so your never put in a corner... and list could go on. Each race we're given specific advantage and disadvantage (balance of this goes in another thread), but if a map expose more one of your race disadvantage or one of your opponent race advantage too far it's immediatly a nerf cry.
What I'd like to say is that I like that not every map are the same. Different build order (6 pool might be very popular on Shakuras so you can attack before wall in) different strategy in unit composition to get an advantage, different unit positioning...
You know the map, you know the flaws for your race and the advantage of your oponent, why not use this knowledge to your advantage and work on something that will get you a win?
The map is the same for your opponent also. Of course imbalance where your start base side cliff is longer than your opponent one so your colossi/reaper have harder time to come up than your opponent shouldn't exist.
I really like the iCCup maps, even if I'm not able to play them enough cause they arent popular, but I feel some of them just look the same with different position and different graphics and thus doesn't promote very different gameplay.
Who said they want the maps to be the same?
All we ask for is one good macro map that is free from gimmicky rocks and has expansions that you can actually just take. There are no maps like this currently. How can you say that the people that dislike blizzard's maps are the ones that are anti-diversity when they want a different map than what we have today?
|
On October 07 2010 10:52 parkin wrote:
Why do they insist on making more blood bath maps?
Why do the think destructible rocks is such a baller feature to cover 50% of the maps with them?
Why do they make the maps asymmetrically imbalanced?
Sad to see that Blizzards map makers are so obviously clueless and incompetent...
If Blizzard/GSL have any respect for the game they would hire some KESPA and/or iCCup map makers.
Honestly sir, i agree 100%.
|
Would a map like luna make sense in sc2? I remember it being the most vanilla of vanilla maps with the exception that I guess you couldn't tank push.
|
Does Shakuras remind anyone of another map? Horizontal positions remind me of Incineration Zone's back door 'feature' and vertical positions remind me of Incineration Zone's rush distance, actually shorter. Um... actually much shorter. I hope the Terrans enjoy setting up a siege tank on their natural which can deny their opponent gas at their natural.
Why is Blizzard so scared of open ground? Alot of the ICCup maps have a largely unrestricted middle ground, but Blizzard just can't seem to think outside of the corridor.
EDIT: And what the hell was wrong with Desert Oasis? I loved that map, and it was much better after the edit. God forbid Blizzard gives us a nice big spacious map.
|
Well, anything's better than Kulas. It's odd that they got rid of Desert Oasis, though, after modifying the map in an attempt to make it more popular.
|
Just for the record, NA doesnt have these maps yet, as of W 11:00 Kst (7pm pacific).
|
LOL!! blizzard replace 2 bad maps with 2 even worse maps.
|
The thing that amazes me is that there is so many interesting things that mapmakers can do with the new destructible rocks, xel naga towers and grass it makes me wonder why all of the ladder maps are so bland and dull.
|
well no Kulas/Desert would make me happy tbh. Even with these 2 shitty maps I still prefer these to kulas/desert .
But I wish they would add more then 2 xD.
|
On October 07 2010 10:39 Archerofaiur wrote:
Didnt just about everyone love the new version of DO?
I preferred the old version.
|
Dunno if this has been mentioned yet but jungle basin might be better for Protoss than Desert Oasis was. Reason? You can warp in the safe expo from outside it without breaking the rocks, just like on DQ.
|
On October 07 2010 11:12 Chronicle wrote:
Dunno if this has been mentioned yet but jungle basin might be better for Protoss than Desert Oasis was. Reason? You can warp in the safe expo from outside it without breaking the rocks, just like on DQ.
That's a problem.
Also I'm testing some things. On Jungle Basin the top base has one gas that needs 4 workers on it, the bottom does not....
|
Jungle Basin looks like Reaper Heaven..
|
Can anyone other than OP confirm? I have no changes either.
|
On October 07 2010 11:16 sjschmidt93 wrote:
Can anyone other than OP confirm? I have no changes either.
I can. SEA only at the moment.
|
On October 07 2010 11:16 sjschmidt93 wrote:
Can anyone other than OP confirm? I have no changes either.
Been confirmed by other people. Just SEA at the moment, other should be updated later. Unless blizzard is doing local test before
|
On October 07 2010 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:54 DTrain wrote:On October 07 2010 10:24 Too_MuchZerg wrote:I just don't get what Blizzard is thinking. Let me explain how ladder map changes has to be done. Ladder has 9 maps with 3 veto. So how should new maps to be added to ladder? By changing/replacing 4-5 maps (always more than veto option) to force players to play those maps. Now players can easily veto new maps because they don't know/like maps. Yet again I am referring WC3 ladder map pool changes, same thing happened. 1-2 maps was changed, everyone/most vetoed those maps because those were new maps. Same old maps were still played... Of course I have faith that Blizzard won't make same mistakes again edit: of course some high level players used to thumb down common maps they didn't like with adding new maps to their list. Trick was that other high level players didn't do that so you could play maps you like. edit2: Still this way there will be some bad maps but more likely good maps too. Blizzard just looks data how many times certain maps are been vetoed and replaces those next time with new maps. They should do what iCCup did and give bonus points for maps of the week. This gave people an incentive to learn the new maps. This would make sense if you could ladder on only 1 map, but since it is random I dont think it can work.
Your right I forgot that it was random.
|
lets make a thread on gom to tell them we want iccup map list, not blizzards maps
|
EU just updated as well. I still dont get the idea of a 2n2 map for 1on1 though. :/
|
|
|
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.
|
On October 07 2010 11:14 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:12 Chronicle wrote:
Dunno if this has been mentioned yet but jungle basin might be better for Protoss than Desert Oasis was. Reason? You can warp in the safe expo from outside it without breaking the rocks, just like on DQ. That's a problem. Also I'm testing some things. On Jungle Basin the top base has one gas that needs 4 workers on it, the bottom does not....
I just tested that and thats not true.. yes the gas is a bit longer away but 3 is still enough and give same income.
|
I just played them in SEA, did not like them.
|
Hope US gets it soon GOODBYE STUPID KULAS AND DESERT! :D I am so happy ^^
|
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.
Then they should balance zerg for play on those size of maps. Otherwise, give us bigger maps.
You can't balance the game around one size of map and then totally destroy that balance by never providing the players with that sized map.
|
I cannot believe blizzard isnt putting in the iCCup maps.
I'm disappointed in blizzard.
If your gunna make an awesome game plz use the awesome maps?
XD
Edit: if anyone has dayvie as a friend they should message him to put in a good word for iCCup maps lol
|
Awesome. More maps that let me practice my 6 and 7 pool 1337ness.
I can't really blame Blizz though, they're just adding maps that are more casual friendly.
Smaller maps = less macro intensive and shorter games.
|
On October 07 2010 11:16 sjschmidt93 wrote:
Can anyone other than OP confirm? I have no changes either.
try page 2
|
Finally! The DO tile set is dead.
Please blizzard/all you map editors, no more Desert Oasis tile set!
If you make a map on that tile set, please give me your email so that I might send you a video of my eyes bleeding. I don't care if you made the next python, (though the next outsider is a different story)
I can't play it if the tile set blinds me. It burns like the snow tile set in BW, but is significantly worse looking. It is no coincidence that DO is being removed.
Also, yay for new maps.
|
They took out my DO ... :'(.
Jungle Basin looks a little like Xel Naga so I'm ok with it for now ...
Shakuras looks great cross position, kinda like BS on east/west and utterly ridiculous on vertical positions. Is it me or are the naturals in siege tank range of each other on vertical spawns ? Looks like it would be a great map if it only had cross spawns, as it is I don't think it will quite make my ban list but I know I'll be losing to a vertical spawned Terran (so 1/3 Terrans and 1/3 of vertical ... 1/9 games on the map isn't terrible, hopefully 2 gates and 4 gates aren't too bad).
Actually Jungle Basin looks like a decent Zerg map. Free 14 hatch, options for a third are further but similar to Xel Naga or DQ. 2 Zerglings at the watchtowers give amazing scouting and the back door rocks mean it isn't a perfectly safe expand for T or P (a few roaches to break them and they are open to run by.
|
I remember Shakuras Plateau when the beta JUST started. And Scrap Station is the new map? wtf?
|
Dont see anything on mine.
|
On October 07 2010 11:19 r.Evo wrote:
EU just updated as well. I still dont get the idea of a 2n2 map for 1on1 though. :/
Lost Temple? Python?
|
i think everyone complaining about map imbalance needs to look at the bigger picture
the real problem is that they're not adding new maps to the pool (at least imo, maybe i'm just being picky)
|
On October 07 2010 11:37 jambam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:19 r.Evo wrote:
EU just updated as well. I still dont get the idea of a 2n2 map for 1on1 though. :/ Lost Temple? Python?
gods garden? colosseum? fighting spirit? EOTS? Grand line? judgement day? roadrunner? byzantium? andromeda? ROTK?
...i cant think of any more right now...
|
On October 07 2010 11:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
i think everyone complaining about map imbalance needs to look at the bigger picture
the real problem is that they're not adding new maps to the pool, just recirculating the same old maps
That too. It's like CMON!!!
|
On October 07 2010 11:41 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:37 jambam wrote:On October 07 2010 11:19 r.Evo wrote:
EU just updated as well. I still dont get the idea of a 2n2 map for 1on1 though. :/ Lost Temple? Python? gods garden? colosseum? fighting spirit? EOTS? Grand line? judgement day? roadrunner? byzantium? andromeda? ROTK? ...i cant think of any more right now...
I'm pretty sure all those maps were designed with 1v1 in mind. None have DIRECT PATHS connecting bases (even if there is rocks).
Shakuras was designed to be a 2v2 map from the start and it's obvious.
|
On October 07 2010 11:37 jambam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:19 r.Evo wrote:
EU just updated as well. I still dont get the idea of a 2n2 map for 1on1 though. :/ Lost Temple? Python?
Both of those were designed for 1v1.
|
Jungle Basin is wonderful.
Never heard of Shakuras Plateau.... idk about it....
|
On October 07 2010 11:41 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
i think everyone complaining about map imbalance needs to look at the bigger picture
the real problem is that they're not adding new maps to the pool, just recirculating the same old maps That too. It's like CMON!!!
I wonder if blizzard honestly has it planned that they can treat this game like warcraft 3 in the sense that they only add new maps for the expansion (except for one here and there every 10 months)
hopefully tournaments will at least use new maps (especially the GSL, I really hope they change the map pool for the next GSL)
|
On October 07 2010 11:42 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:41 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 11:37 jambam wrote:On October 07 2010 11:19 r.Evo wrote:
EU just updated as well. I still dont get the idea of a 2n2 map for 1on1 though. :/ Lost Temple? Python? gods garden? colosseum? fighting spirit? EOTS? Grand line? judgement day? roadrunner? byzantium? andromeda? ROTK? ...i cant think of any more right now... I'm pretty sure all those maps were designed with 1v1 in mind. None have DIRECT PATHS connecting bases (even if there is rocks). Shakuras was designed to be a 2v2 map from the start and it's obvious.
I know i'm just trying to look like a cool BW kid
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50120 Posts
On October 07 2010 11:41 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
i think everyone complaining about map imbalance needs to look at the bigger picture
the real problem is that they're not adding new maps to the pool, just recirculating the same old maps That too. It's like CMON!!!
Its retarded Blizzard,just retarded.Gretech better stop kissing ass and use their own maps for the GSL.People would then follow.
|
On October 07 2010 11:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:41 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 11:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
i think everyone complaining about map imbalance needs to look at the bigger picture
the real problem is that they're not adding new maps to the pool, just recirculating the same old maps That too. It's like CMON!!! I wonder if blizzard honestly has it planned that they can treat this game like warcraft 3 in the sense that they only add new maps for the expansion (except for one here and there every 10 months)
Yeah I don't know. I'm 200% surprised by this move from Blizzard.
|
All I want to fucking do is:
1) Pick a specific matchup
2) Pick a specific balanced map
3) Grind that mu on that map over and over on the ladder
thats all. thats all i want.
iccup why did you spoil uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus
|
Diamond, you need to make your thread before the maps come up on NA so you can look super gosu about it.
I am looking forward to it.
|
On October 07 2010 11:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:41 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 11:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
i think everyone complaining about map imbalance needs to look at the bigger picture
the real problem is that they're not adding new maps to the pool, just recirculating the same old maps That too. It's like CMON!!! I wonder if blizzard honestly has it planned that they can treat this game like warcraft 3 in the sense that they only add new maps for the expansion (except for one here and there every 10 months) hopefully tournaments will at least use new maps (especially the GSL, I really hope they change the map pool for the next GSL)
they will change the map pool. they will take the new ladder map pool lol
|
On October 07 2010 11:49 Ketara wrote:
Diamond, you need to make your thread before the maps come up on NA so you can look super gosu about it.
I am looking forward to it.
Meh I have a feeling it won't achieve much. I am just organizing all my thoughts right now.
|
Great more cheesy 10 minute and under maps. I thought their goal was to create maps for longer macro based games since people have been complaining since beta about the size of current maps.
|
You need to give it a try.
There is nothing to be accomplished by us being furious if we're not making an attempt to discuss it with Blizzard.
I understand that it's a pretty pissy move. You've been trying to talk to them about it, done a lot of work, and they're all "lolol we'll just change two maps to other maps we've already made with no edits with no warning!"
It's kind of a dick move. But you still need to give discussing it with them a shot.
We're all behind you on it and will be like-ing/bumping the thread like crazy I'm sure. I will.
|
On October 07 2010 11:51 ckw wrote:Great more cheesy 10 minute and under maps. I thought their goal was to create maps for longer macro based games since people have been complaining since beta about the size of current maps.
I believe they've stated that they consider such maps to be suited for pro gamers and not for ladder.
I actually wish they'd add league-specific maps, with bigger maps as you go up. They already have different maps for the practice league.
|
On October 07 2010 11:50 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:49 Ketara wrote:
Diamond, you need to make your thread before the maps come up on NA so you can look super gosu about it.
I am looking forward to it. Meh I have a feeling it won't achieve much. I am just organizing all my thoughts right now.
Were you guys expecting Blizzard to introduce Iccup maps into the ladder?
|
On October 07 2010 11:53 Ketara wrote:
You need to give it a try.
There is nothing to be accomplished by us being furious if we're not making an attempt to discuss it with Blizzard.
I understand that it's a pretty pissy move. You've been trying to talk to them about it, done a lot of work, and they're all "lolol we'll just change two maps to other maps we've already made with no edits with no warning!"
It's kind of a dick move. But you still need to give discussing it with them a shot.
We're all behind you on it and will be like-ing/bumping the thread like crazy I'm sure. I will.
Oh I agree. I am just trying to organize all my thoughts about the situation so I have a well thought out and convincing post.
I really wish the OP for this thread had made polls about how people like/don't like the maps...
|
Can someone check 2v2/3v3 and 4v4 maps?
|
On October 07 2010 11:54 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:53 Ketara wrote:
You need to give it a try.
There is nothing to be accomplished by us being furious if we're not making an attempt to discuss it with Blizzard.
I understand that it's a pretty pissy move. You've been trying to talk to them about it, done a lot of work, and they're all "lolol we'll just change two maps to other maps we've already made with no edits with no warning!"
It's kind of a dick move. But you still need to give discussing it with them a shot.
We're all behind you on it and will be like-ing/bumping the thread like crazy I'm sure. I will. Oh I agree. I am just trying to organize all my thoughts about the situation so I have a well thought out and convincing post. I really wish the OP for this thread had made polls about how people like/don't like the maps...
So you want polls for maps most havent played on ladder yet? Give it some time first....
|
lol is blizzard serious or just trolling? did they seriously just pick 2 random OLD maps from the custom melee game pool and put it into the ladder? unbelievable....
sigh.... they are better then kulas and desert oasis tho i guess... altho it makes no sense for them to have added the dest rocks on oasis if it was going to be removed anyway. w/e. this is one of the reasons i stoped laddering.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
ok just played ~10 ladder games on the new maps (EU) and in every single one, the opposition cheesed. i think the combination of me playing random and the unfamiliar maps just scared them into 6pooling, proxy gating/raxing. so be on your guard folks!
|
On October 07 2010 12:00 Ballistixz wrote:
lol is blizzard serious or just trolling? did they seriously just pick 2 random OLD maps from the custom melee game pool and put it into the ladder? unbelievable....
sigh.... they are better then kulas and desert oasis tho i guess... altho it makes no sense for them to have added the dest rocks on oasis if it was going to be removed anyway. w/e. this is one of the reasons i stoped laddering.
Nah Desert Oasis was a pretty good map compared to the new shit.
Even Kulas was better x.X
edit:
Seems to me Blizz dont want any Macro Play at all, just allin and 1 base play.
|
Honestly I think this is a step in the right direction. They did target two of the most problematic maps.
We couldn't expect them to suddenly make a radical change in the type of map and add in ICCup material.
I would like some form of official statement regarding their choice (a little like the situation reports in Beta) and what we can expect in the future/what they are considering.
I don't dislike the two maps. A little afraid of the vertical spawn on the 4 player map but other than that they look interesting and definitely better than Kulas (and maybe DO, I never had a big problem with DO though).
|
Great, give more maps with backdoor plz :s
|
why does blizzard think 2 entrances into main is a good idea?
|
Rofl, Terran can siege the opponents natural from his natural?
Well.. that's CLEARLY balanced. ^^
|
I laff when 90% of this thread is trying to get BW maps converted, not understanding that we are talking about 2 completely different games.
I wonder when ppl will realize that they should stop trying to be nostalgic and be realistic. Bringing in BW maps, while cool, wouldn't help with game balance.
The BW maps you saw from proleague were designed for BW. With 100's of hours testing, they were made to be balanced. Some succeeded pretty well, others did not. Trying to toss away their research and jam their maps into this game is almost disrespectful to them.
Are new better maps needed? Yes. Should you cry for old iccup maps? No.
|
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.
|
On October 07 2010 12:02 Telcontar wrote:
ok just played ~10 ladder games on the new maps (EU) and in every single one, the opposition cheesed. i think the combination of me playing random and the unfamiliar maps just scared them into 6pooling, proxy gating/raxing. so be on your guard folks!
Honestly if Blizzard continues much longer with their current map pool, I am going to simply 6-pool every game on 2 player ladder maps (maybe not on Blistering Sands, if I could ever find a game on there).
I was practicing 6-pooling against very hard AI last night and it's really easy to do on the smaller maps.
Send all workers to work.
200 mins build pool
Build 2 more drones
When pool pops build 6 lings
Build Overlord
Pump lings until you have 150 minerals and no larva
Build Queen
If your opponent is not dead by this time spawn larva and pump lings.
Pylons/depots are your biggest priority targets.
Unless your opponent goes for early rax/pool/gate this should be plenty to win most of these short rush maps.
Obviously this is what Blizzard wants the game to be otherwise they would have given us longer rush distances and maps with more expansions.
|
Any reports of people playing Shakuras 1v1 and actually spawning vertically?
|
On October 07 2010 12:08 smegged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:02 Telcontar wrote:
ok just played ~10 ladder games on the new maps (EU) and in every single one, the opposition cheesed. i think the combination of me playing random and the unfamiliar maps just scared them into 6pooling, proxy gating/raxing. so be on your guard folks! Honestly if Blizzard continues much longer with their current map pool, I am going to simply 6-pool every game on 2 player ladder maps (maybe not on Blistering Sands, if I could ever find a game on there). I was practicing 6-pooling against very hard AI last night and it's really easy to do on the smaller maps. Send all workers to work. 200 mins build pool Build 2 more drones When pool pops build 6 lings Build Overlord Pump lings until you have 150 minerals and no larva Build Queen If your opponent is not dead by this time spawn larva and pump lings. Pylons/depots are your biggest priority targets. Unless your opponent goes for early rax/pool/gate this should be plenty to win most of these short rush maps. Obviously this is what Blizzard wants the game to be otherwise they would have given us longer rush distances and maps with more expansions.
I like how you included "send all workers to work". Some advanced stuff right there.
edit: Also, the distance on Jungle Basin is easily the longest between bases and naturals (since the natural is behind the base) in the pool. At least it felt like that when I just now played it. Wouldn't advice 6-pooling there.
|
i think this map was in beta...but i wonder if blizzard brings this map again because this was an aweful map to play...
btw why is no big map anymore? i kinda miss it...
|
On October 07 2010 12:11 allurhorses wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:08 smegged wrote:On October 07 2010 12:02 Telcontar wrote:
ok just played ~10 ladder games on the new maps (EU) and in every single one, the opposition cheesed. i think the combination of me playing random and the unfamiliar maps just scared them into 6pooling, proxy gating/raxing. so be on your guard folks! Honestly if Blizzard continues much longer with their current map pool, I am going to simply 6-pool every game on 2 player ladder maps (maybe not on Blistering Sands, if I could ever find a game on there). I was practicing 6-pooling against very hard AI last night and it's really easy to do on the smaller maps. Send all workers to work. 200 mins build pool Build 2 more drones When pool pops build 6 lings Build Overlord Pump lings until you have 150 minerals and no larva Build Queen If your opponent is not dead by this time spawn larva and pump lings. Pylons/depots are your biggest priority targets. Unless your opponent goes for early rax/pool/gate this should be plenty to win most of these short rush maps. Obviously this is what Blizzard wants the game to be otherwise they would have given us longer rush distances and maps with more expansions. I like how you included "send all workers to work". Some advanced stuff right there.
Half the build order in fact.
I 6 pool when I feel like sleeping because you have so little to do, micro some lings, control 1 building ... done.
|
On October 07 2010 12:08 smegged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:02 Telcontar wrote:
ok just played ~10 ladder games on the new maps (EU) and in every single one, the opposition cheesed. i think the combination of me playing random and the unfamiliar maps just scared them into 6pooling, proxy gating/raxing. so be on your guard folks! Honestly if Blizzard continues much longer with their current map pool, I am going to simply 6-pool every game on 2 player ladder maps (maybe not on Blistering Sands, if I could ever find a game on there). I was practicing 6-pooling against very hard AI last night and it's really easy to do on the smaller maps. Send all workers to work. 200 mins build pool Build 2 more drones When pool pops build 6 lings Build Overlord Pump lings until you have 150 minerals and no larva Build Queen If your opponent is not dead by this time spawn larva and pump lings. Pylons/depots are your biggest priority targets. Unless your opponent goes for early rax/pool/gate this should be plenty to win most of these short rush maps. Obviously this is what Blizzard wants the game to be otherwise they would have given us longer rush distances and maps with more expansions.
Obviously Blizzard wants you to learn how to play zerg.
Blaming blizzard for you not taking the time and energy to learn how to play zerg mid-late game isn't going to help... anyone. I am not saying its easy, but claiming they are designing maps for only 6 pooling is a pretty bold statement. And you should prepare to back that up.
|
After a few quick vs AI on Jungle Basin, I have already found why I will hate this map as zerg. Where do I send my first 2-3 overlords??? There is only one good spot near the other base that has any protection from marines (the area next to the in base natural, pretty far from main)
The second spot would be on the far south east side just outside of main, or far north west side just below main at top. But those two areas, all a terran has to do is send a few marines out to snipe off OL as that is the obvious spot to send them that is closest to do an overlord's sacrificial scout.
Will be easy to see if they expand to their inbase natural, but that is of little use, as zerg needs to know what tech path t/p are going asafp.
On the bright side, it will be easyer to scout for proxies as you have no use of sending the first few overlords right at their main, as they will be easy targets for marines and early stalkers.
The best 3rd would be if you took out your rocks and expanded to the far side, and run creep tumors from your expo over to it. The obvious counter to that is terran doing the same thing, and putting a PF cc expo their as their 3rd, making it hard as hell to backstab any aggression on your 3rd. You have 4 options. Defend with your forces, attack their main via ramp, attack their 3rd (its a PF) or runby their 3rd and go for their expo or main.
I don't see anybody getting the 2 center expansions as 3rds, except maybe terran with a PF. As zerg it feels far too close and uprotected.
|
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?
|
As a zerg player I'm really sad to see Kulas go. It was the only map I was confident against both P and T on. Being able to expand to the gold was a very strong option, the distances were pretty large, and it was easy to defend 3rd/4th expansions. Cliff on the natural was pretty dumb, but outside of that expected abuse it's better than most of the map pool.
It would have been nice if these maps were removed instead:
Desert Oasis (even worse vs T with the rocks, better vs 4 gate with the rocks)
Steppes of War (horrid)
Blistering Sands (bad)
Delta Quadrant (void cheese, anti-zerg expansion)
Edit: I find it odd that they added two terrible maps instead of something like Crossfire or another 4 player map.
|
On October 07 2010 11:54 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
I really wish the OP for this thread had made polls about how people like/don't like the maps...
If you tell me how I'll set it up.
|
On October 07 2010 12:17 Speight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:54 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
I really wish the OP for this thread had made polls about how people like/don't like the maps... If you tell me how I'll set it up.
There is a "add poll" option when you are editing the post.
|
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.
|
On October 07 2010 12:17 Speight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 11:54 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
I really wish the OP for this thread had made polls about how people like/don't like the maps... If you tell me how I'll set it up.
the second option form the right is add poll, just type in the voting options
|
Embrace the new maps Zerg brethren! One of the new map Shakuras Plateau is not a plateau at all! Those dastardly reapers won't be a problem with 99 ways to get into our main base! Don't forget that those D-8 Charges will not rip through those rocks and let their entire army into our main in close horizontal positions! Don't get me started on Jungle Basin! Those rocks will play greatly into our advantage since our powerful Zerglings will make short work of them, and a third base is within reach! Those silly warp ins into our natural won't be a problem at all!
God... I hate Blizzard....
|
On October 07 2010 12:18 smegged wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
Adding a poll now is rather premature.
|
why must their maps always be so damn small...
|
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?
|
On October 07 2010 12:08 zomgtossrush wrote:
I laff when 90% of this thread is trying to get BW maps converted, not understanding that we are talking about 2 completely different games.
I wonder when ppl will realize that they should stop trying to be nostalgic and be realistic. Bringing in BW maps, while cool, wouldn't help with game balance.
The BW maps you saw from proleague were designed for BW. With 100's of hours testing, they were made to be balanced. Some succeeded pretty well, others did not. Trying to toss away their research and jam their maps into this game is almost disrespectful to them.
Are new better maps needed? Yes. Should you cry for old iccup maps? No.
Metalopolis considered by many to be the most balanced map, is extremely similar to an old WCG map called Gaia.
|
On October 07 2010 12:17 JustPlay wrote:
As a zerg player I'm really sad to see Kulas go. It was the only map I was confident against both P and T on. Being able to expand to the gold was a very strong option, the distances were pretty large, and it was easy to defend 3rd/4th expansions. Cliff on the natural was pretty dumb, but outside of that expected abuse it's better than most of the map pool.
It would have been nice if these maps were removed instead:
Desert Oasis (even worse vs T with the rocks, better vs 4 gate with the rocks)
Steppes of War (horrid)
Blistering Sands (bad)
Delta Quadrant (void cheese, anti-zerg expansion)
Edit: I find it odd that they added two terrible maps instead of something like Crossfire or another 4 player map.
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).
|
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.
|
Desert Oasis = BULLSHIT MAP.
Sorry, but the only reason anyone says they like that map is cause Day[9] said he did!
|
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.
|
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
|
i... i don't even
blizzard fails me again
|
What the fuck, more backdoor maps?
|
On October 07 2010 12:20 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Jungle Basin is Void ray/cheese heaven, thats it.
|
On October 07 2010 12:24 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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?
|
If I'm getting this right... shakuras plateau is now a 1v1 map? if so... LOL @ vertical positions...
|
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.
|
i cannot even start to explain how upset i am about this. Zerg already is having a rough time as it is.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
damn you, Blizzard!
putting Strategy in my strategy game....silly, Blizzard you're not Xzibit
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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".
|
I'm pretty sure Shakuras Plateau has been on the ladder for 2v2 at least; I remember playing it with my friend.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
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 +
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.
??? 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 +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 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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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... ????
|
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?
|
jesus this is ridiculous...
hopefully they take them out of the ladder ASAP.
|
Anythings better than xelnaga and delta 8D
|
On October 07 2010 12:50 vica wrote:Show nested quote +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.
all you said was the difference between workers "getting to minerals" and "getting BACK to minerals"
then said something ambiguous and hit post
|
If they are gonna keep releasing these poop maps then I demand more vetoes
I loved oasis man
|
Ladder map pool should just be metalopolis 8 times with different terrains!!!
|
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.
|
@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
|
More destructible rocks and Xel Naga watch towers, does blizzard really think these "strategic addons are ingenious?
|
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!
|
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
|
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
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.
|
They gotta add the Iccup maps.
|
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.
|
lolol peopel don't like these maps.
question is, are they less terrible than kulas/DO?
|
They brought Shakuras back? They took that terrible map out in the early days of beta. What the hell is the logic behind bringing it back.
|
On October 07 2010 13:01 DreamSailor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
lol colossus dont do nearly as much damage to buildings and have 4 less rang when upgraded. and cant be reparied.
its not even close to the same comparison.
|
you can preemptively put 3-4 lings attacking the rocks like a minute before you plan to take a third and it works fine. 3-4 lings will not be missed from the majority of zerg mid-games
|
On October 07 2010 12:57 Drowsy wrote:
Ladder map pool should just be metalopolis 8 times with different terrains!!!
I agree! :D
|
On October 07 2010 12:55 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:50 vica wrote: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. all you said was the difference between workers "getting to minerals" and "getting BACK to minerals" then said something ambiguous and hit post
Yes, because the rate they gather at is important. If I said that, I meant returning the minerals. On 1 base, 30 workers in Brood War mine slower than 20 workers, because the pathing crashes them into each other on the way back. Similarly, 100 workers in Brood War will mine slower than 20 workers, because again, they crash into each other. In Starcraft 2, they never crash, so your income always increases to a certain point with larger numbers of workers. It was the reason why you said you kept making workers, which goes beyond the worker harvest rate.
But yes, we have drifted terribly off topic.
I dislike how Blizzard is making small maps to promote aggression and fast paced play to please the casuals.
On October 07 2010 13:04 Fisher wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:57 Drowsy wrote:
Ladder map pool should just be metalopolis 8 times with different terrains!!! I agree! :D
Metalopolis gets annoying when Colossi walk up and down your cliff on close air positions. But the game would be so boring if we only have one kind of map. That's why I enjoyed Desert Oasis, but this is ridiculous.
|
Is there something special about the number 9? I don't really understand why to add maps to the pool they have to take out the same number of maps.
|
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
|
On October 07 2010 13:01 MangoTango wrote:
lolol peopel don't like these maps.
question is, are they less terrible than kulas/DO? I don't know considering Steppes, Blistering Sands, and Delta Quadrant are all worse than Kulas.
|
Artosis
United States2140 Posts
so far i quite like the maps.
but like everyone else, i haven't played them enough to know for sure.
|
holy shit it's that old 2v2 beta ladder map. It was also used in FFA I think, anyways, probably one of the most ridiculous ladder maps ever brought to the pool. I can see fast voidray + gate pushes in aerial close position with charging on the rocks. Oh boy...
|
The trouble I have with these maps is they seem far too similar to the other maps in the pool. Say what you will about the imbalances of Kulas Ravine, but at least it was different. It demanded a different play style than the other maps, and that's why I liked it. (Even though I never did figure out how to consistently win on it as a Zerg player).
Desert Oasis was my favorite map in the pool, though. It inspired unique games and seemed relatively balanced (that is to say, it seemed fine for Zerg).
|
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
After the changes to desert oasis it was shaping up to become a good map, only thing there are some issues with siegetanks behind those new destructible rocks that can shoot into your base and a new cannon rush involving placing your pylon down there to get a power grid that goes into the zergs base.
AND NO there wont be creep to save you against that kind of rush, you gotta scout it and make a crawler as you see the probe go down to make his pylon but other than that it was shaping up to become a better map.
and then they removed one of the few maps you could play macro wars on replacing it with RETARDED maps that by the looks of it zergs will hate even more,.
|
On October 07 2010 13:12 Artosis wrote:
so far i quite like the maps.
but like everyone else, i haven't played them enough to know for sure.
Wait... what?
Mind = blown.
Artosis you like Shakuras? Against Terran? In Vertical positions? REally? :O
I'm so confused!
They can shell your nat from their own nat for goodness sake
|
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
Zerg are most adversely effected by bad map design, which is why there is so much QQ in here.
|
I have a great idea. Let's turn this thread into a "discuss strategies on those maps" thread.
I'll go first.
Jugle Basin: decent spawn distances, so I 15 pool, 14 gas, 15 hatch.
(obviously the rest of the decisions depend on what the Terran is doing)
But, for strategy's sake, just know that I am using lings and blings to hold off for mutas. At this point, I start destroying the rocks by my nat as my first mutas pop.
I keep making mutas to keep the terran in his base as I take my 3rd and power drones.
As I feel the mutas becoming ineffective (as the terran gets multiple thors, marines, and turrets). I make a small arch of spine crawlers (maybe 2-4) at my third (taking advantage of the line of sight blocker).
Power units (lings, blings, mutas, with infestors already done or on the way -- depending on how long the muta harass delayed the terran push)
If I can stop his push, I take a 4th and tech to ultra.
Ok, so I know this is 100% theory-crafting and I didn't put a ton of thought into this, but I see this as a reasonable game on this map. Please feel free to intelligently disagree with me and come up with strategies that tear my idea apart!
|
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
My vetos don't include Kulas. It is actually less painful than Steppes, BS and DQ. At least on Kulas you have half a chance at getting an expand up.
As I recall Cool vetoed Steppes in the finals, not Kulas.
DO with the rocks was actually not a bad map I don't think. On the other hand removing a back door like DO to add 2 more maps with back doors and shorter rush distances seems silly.
We'll see how it plays out, for now I think I still need my vetoes on the three stated above so I guess I'll be playing these maps.
|
On October 07 2010 13:20 Beef Noodles wrote:
I have a great idea. Let's turn this thread into a "discuss strategies on those maps" thread.
I'll go first.
Jugle Basin: decent spawn distances, so I 15 pool, 14 gas, 15 hatch.
(obviously the rest of the decisions depend on what the Terran is doing)
But, for strategy's sake, just know that I am using lings and blings to hold off for mutas. At this point, I start destroying the rocks by my nat as my first mutas pop.
I keep making mutas to keep the terran in his base as I take my 3rd and power drones.
As I feel the mutas becoming ineffective (as the terran gets multiple thors, marines, and turrets). I make a small arch of spine crawlers (maybe 2-4) at my third (taking advantage of the line of sight blocker).
Power units (lings, blings, mutas, with infestors already done or on the way -- depending on how long the muta harass delayed the terran push)
If I can stop his push, I take a 4th and tech to ultra.
Ok, so I know this is 100% theory-crafting and I didn't put a ton of thought into this, but I see this as a reasonable game on this map. Please feel free to intelligently disagree with me and come up with strategies that tear my idea apart!
I don't see a single valid reason not to 14 hatch on that map.
|
Artosis
United States2140 Posts
On October 07 2010 13:18 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:12 Artosis wrote:
so far i quite like the maps.
but like everyone else, i haven't played them enough to know for sure. Wait... what? Mind = blown. Artosis you like Shakuras? Against Terran? In Vertical positions? REally? :O I'm so confused! They can shell your nat from their own nat for goodness sake
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!
|
Well then even better
|
why does every map have a small choke/ramp? this is automatically unbalanced towards zerg
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?
|
On October 07 2010 13:21 Artosis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:18 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Artosis wrote:
so far i quite like the maps.
but like everyone else, i haven't played them enough to know for sure. Wait... what? Mind = blown. Artosis you like Shakuras? Against Terran? In Vertical positions? REally? :O I'm so confused! They can shell your nat from their own nat for goodness sake 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?
|
On October 07 2010 13:21 Artosis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:18 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Artosis wrote:
so far i quite like the maps.
but like everyone else, i haven't played them enough to know for sure. Wait... what? Mind = blown. Artosis you like Shakuras? Against Terran? In Vertical positions? REally? :O I'm so confused! They can shell your nat from their own nat for goodness sake 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.
|
Protoss FE vs Terran should be pretty safe on that map thanks to the choke.
|
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.
|
im current logged on SEA and i also have the two new maps
|
With no one pointing out flaws, my strat must be perfect!
Looks like I have Jungle down
|
I'm just glad they got rid of Kulas...*shudder*
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(
|
I've just played around 6 games on this Shakuras and never spawned crossed vertically. From what I read here, Artosis and others also never spawned in those positions.
Has anyone ever had those positions?
|
On October 07 2010 13:21 Artosis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:18 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Artosis wrote:
so far i quite like the maps.
but like everyone else, i haven't played them enough to know for sure. Wait... what? Mind = blown. Artosis you like Shakuras? Against Terran? In Vertical positions? REally? :O I'm so confused! They can shell your nat from their own nat for goodness sake 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.
|
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
|
Just tested shakuras and its 30 secs base distance from a top base to a bottom base(across from each other) Its bigger than you think guys. However the destruble rock back door shit is stupid.
|
On October 07 2010 13:26 Sixes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:21 Artosis wrote:On October 07 2010 13:18 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Artosis wrote:
so far i quite like the maps.
but like everyone else, i haven't played them enough to know for sure. Wait... what? Mind = blown. Artosis you like Shakuras? Against Terran? In Vertical positions? REally? :O I'm so confused! They can shell your nat from their own nat for goodness sake 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?
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
OP, you're missing "I hate it" in the poll options. Why in God's name would they change the map pool without any warnings and especially in the middle of a ladder season? Couldn't they just wait until a ladder reset? And what's with the God awful maps, they could have at least chucked in some iccup maps.
|
On October 07 2010 13:49 Bloodba7h wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If this is true, then i can see alot of Incineration Zone tactics being used, with fast backdoor rushes.
|
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.
|
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?
|
I haven't gone deep into those 2 new maps yet , but what could be worse than Kulas and Desert.
And thank god those are gone.
|
On October 07 2010 13:24 spacetrig wrote:
why does every map have a small choke/ramp? this is automatically unbalanced towards zerg
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?
hah, you think a map without a choke will be balanced?
|
Wow Diamond, you are in a bad mood. Lot of spelling errors in that thread
Made my reply, and liked it. <3
|
On October 07 2010 13:24 spacetrig wrote:
why does every map have a small choke/ramp? this is automatically unbalanced towards zerg
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?
lol wut? chokes are about restricting space not enabling walls
|
No more Kulas. No more DO.
YAY.
|
why is my ladder list still old... I still see the same map list I've always seen. Anyone else? O_o
restarted client and everything, still same old same old. I'm on North America server btw.
|
On October 07 2010 14:09 LuckyFool wrote:
why is my ladder list still old... I still see the same map list I've always seen. Anyone else? O_o
restarted client and everything, still same old same old. I'm on North America server btw.
its only SEA and i think EU, def SEA
|
Maps are really good for zerg. Easier to fend off early hellion harass and 4 gate push. Destructible rocks are also great to flank or counter attacking.
|
On October 07 2010 14:05 Ketara wrote:Wow Diamond, you are in a bad mood. Lot of spelling errors in that thread Made my reply, and liked it. <3
Nah I normally type like that. However finding those errors are much easier on TL. Will go hunt them out now.
|
Awww, I actually liked desert oasis, it was my favorite map.
Here comes another long trend of balancing these two new maps.
I don't see anything special about these two new maps but I like how they added new maps so we weren't stuck on the same one. .
|
Nice finally some new maps! I hope they add new ones every month or so.
|
Liking changes to the map pool. Jungle Basin's natural is awesome, lategame there could be problems though since your third has 2 entrances, forcing you to spread your defenses extremely thin.
|
On October 07 2010 14:09 LuckyFool wrote:
why is my ladder list still old... I still see the same map list I've always seen. Anyone else? O_o
restarted client and everything, still same old same old. I'm on North America server btw.
Works in EU fine right now.
Also, If I could post on NA forums I'd show my support diamond, very nice post, respectful as well, if we can get a lot of TL people to support the thread on the forum, maybe non TLers will come as well to support it and it will definitely get to blizzard's list of things to think about.
|
nooooooo: DO was my new fav. Map since the changes!
I rly hope the new Maps are any good...
|
On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone?
|
On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote: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? Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone?
I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement?
For me it is a bit to early to start raging, as I didn't play much on those maps yet. Have to get some buddies to power through the maps for a couple of hours first.^^
|
He's not making it up, it was in one of the Q&A's they did during beta.
|
jungle basin is fine, shakuras sucks...
i dont understand where the problem is, to work with the iccup mapper... their maps are so much better.....
|
On October 07 2010 14:36 Solai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote: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? Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone? I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement? For me it is a bit to early to start raging, as I didn't play much on those maps yet. Have to get some buddies to power through the maps for a couple of hours first.^^
It was in a dustin browder interview.
|
On October 07 2010 14:36 Solai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote: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? Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone? I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement? For me it is a bit to early to start raging, as I didn't play much on those maps yet. Have to get some buddies to power through the maps for a couple of hours first.^^
He's not making it up... Blizzard really did say that sadly
|
On October 07 2010 13:24 spacetrig wrote:
why does every map have a small choke/ramp? this is automatically unbalanced towards zerg
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?
Sorry wait what? If a terran can't wall how the hell do I stop proxy 2 gates or 6 pools?
|
On October 07 2010 14:47 wolfe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:24 spacetrig wrote:
why does every map have a small choke/ramp? this is automatically unbalanced towards zerg
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? Sorry wait what? If a terran can't wall how the hell do I stop proxy 2 gates or 6 pools?
The same way protoss and zerg stop them? Make a bunker, make marines, use workers... you know, defend.
|
On October 07 2010 14:36 Solai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:
Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone? I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement?
It's confirmed. "too complicated" is the correct quote.
|
Well thats certainly great to hear, i dont even care what maps tehy added/deleted the fact that they did it shows that they learned from tehir WC3 mistakes at least.
|
finally some new ladder maps. they are not the best possible choice, but we are progressing here!
I don't get how can some people be against those new maps, just compare to the old ones and they are the same shit or even better.
|
The new maps dont look too great imo but without having them played I dont want to talk too much about them.
Kulas was always a bad map but DO was great after the rocks had been implemented! My games on DO remembered me a bit of the BW style because the map was big and all games came down to hugh macro battles. Hope they brinng it back and rather delete steps of war?!
|
On October 07 2010 14:40 AssuredVacancy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:36 Solai wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote: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? Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone? I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement? For me it is a bit to early to start raging, as I didn't play much on those maps yet. Have to get some buddies to power through the maps for a couple of hours first.^^ It was in a dustin browder interview.
Does anyone have a link or know how i could find this interview? I'd like to read/hear it.
|
Those maps looks decent. Good to hear that blizzard actually cares about maps.
|
They was already in map pool just not in the ladder map pool
|
sweet, now i have new maps to veto!
|
Haven't tried them yet so I won't vote but from what I can remember from beta Shakuras was awful ^^ Not sure about Jungle Basin but it seems little hard to get a macro game out of it.
Too bad Iccup.Diamond's bnet post is on US side ^^
I don't know if iccup maps are the way to go. It's not like they have been tested a lot, sc2 isn't bw :o
But would be nice to figure that out.
I remember blizzard saying once that they want to add some user created melee maps on ladder if they are good enough. I just wish they would reach out somehow so we can tell them what maps we want.
From what I understand now it's quit diffucult to get in touch of blizzards e-sports team so this matter isn't really going anywhere.
|
On October 07 2010 14:52 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:47 wolfe wrote:On October 07 2010 13:24 spacetrig wrote:
why does every map have a small choke/ramp? this is automatically unbalanced towards zerg
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? Sorry wait what? If a terran can't wall how the hell do I stop proxy 2 gates or 6 pools? The same way protoss and zerg stop them? Make a bunker, make marines, use workers... you know, defend.
How am I supposed to get marines out or a bunker down when my rax isn't finished yet? Mass walling costs a lot of money and takes considerable time even with 2 depots, 1 rax, and 1 bunker. I don't think making 9 rax every time is going to help my econ out neither is scouting before depot.
Basically if there ever is a map with a wide ramp and a reasonable rush distance 6 pools will be a lot more common.
|
well i certainly rather have those maps then desert oasis/kulas....
|
Day[9] reviewed both in an after-daily thing. They're pretty cool, but sure, they ain't no Metalopolis.
|
On October 07 2010 14:52 TheRabidDeer wrote:
The same way protoss and zerg stop them? Make a bunker, make marines, use workers... you know, defend.
Toss and terran wall off against Z for a reason. Lings are too fast for rines and zealots to handle if they can run around as they please.
The idea of stopping 6 pools with bunkers is pretty hilarious though. Kudos.
Terran is DESIGNED to wall off against MELEE units. These walloffs put critical structures in vulnerable positions.
Seriously, this is Starcraft, not Age of Empires.
|
On October 07 2010 15:25 silencesc wrote:
Day[9] reviewed both in an after-daily thing. They're pretty cool, but sure, they ain't no Metalopolis.
Is there some place I can watch it. I'm just curious what he has to say
|
On October 07 2010 15:00 Obsolescence wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:40 AssuredVacancy wrote:On October 07 2010 14:36 Solai wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote: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? Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone? I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement? For me it is a bit to early to start raging, as I didn't play much on those maps yet. Have to get some buddies to power through the maps for a couple of hours first.^^ It was in a dustin browder interview. Does anyone have a link or know how i could find this interview? I'd like to read/hear it.
It was from a live chat session with several Blizzard employees, most notably Dustin Browder. You can find the bulleted summary points here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653
In particular, this is the relevant bit:
-- Blizzard not planning on adding Korean BW professional style maps to map pool. Ladder maps need to be accessible to all levels of players and not be too technical. They're happy with tournaments using their own sophisticated maps.
|
Never played Jungle Basin so far (looks damn small to me though), but I always hoped for Shakuras Plateu to come back because I liked that map with some space in the middle area. I think it a really cool map to play.
Edit: oh and good to see that there is some movement in the mappool from blizzard ;-)
|
On October 07 2010 14:47 wolfe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:24 spacetrig wrote:
why does every map have a small choke/ramp? this is automatically unbalanced towards zerg
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? Sorry wait what? If a terran can't wall how the hell do I stop proxy 2 gates or 6 pools?
oh damn that is one of the best posts ive seen in a while haha
These two maps look preeeetty bad, theyre going the completely wrong way, we want larger, macro maps. No small gimmicky 1 or 2 base all in maps... sigh.
|
On October 07 2010 15:33 QuothTheRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:00 Obsolescence wrote:On October 07 2010 14:40 AssuredVacancy wrote:On October 07 2010 14:36 Solai wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote: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? Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone? I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement? For me it is a bit to early to start raging, as I didn't play much on those maps yet. Have to get some buddies to power through the maps for a couple of hours first.^^ It was in a dustin browder interview. Does anyone have a link or know how i could find this interview? I'd like to read/hear it. It was from a live chat session with several Blizzard employees, most notably Dustin Browder. You can find the bulleted summary points here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653In particular, this is the relevant bit: Show nested quote +-- Blizzard not planning on adding Korean BW professional style maps to map pool. Ladder maps need to be accessible to all levels of players and not be too technical. They're happy with tournaments using their own sophisticated maps.
godddddddddddddaaaaaammmiiittt that makes me angry every time I read it T____T I had forgotten the exact wording.
how complex is Kulas Ravine compared to really really really technical shit like Fighting Spirit?
|
On October 07 2010 15:33 QuothTheRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:00 Obsolescence wrote:On October 07 2010 14:40 AssuredVacancy wrote:On October 07 2010 14:36 Solai wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote: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? Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone? I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement? For me it is a bit to early to start raging, as I didn't play much on those maps yet. Have to get some buddies to power through the maps for a couple of hours first.^^ It was in a dustin browder interview. Does anyone have a link or know how i could find this interview? I'd like to read/hear it. It was from a live chat session with several Blizzard employees, most notably Dustin Browder. You can find the bulleted summary points here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653In particular, this is the relevant bit: Show nested quote +-- Blizzard not planning on adding Korean BW professional style maps to map pool. Ladder maps need to be accessible to all levels of players and not be too technical. They're happy with tournaments using their own sophisticated maps.
Thanks a lot! I stand corrected!
|
On October 07 2010 15:28 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:52 TheRabidDeer wrote:
The same way protoss and zerg stop them? Make a bunker, make marines, use workers... you know, defend. Toss and terran wall off against Z for a reason. Lings are too fast for rines and zealots to handle if they can run around as they please. The idea of stopping 6 pools with bunkers is pretty hilarious though. Kudos. Terran is DESIGNED to wall off against MELEE units. These walloffs put critical structures in vulnerable positions. Seriously, this is Starcraft, not Age of Empires.
Terran is not DESIGNED to wall off against melee units. You do realize that in BW the "wall" wasnt even discovered for a long time, right? Terran just made early bunkers and marines against rushes. You might have to 9 rax against a 6 pool... god forbid you do something that is not 12 rax 13 refinery.
EDIT: Are all terrans this spoiled with walls? You really think you cant survive without one? Disappointing to say the least...
|
On October 07 2010 15:28 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:52 TheRabidDeer wrote:
The same way protoss and zerg stop them? Make a bunker, make marines, use workers... you know, defend. Toss and terran wall off against Z for a reason. Lings are too fast for rines and zealots to handle if they can run around as they please. The idea of stopping 6 pools with bunkers is pretty hilarious though. Kudos. Terran is DESIGNED to wall off against MELEE units. These walloffs put critical structures in vulnerable positions. Seriously, this is Starcraft, not Age of Empires.
and as such the skill req. is higher in this game
what do you do when 2gate happens in yo main??? @_@ UNSTOPPABLE!!!
you know if you build things really tight to your command center it allows you to beat rushes by placing a bunker in your mineral lines when you spot the cheese.
|
On October 07 2010 15:33 QuothTheRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:00 Obsolescence wrote:On October 07 2010 14:40 AssuredVacancy wrote:On October 07 2010 14:36 Solai wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote: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? Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone? I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement? For me it is a bit to early to start raging, as I didn't play much on those maps yet. Have to get some buddies to power through the maps for a couple of hours first.^^ It was in a dustin browder interview. Does anyone have a link or know how i could find this interview? I'd like to read/hear it. It was from a live chat session with several Blizzard employees, most notably Dustin Browder. You can find the bulleted summary points here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653In particular, this is the relevant bit: Show nested quote +-- Blizzard not planning on adding Korean BW professional style maps to map pool. Ladder maps need to be accessible to all levels of players and not be too technical. They're happy with tournaments using their own sophisticated maps.
How the **** is Python complicated?
|
On October 07 2010 15:41 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:33 QuothTheRaven wrote:On October 07 2010 15:00 Obsolescence wrote:On October 07 2010 14:40 AssuredVacancy wrote:On October 07 2010 14:36 Solai wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote: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? Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone? I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement? For me it is a bit to early to start raging, as I didn't play much on those maps yet. Have to get some buddies to power through the maps for a couple of hours first.^^ It was in a dustin browder interview. Does anyone have a link or know how i could find this interview? I'd like to read/hear it. It was from a live chat session with several Blizzard employees, most notably Dustin Browder. You can find the bulleted summary points here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653In particular, this is the relevant bit: -- Blizzard not planning on adding Korean BW professional style maps to map pool. Ladder maps need to be accessible to all levels of players and not be too technical. They're happy with tournaments using their own sophisticated maps. How the **** is Python complicated?
its got
@_________________@
OPEN TERRAAAAAAAAAAIN!!!!! everyone run we have to worry about unit positioning!
|
On October 07 2010 15:41 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:33 QuothTheRaven wrote:On October 07 2010 15:00 Obsolescence wrote:On October 07 2010 14:40 AssuredVacancy wrote:On October 07 2010 14:36 Solai wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 On_Slaught wrote:On October 07 2010 14:03 Dox wrote: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? Blizzard EXPLICITLY saying that big maps are too hard for new players and that they think faster paced games on small maps is better for everyone? I am pretty sure you are making things just up now Never read any blue post or statement where this is confirmed. But if it is the case, could you link us to the statement? For me it is a bit to early to start raging, as I didn't play much on those maps yet. Have to get some buddies to power through the maps for a couple of hours first.^^ It was in a dustin browder interview. Does anyone have a link or know how i could find this interview? I'd like to read/hear it. It was from a live chat session with several Blizzard employees, most notably Dustin Browder. You can find the bulleted summary points here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653In particular, this is the relevant bit: -- Blizzard not planning on adding Korean BW professional style maps to map pool. Ladder maps need to be accessible to all levels of players and not be too technical. They're happy with tournaments using their own sophisticated maps. How the **** is Python complicated?
LMAO!!!!!! Epic post I'm lol'ing so hard right now.
|
Are these maps on US server yet? I don't have them on my ladder list.
|
On October 07 2010 15:52 Disastorm wrote:
Are these maps on US server yet? I don't have them on my ladder list.
nope
|
How the **** is Python complicated?
Exactly, the only different about Korean promaps are there size and generally gravitate the player towards macro style play.
That can only be interpreted as blizzard wants ladder maps to gravitate towards 1base all ins to cater towards casual and uncompetitive players, transitioning, at most, to two base play.
|
On October 07 2010 16:00 Half wrote:Exactly, the only thing complicated about Korean promaps are there size and generally gravitate the player towards macro style play. .
I don't think it lends it towards macro play so much as it makes macro a part of the game. i'm not calling you out i've just been thinking about this a lot.
seems like with smaller maps macro doesn't really exist or matter as much. obviously i'm splitting hairs a little bit here, you clearly have to be able to macro. but it doesnt seem like macro can be something that gets you back in the game when you're behind, you just have to hope your opponent fucks up his micro, it doesn't feel like you have any power in the game
idunno
|
omg the responses on blizz forums to diamond's post honestly make me want to punch kittens.
thank fuck we have TL.
|
Some of the Blizzard posters are really really idiotic.
Any reply is good though, the more pages we can get it to the more likely Blizz will want to respond to it in the morning.
Just don't let them derail the thing.
|
On October 07 2010 16:03 Subversion wrote:
omg the responses on blizz forums to diamond's post honestly make me want to punch kittens.
thank fuck we have TL.
Actually I was enjoying MOST of the replies (as they are mostly in support). For a moment I was literally thinking "Wow this is surprising. Maybe the b.net forums aren't that bad anymore."
Then I accidentally clicked this topic.
|
Yet, tournaments are still mostly run with the maps played on ladder.
Will the situation ever change really? ;/
Is the american community simply going to branch out and start using its own custom set of maps as standard and give up on the korean scene or are we all at Blizzard's mercy...
|
They removed kulas ravine? Just because morons kept whining about it, what a load of bs.
|
We've been through the tournament discussion like six times on here before.
Tournaments want to use maps pros are used to, and games that fans will watch.
For both pros and fans, these maps are the existing ladder maps.
In order to get tournaments to start seriously using the maps (more than just 1 here 1 there) we have to approach it from the bottom up.
Which is why liking and bumping Diamonds thread is oh so important right now.
Also: ROFL
|
On October 07 2010 16:11 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 16:03 Subversion wrote:
omg the responses on blizz forums to diamond's post honestly make me want to punch kittens.
thank fuck we have TL. Actually I was enjoying MOST of the replies (as they are mostly in support). For a moment I was literally thinking "Wow this is surprising. Maybe the b.net forums aren't that bad anymore." Then I accidentally clicked this topic.
LOL
That guy will probably think he's pro if he ever reaches Diamond ladder ROFL.
Who the hell loses to a probe rush >.> especially as zerg...
|
Kulas was bullshit anyways, good.
Jungle Basin looks shit, no offence, but I personally wanted bigger maps, not small shitty maps all over again.
|
On October 07 2010 16:07 Ketara wrote:
Some of the Blizzard posters are really really idiotic.
Any reply is good though, the more pages we can get it to the more likely Blizz will want to respond to it in the morning.
Just don't let them derail the thing.
I was actually considering staying up all night to keep it on topic, but the whole 11 hours of sleep I have had in the last three days (yes, running iCCup TV is that much work) says I need to go to bed. If any savvy TL'ers can keep that thread on topic all night I will offer a firm handshake to them. No cost to you!
|
I'll stay up a bit. Not the whole night though.
I don't think you need to worry. Most of the replies are supportive. Probably because the kiddies are asleep right now.
|
On October 07 2010 16:11 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 16:03 Subversion wrote:
omg the responses on blizz forums to diamond's post honestly make me want to punch kittens.
thank fuck we have TL. Actually I was enjoying MOST of the replies (as they are mostly in support). For a moment I was literally thinking "Wow this is surprising. Maybe the b.net forums aren't that bad anymore." Then I accidentally clicked this topic.
Yeah they started off well (other TLers I think lending their support) then some people started posting some really, really stupid shit like they know anything about anything ("most" of ICCUP maps are BW ports... fuck me...) and it just makes me rage. It's like this perfect storm of ignorance and arrogance.
Would love to keep the topic open for you all night (I live in Korea, its 4pm here right now lol) but I don't have an NA account so it's not letting me post on there
|
On October 07 2010 15:37 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:28 kojinshugi wrote:On October 07 2010 14:52 TheRabidDeer wrote:
The same way protoss and zerg stop them? Make a bunker, make marines, use workers... you know, defend. Toss and terran wall off against Z for a reason. Lings are too fast for rines and zealots to handle if they can run around as they please. The idea of stopping 6 pools with bunkers is pretty hilarious though. Kudos. Terran is DESIGNED to wall off against MELEE units. These walloffs put critical structures in vulnerable positions. Seriously, this is Starcraft, not Age of Empires. Terran is not DESIGNED to wall off against melee units. You do realize that in BW the "wall" wasnt even discovered for a long time, right? Terran just made early bunkers and marines against rushes. You might have to 9 rax against a 6 pool... god forbid you do something that is not 12 rax 13 refinery. EDIT: Are all terrans this spoiled with walls? You really think you cant survive without one? Disappointing to say the least...
This just in, SC2 isn't Brood War.
|
On October 07 2010 16:34 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 16:11 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 16:03 Subversion wrote:
omg the responses on blizz forums to diamond's post honestly make me want to punch kittens.
thank fuck we have TL. Actually I was enjoying MOST of the replies (as they are mostly in support). For a moment I was literally thinking "Wow this is surprising. Maybe the b.net forums aren't that bad anymore." Then I accidentally clicked this topic. Yeah they started off well (other TLers I think lending their support) then some people started posting some really, really stupid shit like they know anything about anything ("most" of ICCUP maps are BW ports... fuck me...) and it just makes me rage. It's like this perfect storm of ignorance and arrogance. Would love to keep the topic open for you all night (I live in Korea, its 4pm here right now lol) but I don't have an NA account so it's not letting me post on there
Yeah cant argue with the stats. 25% remakes is nothing big. I'm actually quite pleased with that number.
Don't worry, just cross your fingers and when I wake up it'll the the FIRST TIME EVER I check the b.net forums before TL (which is the first website I always check )!
On October 07 2010 16:36 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:37 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 07 2010 15:28 kojinshugi wrote:On October 07 2010 14:52 TheRabidDeer wrote:
The same way protoss and zerg stop them? Make a bunker, make marines, use workers... you know, defend. Toss and terran wall off against Z for a reason. Lings are too fast for rines and zealots to handle if they can run around as they please. The idea of stopping 6 pools with bunkers is pretty hilarious though. Kudos. Terran is DESIGNED to wall off against MELEE units. These walloffs put critical structures in vulnerable positions. Seriously, this is Starcraft, not Age of Empires. Terran is not DESIGNED to wall off against melee units. You do realize that in BW the "wall" wasnt even discovered for a long time, right? Terran just made early bunkers and marines against rushes. You might have to 9 rax against a 6 pool... god forbid you do something that is not 12 rax 13 refinery. EDIT: Are all terrans this spoiled with walls? You really think you cant survive without one? Disappointing to say the least... This just in, SC2 isn't Brood War.
This just in, the game developers designed the Terran race with walling in mind.
Edit: By the way, if anyone can find me that post of Baishok saying the current map pool is not a fair playing field, I have a feeling I will need that soon !
|
On October 07 2010 15:39 mOnion wrote:
and as such the skill req. is higher in this game
what do you do when 2gate happens in yo main??? @_@ UNSTOPPABLE!!!
It doesn't because I scout my main.
you know if you build things really tight to your command center it allows you to beat rushes by placing a bunker in your mineral lines when you spot the cheese.
I don't wall against toss if he's not going proxy 2 gate.
It's impossible to beat a 6 pool without walling. You'll have one marine out at best unless you go some retarded super early rax build.
Seriously, people complaining that zerg can't wall and terran and toss can should quit playing. It's absolutely pants-on-head retarded.
|
On October 07 2010 16:39 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:39 mOnion wrote:
and as such the skill req. is higher in this game
what do you do when 2gate happens in yo main??? @_@ UNSTOPPABLE!!! It doesn't because I scout my main. Show nested quote +you know if you build things really tight to your command center it allows you to beat rushes by placing a bunker in your mineral lines when you spot the cheese. I don't wall against toss if he's not going proxy 2 gate. It's impossible to beat a 6 pool without walling. You'll have one marine out at best unless you go some retarded super early rax build. Seriously, people complaining that zerg can't wall and terran and toss can should quit playing. It's absolutely pants-on-head retarded.
you're terrible. I see non walling terrans beat 6 pool all the time and I beat 6pool all the time as toss without walling.
i also 2gate in main's of T's all the time and they don't scout me till they scout my main and they can still stop it by doing what i suggested
|
thnx for removing kulas and desert i hated those maps!
|
Those maps may be fun, guess we will gonna find out. It is not true all blizz maps are horrible, maps like metalopolis or xelnaga caverns are tbh very good.
And seriously iCCup.people we know you want ppl to play on your maps but mass flaming blizzard maps is just low.
|
On October 07 2010 16:39 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:39 mOnion wrote:
and as such the skill req. is higher in this game
what do you do when 2gate happens in yo main??? @_@ UNSTOPPABLE!!! It doesn't because I scout my main. Show nested quote +you know if you build things really tight to your command center it allows you to beat rushes by placing a bunker in your mineral lines when you spot the cheese. I don't wall against toss if he's not going proxy 2 gate. It's impossible to beat a 6 pool without walling. You'll have one marine out at best unless you go some retarded super early rax build. Seriously, people complaining that zerg can't wall and terran and toss can should quit playing. It's absolutely pants-on-head retarded.
Are you serious or is my sarcasm radar telling me you're just being sarcastic?
If 6pooling was unbeatable without walling off why do most pro gamers not wall off all the time against zerg? It's because they build their buildings tight to their mineral lines thus making an effective wall-off unlike wall-off at ramp. This wall-off will have more advantages than walling off at ramp.
And 6 lings vs your 12-14 probes = easy win for probes and with micro no losses too.
This goes the same as with Terran. Terran probably has it even easier with bunkers.
Edit:
+ Show Spoiler + This sig tells me why you're having a lot of troubles with 6pool cheese. You probably haven't experienced how to stop 6pool and other cheeses effectively yet (or your macro isn't decent enough).
|
On October 07 2010 16:39 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:39 mOnion wrote:
and as such the skill req. is higher in this game
what do you do when 2gate happens in yo main??? @_@ UNSTOPPABLE!!! It doesn't because I scout my main. Show nested quote +you know if you build things really tight to your command center it allows you to beat rushes by placing a bunker in your mineral lines when you spot the cheese. I don't wall against toss if he's not going proxy 2 gate. It's impossible to beat a 6 pool without walling. You'll have one marine out at best unless you go some retarded super early rax build. Seriously, people complaining that zerg can't wall and terran and toss can should quit playing. It's absolutely pants-on-head retarded.
Actually, walling can be a disadvantage vs a 6pool, since a 6pool comes so fast that you (most likely) won't have completed your wall in time. This then leaves your barracks exposed and vulnerable, so that when your marine finishes there won't be nearby SCVs to support him. Moreover, you have about 5 less seconds to finish the marine, since the barracks is closer to your opponent than it would have been if you had placed it near your CC.
One situation where we can see this pretty clearly is the ZvP between Cool and oGsInCa, game 1 on Kulas Ravine. Cool opts for a 6pool, and even though they were crossmap the zerglings arrived slightly before the first zealot was finished. Because InCa was doing a forward walloff at his choke, there were no probes nearby to defend and his pylon was left vulnerable. Cool was able to snipe the pylon and barely go on to win the game, after a whole lot of careful zergling micro to avoid dying to the probes.
That's a ZvP example, but the ZvT situation is similar. If you are using a tight formation around your command center, you can create some extremely powerful chokes, allowing one marine and some nice SCV micro to handle 6pool fairly easily.
Of course, if Z is going for a later pool and getting speed, you'll want the walloff. We've actually seen quite a few games in the GSL (and I believe some from MorroW as well) where the Terran will build the barracks close to his CC, saving mineral time and reducing vulnerability to 6pool, and then lift and float the barracks to make a later walloff around the time when a speedling allin or a later pool would hit (of course, T only does this when he's planning an opening that doesn't involve building lots of marines, like a hellion opening for example).
|
On October 07 2010 16:52 SnowB wrote:
Those maps may be fun, guess we will gonna find out. It is not true all blizz maps are horrible, maps like metalopolis or xelnaga caverns are tbh very good.
And seriously iCCup.people we know you want ppl to play on your maps but mass flaming blizzard maps is just low.
lol its not flaming, this is a huge issue that has yet to be discussed by blizzard. the OP diamond made is very well thought out and addresses all of the spawn issues with blizzards maps and suggests ideas to reform this
ICCUP is all suits all the time.
|
So right after they updated Desert Oasis to make it an actually decent map, they end up removing it from the ladder pool? Kulas could also be fixed pretty easily, IMO just remove the rocks blocking access to your nat and it'd be a lot more balanced than it currently is.
|
On October 07 2010 16:43 mOnion wrote:
you're terrible. I see non walling terrans beat 6 pool all the time and I beat 6pool all the time as toss without walling.
Where do you even see terrans not wall against Z? Even without cheese it's absolutely necessary to stop scouting, to stop speedling harass and burrowed infestors moseying on in.
Yeah, sure, I can kill the six lings with workers and my first rine but it cripples my economy. The idea of cheese builds is that you can counter them if you scout them without the enemy bringing your economy down to his crippled level.
And every competent toss walls against Z with their first zealot on hold position at their choke.
i also 2gate in main's of T's all the time and they don't scout me till they scout my main and they can still stop it by doing what i suggested
Okay, so you play against retarded people who let probes sneak into their main? Good for you.
|
Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps?
Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity)
|
On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier?
Yes. Tank lines and proper surrounding/flanking becomes possible again, among other things.
And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity)
People like shiny shit, history has proved this time and time again.
|
On October 07 2010 16:59 kojinshugi wrote:
Where do you even see terrans not wall against Z? Even without cheese it's absolutely necessary to stop scouting, to stop speedling harass and burrowed infestors moseying on in.
Cool vs. IntoTheRainbow (aka HopeTorture), game 1 of GSL grand finals.
IntoTheRainbow opts to put his barracks right next to his command center, vs. an opponent who is known for going 6pool (he 6pooled InCa in the Ro8), in the opening set of a match that's worth over $50,000. I'm sure he was confident that he could hold off the 6pool.
Cool vs IntoTheRainbow, game 2 of GSL finals, he also does the same thing: rax next to his CC. Later lifts the rax and builds a factory to make a walloff much later in the game.
|
On October 07 2010 16:36 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Edit: By the way, if anyone can find me that post of Baishok saying the current map pool is not a fair playing field, I have a feeling I will need that soon !
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/628080361?page=2#26
Oh WHOOPS, that's not it. I didn't read it before posting I win.
|
Not that, he followed up a couple days later saying the current map pool "is not a level playing field" or something to that degree.
|
On October 07 2010 16:59 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 16:43 mOnion wrote:
you're terrible. I see non walling terrans beat 6 pool all the time and I beat 6pool all the time as toss without walling. Where do you even see terrans not wall against Z? Even without cheese it's absolutely necessary to stop scouting, to stop speedling harass and burrowed infestors moseying on in. Yeah, sure, I can kill the six lings with workers and my first rine but it cripples my economy. The idea of cheese builds is that you can counter them if you scout them without the enemy bringing your economy down to his crippled level. And every competent toss walls against Z with their first zealot on hold position at their choke. Show nested quote +i also 2gate in main's of T's all the time and they don't scout me till they scout my main and they can still stop it by doing what i suggested Okay, so you play against retarded people who let probes sneak into their main? Good for you.
YUP. good for me.
you're a lost cause.
|
ok, I'm at work eating my breakfast while checking the maps (only 30h-job, I always arrive ahead of time so I can check TL before I start lol)
from the graphics/overview it seems like tanks could be able to shoot from natural to natural on shakuras plateau - plz tell me I'm wrong?
although I have to try the maps first of course, I don't like them from seeing them; it seems like on shakuras when on cross or vertical positions, terran gets an expo for free - they can build the CC in base and fly it horizontally over the rocks to the expo in the top or bottom middle early; going there would mean to circle around the WHOLE map AND killing the rocks; it's an offer to "plz plz raid my main and kill all my stuff NOW"
also dislike the rocks at the back-entrance; blistering has it, it is occasionally fun to play with it, but I seriously don't need blistering vol_02;
furthermore I don't get why blizz insists on implementing the stupid, stupid small plateaus that just favour terran heavily; terran is strong as it is, no need to create maps that help them even more
why not make a map with an easily defendable expo, NO LEDGES in the middle but many important choke-points?
|
On October 07 2010 16:59 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 16:43 mOnion wrote:
you're terrible. I see non walling terrans beat 6 pool all the time and I beat 6pool all the time as toss without walling. Where do you even see terrans not wall against Z? Even without cheese it's absolutely necessary to stop scouting, to stop speedling harass and burrowed infestors moseying on in. Yeah, sure, I can kill the six lings with workers and my first rine but it cripples my economy. The idea of cheese builds is that you can counter them if you scout them without the enemy bringing your economy down to his crippled level. And every competent toss walls against Z with their first zealot on hold position at their choke. Show nested quote +i also 2gate in main's of T's all the time and they don't scout me till they scout my main and they can still stop it by doing what i suggested Okay, so you play against retarded people who let probes sneak into their main? Good for you.
Seriously are you trolling !?!?!?!?
How can you say these things if you're not that experienced.
6pool is not impossible to stop even if you don't wall off.
Just look at the GSL (most notably the grand finale!).
It's more likely that you're at a very early stage of starcraft beginner and does not know how to stop 6pool without walling off.
I'm not saying you shouldn't wall off vs 6pool but only that it is possible to stop a 6pool without a wall off. Please refrain yourself from posting such nonsense about 6pool being unstoppable without wall off.
|
isn't it a bit early for the majority to hit the "DISLIKE" buttom? lets give them some weeks and see how they fairout first -,-'
and yes im aware that they are not new maps, but the majority(including myself) haven't played them yet to judge
(altough im pretty sure ICCUP maps still are far superior)
|
On October 07 2010 17:06 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Not that, he followed up a couple days later saying the current map pool "is not a level playing field" or something to that degree.
Yeah I remember it. Having trouble finding it though. Still looking.
|
On October 07 2010 16:39 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 15:39 mOnion wrote:
and as such the skill req. is higher in this game
what do you do when 2gate happens in yo main??? @_@ UNSTOPPABLE!!! It doesn't because I scout my main. Show nested quote +you know if you build things really tight to your command center it allows you to beat rushes by placing a bunker in your mineral lines when you spot the cheese. I don't wall against toss if he's not going proxy 2 gate. It's impossible to beat a 6 pool without walling. You'll have one marine out at best unless you go some retarded super early rax build. Seriously, people complaining that zerg can't wall and terran and toss can should quit playing. It's absolutely pants-on-head retarded.
If it is impossible to beat a 6 pool without walling why does ZvZ not consist of everybody 6 pooling each other?
|
On October 07 2010 16:53 shannn wrote:
Are you serious or is my sarcasm radar telling me you're just being sarcastic?
If 6pooling was unbeatable without walling off why do most pro gamers not wall off all the time against zerg? It's because they build their buildings tight to their mineral lines thus making an effective wall-off unlike wall-off at ramp. This wall-off will have more advantages than walling off at ramp.
Sorry, I live on planet Earth and not Magical Pixie Land where terrans don't wall off against Z.
And 6 lings vs your 12-14 probes = easy win for probes and with micro no losses too.
I'm not toss, and if you think pulling probes off to have an intense micro battle with lings isn't a loss then you're kind of a moron.
This goes the same as with Terran. Terran probably has it even easier with bunkers.
Okay, so you don't know what you're talking about, you just "probably think it's easier with bunkers".
This sig tells me why you're having a lot of troubles with 6pool cheese. You probably haven't experienced how to stop 6pool and other cheeses effectively yet (or your macro isn't decent enough).
Just putting spoiler tags around it doesn't make you less of a douchebag.
My macro is fine, and I don't lose to cheeses. Because I fucking wall off against zerg, like every other Terran.
Lings arrive at close positions around 2:45. If I start my rax at 12 it'll be done at 3:02, and the rine will be done at 3:27. That's around 40 seconds (game time) of six lings vs 14 SCVs. I can't start a bunker until 3:02, and it won't be done until 3:37. And sorry, but nearly a full minute later there will be more than six lings there.
|
Yes. Tank lines and proper surrounding/flanking becomes possible again, among other things.
Flanking only requires the existence of alternative paths to flank, and the space to do so. It isn't intrinsic to open spaces. For instance, you can easily flank in Metapolis, though there are no truly open spaces except the area outside of your main, and even then, it isn't comparable to the open space found in many ICCUP maps (In which the open space basically covers the entire map outside of your expo in some occasions), and the same applies to tank lines. Obviously, open space is a very easy way of encourage them, but it isn't the only way.
I say this because your second point, may not be something we necessarily want to encourage in SC2. Zerg most substantially benefits from surrounds, but only once they have a extremely large army, while terran is hurt the most. Z
Zerg doesn't need a nerf lategame. Terran already has the biggest disadvantage in SC2 right now once you hit 200/200 lategame, with both the slowest production facilities and a weaker 200/200 army. By using open space to the extent you sometimes do, you discourage positional play, the last strategic option Terran really is able to utilize as he the game progresses later and later.
Obviously, T is not underpowered. Probably the opposite, but only at the end results. T suffers from poor lategame offset by overpowered earlygame. Your maps should be designed to help the other races early game and mid gain, but still allow terran to utilize the terrain to its advantage lategame.
|
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/628240320?page=4#61
This is the post you're looking for.
When you wanna find a Blue Post, go into one of the stickies and look for the Blue Poster of your choice. Once you've found one of their posts, there is a pull-down menu next to their name and one of the options is "View Posts". From there, you can skim over everything they've posted.
|
On October 07 2010 17:11 TheRabidDeer wrote:
If it is impossible to beat a 6 pool without walling why does ZvZ not consist of everybody 6 pooling each other?
Are you seriously saying what you're saying?
|
On October 07 2010 17:12 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 16:53 shannn wrote:
Are you serious or is my sarcasm radar telling me you're just being sarcastic?
If 6pooling was unbeatable without walling off why do most pro gamers not wall off all the time against zerg? It's because they build their buildings tight to their mineral lines thus making an effective wall-off unlike wall-off at ramp. This wall-off will have more advantages than walling off at ramp. Sorry, I live on planet Earth and not Magical Pixie Land where terrans don't wall off against Z. Show nested quote +And 6 lings vs your 12-14 probes = easy win for probes and with micro no losses too. I'm not toss, and Show nested quote +This goes the same as with Terran. Terran probably has it even easier with bunkers. Okay, so you don't know what you're talking about, you just "probably think it's easier with bunkers". Show nested quote +This sig tells me why you're having a lot of troubles with 6pool cheese. You probably haven't experienced how to stop 6pool and other cheeses effectively yet (or your macro isn't decent enough). Just putting spoiler tags around it doesn't make you less of a douchebag. My macro is fine, and I don't lose to cheeses. Because I fucking wall off against zerg, like every other Terran. Lings arrive at close positions around 2:45. If I start my rax at 12 it'll be done at 3:02, and the rine will be done at 3:27. That's around 40 seconds (game time) of six lings vs 14 SCVs. I can't start a bunker until 3:02, and it won't be done until 3:37. And sorry, but nearly a full minute later there will be more than six lings there.
I'm gonna quote someone else just to reply to this trolling post of yours.
On October 07 2010 17:03 QuothTheRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 16:59 kojinshugi wrote:
Where do you even see terrans not wall against Z? Even without cheese it's absolutely necessary to stop scouting, to stop speedling harass and burrowed infestors moseying on in.
Cool vs. IntoTheRainbow (aka HopeTorture), game 1 of GSL grand finals. IntoTheRainbow opts to put his barracks right next to his command center, vs. an opponent who is known for going 6pool (he 6pooled InCa in the Ro8), in the opening set of a match that's worth over $50,000. I'm sure he was confident that he could hold off the 6pool. Cool vs IntoTheRainbow, game 2 of GSL finals, he also does the same thing: rax next to his CC. Later lifts the rax and builds a factory to make a walloff much later in the game.
This clearly already contradicts your entire statement. Not every Terran wall offs in the beginning.
And not walling off against someone who actually 6pools in important matches is even more baller or are you saying that ITR is a noob compared to you because then we should all listen to you and all of your posts regarding Terran.
On October 07 2010 17:14 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:11 TheRabidDeer wrote:
If it is impossible to beat a 6 pool without walling why does ZvZ not consist of everybody 6 pooling each other? Are you seriously saying what you're saying?
Are you seriously saying that you know better than ITR who does not wall off in the beginning?
If it was impossible to beat 6pool why don't you see every zerg 6pool vs Terran in pro games where half don't wall off?!!!?!?! Especially in a bo3 or more.
|
|
|
@Blizzard:
How the fuck is a standard macro map with no gimmicks more complicated than a map with many destructible rocks and options for cliff harrass? You're doing it completely backwards.
One thing I really like about Shakuras Plateau is that the natural is super easy to defend. What I don't understand though is why the hell are the vertical rush distances only like 8 seconds???
I kinda like Jungle Basin as well, easy to defend natural with pretty long rush distances. The third base is going to be a bit problematic, though.
Am I the only person who likes the direction in which they're going with these maps? At least two-base play is going to be much stronger. They're not perfect by any means but an improvement at least.
|
On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Show nested quote +Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity)
Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. Clearly Iccup maps have no flaws, that's why there's so many "must watch" games on them.
Basically I'm tired of this self serving Iccup crusade in the guise of 'bettering' the SC2 competitive scene, when really nothing has been shown clearly. I can't even think of a single GSL game that was 'ruined' by the maps.
|
On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently.
LOL! THAT WAS YOU?
Do you realize that 75% of our maps are original maps?
Have you ever played Triforce?
And yes we play, you should obviously know this.
|
On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently.
1) there are more original than BW maps that iccup has made
2) what do you mean "space that goes unused". that makes no sense
3) you seem to think of the idea of "BW skirmishes" as if BW was a game of nexus wars and we'd send our 12 units to attack each other in the center over and over until someone won
4) you criticize a very interesting map dynamic with no foundation
no one's blindly accepting iccup maps, they got their reputation from the quality.
your post was idiotic and you backed it with a lot of normative statements rather than important positive ones
|
On October 07 2010 17:19 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. LOL! THAT WAS YOU? You realize that 75% of our maps are original maps? Have you ever played Triforce? And yes we play, you should obviously know this.
With a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization? And actually no I didn't realize because I went by your October recommended maps, a good chunk of the non-Blizzard maps being BW remakes.
|
On October 07 2010 17:23 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:19 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. LOL! THAT WAS YOU? You realize that 75% of our maps are original maps? Have you ever played Triforce? And yes we play, you should obviously know this. With a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization? And actually no I didn't realize because I went by your October recommended maps, a good chunk of the non-Blizzard maps being BW remakes.
forum posting has no relevance to competency in organization T_T what is this...
|
On October 07 2010 17:17 Shikyo wrote:
@Blizzard:
How the fuck is a standard macro map with no gimmicks more complicated than a map with many destructible rocks and options for cliff harrass? You're doing it completely backwards.
this
learning sc2-maps was actually quite difficult for me (wc3-gamer) because they are VERY gimmicky; it's not just entry and exit points, ramps and stuff, but all the destructible debris and the LEDGES all over the place are not easy to learn at first; I think everybody can remember his first "wtf where does this frickin tank shoot from" experience on kulas
straight up macro-maps would be better for newbs because they would be forced to learn mechanics and not just all-in every....every....game
|
Ocedic, the point of the B.net thread is not to say iCCup maps are the greatest maps ever. It is not a personal advertisement thread.
The point of it is to get Blizzard to start working with the community in regards to maps. It's the one thing where we want to help and the one thing where we CAN help, and the fact that they're saying nothing is infuriating.
Basically what they are doing is turning down a design team that they don't have to pay. It's stupid.
|
On October 07 2010 17:23 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:19 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. LOL! THAT WAS YOU? You realize that 75% of our maps are original maps? Have you ever played Triforce? And yes we play, you should obviously know this. With a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization? And actually no I didn't realize because I went by your October recommended maps, a good chunk of the non-Blizzard maps being BW remakes.
Cause I'm open and honest? You got me.
Actually of the 8 maps that are non-Blizzard ones in the map pool 5 are original (63%).
|
Every map should have as you called dead space as goes unused, becouse flanking still exsists, just as it did in Brood War, and working really well against anything that do aoe dmg
|
On October 07 2010 17:24 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:23 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:19 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. LOL! THAT WAS YOU? You realize that 75% of our maps are original maps? Have you ever played Triforce? And yes we play, you should obviously know this. With a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization? And actually no I didn't realize because I went by your October recommended maps, a good chunk of the non-Blizzard maps being BW remakes. forum posting has no relevance to competency in organization T_T what is this...
I like how you ignore the point where I dismantle your "less BW than original" argument. Also, reading comprehension check: I didn't mention anything about competency.
|
On October 07 2010 17:25 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:24 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 17:23 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:19 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. LOL! THAT WAS YOU? You realize that 75% of our maps are original maps? Have you ever played Triforce? And yes we play, you should obviously know this. With a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization? And actually no I didn't realize because I went by your October recommended maps, a good chunk of the non-Blizzard maps being BW remakes. forum posting has no relevance to competency in organization T_T what is this... I like how you ignore the point where I dismantle your "less BW than original" argument. Also, reading comprehension check: I didn't mention anything about competency.
Actually you got proven wrong. Read up a couple posts. Sorry.
|
ICCup maps i've played on (BW ports) are simply brilliant for SC2 they align expos in a line that isnt straight, forcing the player to put more effort into scouting then simply taking the watchtower and creating multiple paths that allow you to use cutsey stuff like borrowed zerglings for mapcontrol and most importantly they have multiple choke points from one base to another unlike Blizzard maps that sorta go like oh you missed terran moving out there, GG.
|
On October 07 2010 17:27 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:25 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:24 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 17:23 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:19 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. LOL! THAT WAS YOU? You realize that 75% of our maps are original maps? Have you ever played Triforce? And yes we play, you should obviously know this. With a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization? And actually no I didn't realize because I went by your October recommended maps, a good chunk of the non-Blizzard maps being BW remakes. forum posting has no relevance to competency in organization T_T what is this... I like how you ignore the point where I dismantle your "less BW than original" argument. Also, reading comprehension check: I didn't mention anything about competency. Actually you got proven wrong. Read up a couple posts. Sorry.
Okay, you are correct on semantics. That definitely proves your maps are superior. Congrats :D
|
On October 07 2010 17:29 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:27 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:25 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:24 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 17:23 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:19 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. LOL! THAT WAS YOU? You realize that 75% of our maps are original maps? Have you ever played Triforce? And yes we play, you should obviously know this. With a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization? And actually no I didn't realize because I went by your October recommended maps, a good chunk of the non-Blizzard maps being BW remakes. forum posting has no relevance to competency in organization T_T what is this... I like how you ignore the point where I dismantle your "less BW than original" argument. Also, reading comprehension check: I didn't mention anything about competency. Actually you got proven wrong. Read up a couple posts. Sorry. Okay, you are correct on semantics. That definitely proves your maps are superior. Congrats :D
No that doesn't. However the results provided by top level players does. I tend to trust those.
|
On October 07 2010 17:03 QuothTheRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 16:59 kojinshugi wrote:
Where do you even see terrans not wall against Z? Even without cheese it's absolutely necessary to stop scouting, to stop speedling harass and burrowed infestors moseying on in.
Cool vs. IntoTheRainbow (aka HopeTorture), game 1 of GSL grand finals. IntoTheRainbow opts to put his barracks right next to his command center, vs. an opponent who is known for going 6pool (he 6pooled InCa in the Ro8), in the opening set of a match that's worth over $50,000. I'm sure he was confident that he could hold off the 6pool.
Um, he walled with rax/factory. On a 4 player map.
Cool vs IntoTheRainbow, game 2 of GSL finals, he also does the same thing: rax next to his CC. Later lifts the rax and builds a factory to make a walloff much later in the game.
Again, that's walling, and it's a 4 player map. No one's going to six pool and flip a coin as to where to rally their lings in a tournament.
I do the exact same thing on 4 player maps against zerg.
This retarded discussion started by some geniuses saying terran and toss shouldn't be able to wall off at all, because zerg can't. I'm not saying I need to absolutely build the depot/rax/depot wall at every choke always, there are maps and builds that complete a wall later.
But on short rush distance maps you wall because lings in your base when your first rine is 30-40 seconds from being out is Very Bad.
|
On October 07 2010 17:25 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:24 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 17:23 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:19 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. LOL! THAT WAS YOU? You realize that 75% of our maps are original maps? Have you ever played Triforce? And yes we play, you should obviously know this. With a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization? And actually no I didn't realize because I went by your October recommended maps, a good chunk of the non-Blizzard maps being BW remakes. forum posting has no relevance to competency in organization T_T what is this... I like how you ignore the point where I dismantle your "less BW than original" argument. Also, reading comprehension check: I didn't mention anything about competency.
Do you know what an implication is?
when you say "with a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization" you're saying that because of the manner in which he conducts himself online he doesn't meet the criteria you've set for a TO.
|
Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently.
You're an idiot for attacking someone whos contributed so much in such a varied way to the community with stupid generalizations made from ignorance. The fact that some of your criticisms happened to be relavent was mere coincidence. Kind of like Hitler disliking meat.
|
On October 07 2010 17:30 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:29 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:27 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:25 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:24 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 17:23 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:19 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:Ocedic from the Battle.net forums wrote wrote:
It's clear that 95% of people who support Iccup maps haven't actually played them. A lot of them are just straight ports of BW maps with minimal conversions besides making center resources gold (which is a horrible move.)
Iccup maps basically expect the maps to translate flawlessly to SC2, which they don't. Most of them have huge empty, dead space that goes unused. Most maps make poor or completely no use of Xel Naga towers to promote map control, movement and positional awareness. Instead the center is just a huge space for Brood War style skirmishes, as the Iccup map makers have not heard of unlimited unit selection.
One of the maps, Match Point, actually has an expo with minerals only. Do you guys even play SC2? Give one gas or a rich gas, but at least pretend to give a damn about SC2 mechanics instead of waving around your maps because they were played in BW.
So yes, bring in custom maps, but not these crappy Iccup ones.
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps? Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity) Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. LOL! THAT WAS YOU? You realize that 75% of our maps are original maps? Have you ever played Triforce? And yes we play, you should obviously know this. With a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization? And actually no I didn't realize because I went by your October recommended maps, a good chunk of the non-Blizzard maps being BW remakes. forum posting has no relevance to competency in organization T_T what is this... I like how you ignore the point where I dismantle your "less BW than original" argument. Also, reading comprehension check: I didn't mention anything about competency. Actually you got proven wrong. Read up a couple posts. Sorry. Okay, you are correct on semantics. That definitely proves your maps are superior. Congrats :D No that doesn't. However the results provided by top level players does. I tend to trust those.
By results you mean zero "must-watch" games by top level players on Iccup maps.
|
On October 07 2010 17:31 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:03 QuothTheRaven wrote:On October 07 2010 16:59 kojinshugi wrote:
Where do you even see terrans not wall against Z? Even without cheese it's absolutely necessary to stop scouting, to stop speedling harass and burrowed infestors moseying on in.
Cool vs. IntoTheRainbow (aka HopeTorture), game 1 of GSL grand finals. IntoTheRainbow opts to put his barracks right next to his command center, vs. an opponent who is known for going 6pool (he 6pooled InCa in the Ro8), in the opening set of a match that's worth over $50,000. I'm sure he was confident that he could hold off the 6pool. Um, he walled with rax/factory. On a 4 player map. Show nested quote +Cool vs IntoTheRainbow, game 2 of GSL finals, he also does the same thing: rax next to his CC. Later lifts the rax and builds a factory to make a walloff much later in the game. Again, that's walling, and it's a 4 player map. No one's going to six pool and flip a coin as to where to rally their lings in a tournament. I do the exact same thing on 4 player maps against zerg. This retarded discussion started by some geniuses saying terran and toss shouldn't be able to wall off at all, because zerg can't. I'm not saying I need to absolutely build the depot/rax/depot wall at every choke always, there are maps and builds that complete a wall later. But on short rush distance maps you wall because lings in your base when your first rine is 30-40 seconds from being out is Very Bad.
Cool vs Inca @ Kulas Ravine. 6pool on a 4 player map and he tried to wall off but got his pylon broken which is what costed him the game.
Will post later on more from pro gamers.
|
I kinda wish we would stop derailing the thread...
Heres the second part of my response to Diamond
People like shiny shit, history has proved this time and time again.
Huh? Obviously that isn't a universal truth, even you sort of admit that... Your maps could be a lot shiner then they are now. Look at Match Point or Princess Frog. Both aren't shiny at all. Obviously, people on your team can see that there is a balance between simplicity and functionalism, and "shiny shit", and recognize the value in simple aesthetics.. Apparently, so does blizzard, as evident by most of there maps.
My suggestion would be in this regard, you could consider the aesthetic standards of blizzard maps and improve on them, rather then make changes that could alienate them of your maps. Maps like Starchild and Princess Frog are amazing examples of this, but some of your maps I think make excessive use of bump mapping on playable terrain, or just seem kind of "out there" in general (triforce lol), and excessive doodad usage on the playing area.
(this is a good example of the last one.
+ Show Spoiler +http://img833.imageshack.us/i/terrain001m.jpg/
In regards to bumpmapping, I can see why Blizzard would try to avoid that. All terrain elements in SC2 besides the random stuff on the unplayable terrain floor serves a pragmatic purpose. Cliffs, Destructible Terrain and site blockers all effect gameplay in addition to aesthetic, and even the odd doodad (which are used extremely sparingly on the playing field), all effect the game, by blocking pathing and/or limiting vision. The only purely aesthetic terrain detail would be the actual textures.
The issue with bumpmapping, when used anything but extremely sparingly, on the playable field, is that it creates a false standard. It does nothing, yet it can dramatically change the aesthetics of the terrain in a way that implies it does something. Now I know that sounds kind of trivial and stupid for advanced players, but its a inconsistency that blizzard would probably perceive as unintuitive.
ex: New player moves from level terrain to extremely uneven terrain. Intuitively, there is an effect, like how elevations block vision, but in reality, there is none. In fact you can even build on these areas of uneven terrain.
Obviously most of blizzard maps are too cramped out. I think some of your maps offer a great balance between terran and open terrain, and aesthetics versus simplicity. Maps like Fury or Enigma. Other maps of yours seem overly polarized, like as the other person pointed out, though really, Matchpoint isn't the biggest offender.
--------
ICCup maps i've played on (BW ports) are simply brilliant for SC2 they align expos in a line that isnt straight, forcing the player to put more effort into scouting then simply taking the watchtower and creating multiple paths that allow you to use cutsey stuff like borrowed zerglings for mapcontrol and most importantly they have multiple choke points from one base to another unlike Blizzard maps that sorta go like oh you missed terran moving out there, GG.
I agree. This is one of the elements I enjoy the most out of the custom melee maps I've played.
|
On October 07 2010 17:32 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:30 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:29 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:27 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:25 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:24 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 17:23 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:19 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 07 2010 17:17 Ocedic wrote:On October 07 2010 17:01 Half wrote:
[quote]
This guy is clearly an idiot, but I think he brings up a few important points of discussion. Do the large, open, spaces of BW have a place in SC2 now that units cluster so much easier? And on a more broader note, are the current custom maps out there a little bit to disparate from Blizzards "style" of melee maps?
Some employ tools which blizzard has been hesitant in using (bump mapping build-able terrain), others feel very thematically separate from the aesthetic style of blizzard maps (Emphasis on Aesthetic simplicity)
Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently. LOL! THAT WAS YOU? You realize that 75% of our maps are original maps? Have you ever played Triforce? And yes we play, you should obviously know this. With a 'CEO' talking like this how can you not love this organization? And actually no I didn't realize because I went by your October recommended maps, a good chunk of the non-Blizzard maps being BW remakes. forum posting has no relevance to competency in organization T_T what is this... I like how you ignore the point where I dismantle your "less BW than original" argument. Also, reading comprehension check: I didn't mention anything about competency. Actually you got proven wrong. Read up a couple posts. Sorry. Okay, you are correct on semantics. That definitely proves your maps are superior. Congrats :D No that doesn't. However the results provided by top level players does. I tend to trust those. By results you mean zero "must-watch" games by top level players on Iccup maps.
Lol now you're just being an ass. QXC vs. Monkey, Fenix vs. SeleCT, should I go on?
Edit: Actually I won't go on. Your hating just to hate and it's 4:30AM. I'm going to bed.
|
I really like shakuras plateu had some good games on it today. Don't really like the backdoor rocks though it's too easy to push trough them especially against zerg.
|
I've seen some REALLY good games on Match Point.
I'm not a diehard fan of every iCCup map. But that's the point isn't it. The game is young, we won't know what maps are awesome maps unless we try out a lot of them.
It is honestly very impressive the number of top level players Diamond is capable of getting to test out their maps on iCCup.tv, and that really says something about him as a person and an organizer.
|
They fix DO then they removes it in a week? Whats the logic in that?
|
On October 07 2010 17:32 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently.
You're an idiot for attacking someone whos contributed so much in such a varied way to the community with stupid generalizations made from ignorance. The fact that some of your criticisms happened to be relavent was mere coincidence. Kind of like Hitler disliking meat.
You reap what you sow. Basically the attitude of Diamond and his supporters (ravenous, zealous fans like you) is what makes me roll my eyes every time he begs someone to use his maps in a tourney.
Instead of treating the integration of custom maps as an open discourse, he (and people like you) propel his view as the absolute truth, in a game that is 2 months old. In other words, he presents opinions as facts.
But please continue the ad hominem and strawman tactics, it basically proves my point.
|
On October 07 2010 17:14 shannn wrote:
Cool vs IntoTheRainbow, game 2 of GSL finals, he also does the same thing: rax next to his CC. Later lifts the rax and builds a factory to make a walloff much later in the game.
This clearly already contradicts your entire statement. Not every Terran wall offs in the beginning.
And not walling off against someone who actually 6pools in important matches is even more baller or are you saying that ITR is a noob compared to you because then we should all listen to you and all of your posts regarding Terran.[/quote]
Cool is not retarded enough to six pool on a 4 player map. ITR knows this and can therefore tighten his build by making the rax close to his CC. He does actually wall off.
Are you seriously saying that you know better than ITR who does not wall off in the beginning?
I didn't say "Terrans always build their rax at their ramp". I said "Terrans always wall off against zerg". Which he did. In both games. I do the exact same build on 4 players maps against Z. Because it's safe (six pool highly unlikely) and works for early mid game (good wall against blings, hellions can leave to harass without lifting buildings).
EDIT:
Cool vs Inca @ Kulas Ravine. 6pool on a 4 player map and he tried to wall off but got his pylon broken which is what costed him the game.
Will post later on more from pro gamers.
Total coin flip by Cool. 99.9% of the time no one will. And Inca was nowhere near getting his zealot out (he started it late). And he's toss. The argument here is about being able to wall off before the six pool arrives, which terran can do.
Actually, this argument is completely retarded, and I have better things to do than argue with retarded people. I concede. Please remove the concept of walling in from the game and give every race a Queen. Walling off is a terrible crutch that I, as a terrible scrubby gold league player, use to 1at my way to victory.
|
@Ocedic
You are fucking retarded please dont ever post again.
I dont care if i get banned it needed to be said.
Edit: quoted wrong person
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 07 2010 17:34 Ketara wrote:
I've seen some REALLY good games on Match Point.
I'm not a diehard fan of every iCCup map. But that's the point isn't it. The game is young, we won't know what maps are awesome maps unless we try out a lot of them.
It is honestly very impressive the number of top level players Diamond is capable of getting to test out their maps on iCCup.tv, and that really says something about him as a person and an organizer.
And on that note...I actually think Match Point has an appropriate amount of open space lol. The maps a tad bit on the plain side, but it really doesn't suffer from the "too much open space" thing hes talking about.
Maps that have too much open space imo, are maps like Sanshorn Sands, Hades, TRCC, Valhalla, Devotion, and to a lesser extent, Princess Frog (though I love that maps aesthetic design lol).
You reap what you sow. Basically the attitude of Diamond and his supporters (ravenous, zealous fans like you) is what makes me roll my eyes every time he begs someone to use his maps in a tourney.
Instead of treating the integration of custom maps as an open discourse, he (and people like you) propel his view as the absolute truth, in a game that is 2 months old. In other words, he presents opinions as facts.
But please continue the ad hominem and strawman tactics, it basically proves my point.
Sorry, I know you're trolling, but your accusations don't even make sense. Why do you think I quoted such a trash pos post besides to try and salvage a discussion from it?
On October 07 2010 17:41 Fodder03 wrote:
@Ocedic
You are fucking retarded please dont ever post again.
I dont care if i get banned it needed to be said.
Edit: quoted wrong person
Edit out
I dont care if i get banned it needed to be said.
This part. Googogo. Mods always ban for Martyring. Maybe they'll be lenient on you and not ban, after all, he is an absolute idiot/troll.
|
I don't understand what you're trying to argue Ocedic.
Are you saying that Blizzard shouldn't be paying any attention to community made melee maps?
Or are you saying that they specifically shouldn't be paying any attention to the iCCup maps because the iCCup people are elitist?
I can wholeheartedly agree that the people on Team Liquid are too quick to jump on Blizzards ass about their maps, and the issues are not as bad as people like to make them look.
But there are some issues that essentially cannot be argued, which Blizzard has even admitted.
And attacking a group of people that want to help and more or less cannot help because Blizzard won't discuss anything with them openly doesn't help anything.
I don't really understand what you're arguing besides getting pissed because people called you an idiot.
|
I haven't played on the new maps yet so I cannot pass judgement on them. I'm glad they took out Kulas because I believe that was an imbalanced map in the first place and was too complicated to play on. I'll miss DO though, had some epic games on that map.
I've watched a lot of matches on the ICCup maps on stream and I like a lot of them. Match Point is probably my favorite and I would love to see some of them implemented on ladder.
I think another way around this whole map problem is to just make an option for custom games to be ranked. Blizzard gets to keep their quick match ladder maps and all us people who like ICCup maps or custom maps in general get to play games on maps that we believe are balanced more/enjoy more.
and LOL @ the battlenet posters. Some of them are suggesting implementing rising lava into maps like that one campaign mission saying it will balance out the matchups or that it would make it 'cooler'.
|
On October 07 2010 17:38 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:32 Half wrote:
Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently.
You're an idiot for attacking someone whos contributed so much in such a varied way to the community with stupid generalizations made from ignorance. The fact that some of your criticisms happened to be relavent was mere coincidence. Kind of like Hitler disliking meat. You reap what you sow. Basically the attitude of Diamond and his supporters (ravenous, zealous fans like you) is what makes me roll my eyes every time he begs someone to use his maps in a tourney. Instead of treating the integration of custom maps as an open discourse, he (and people like you) propel his view as the absolute truth, in a game that is 2 months old. In other words, he presents opinions as facts. But please continue the ad hominem and strawman tactics, it basically proves my point.
I have to ask why are you being such an ass? The iccup maps are good sure some aren't as good as others but their all 100 times better then blizzard maps. I don't see why you have to diss the maps like they are shitty when they are far from it.
|
On October 07 2010 17:32 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently.
You're an idiot for attacking someone whos contributed so much in such a varied way to the community with stupid generalizations made from ignorance. The fact that some of your criticisms happened to be relavent was mere coincidence. Kind of like Hitler disliking meat.
That analogy made absolutely no sense.
|
I was very happy when Blizzard removed Shakuras Plateau from the map pool in beta, and now it's back -_- I really hope that Jungle Basin will be better but I don't understand why they change Desert Oasis lately just to remove it after two weeks...
|
On October 07 2010 17:47 Ingruz wrote:
I was very happy when Blizzard removed Shakuras Plateau from the map pool in beta, and now it's back -_- I really hope that Jungle Basin will be better but I don't understand why they change Desert Oasis lately just to remove it after two weeks...
It's a roation.
|
On October 07 2010 17:47 Ingruz wrote:
I was very happy when Blizzard removed Shakuras Plateau from the map pool in beta, and now it's back -_- I really hope that Jungle Basin will be better but I don't understand why they change Desert Oasis lately just to remove it after two weeks...
its actually a display of how far ahead blizzard is thinking with their patches and fixes.
they fix a map, only to remove it completely a few weeks later.
|
On October 07 2010 17:39 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:14 shannn wrote:
Cool vs IntoTheRainbow, game 2 of GSL finals, he also does the same thing: rax next to his CC. Later lifts the rax and builds a factory to make a walloff much later in the game. This clearly already contradicts your entire statement. Not every Terran wall offs in the beginning. And not walling off against someone who actually 6pools in important matches is even more baller or are you saying that ITR is a noob compared to you because then we should all listen to you and all of your posts regarding Terran.
Cool is not retarded enough to six pool on a 4 player map. ITR knows this and can therefore tighten his build by making the rax close to his CC. He does actually wall off.
Are you seriously saying that you know better than ITR who does not wall off in the beginning?
I didn't say "Terrans always build their rax at their ramp". I said "Terrans always wall off against zerg". Which he did. In both games. I do the exact same build on 4 players maps against Z. Because it's safe (six pool highly unlikely) and works for early mid game (good wall against blings, hellions can leave to harass without lifting buildings).
Read my previous comment. Inca got 6pooled game 1 vs Cool in ro8. He scouts the protoss base as last. The zerg did win but my point still stands.
Even on a 4 player map 6pooling is still an option. And this game was just in the GSL for the $85k grand prize. Are you telling me that Cool is retarded ?
Edit:
The reason I'm telling you and what others also tried to explain to you is that 6pooling is not impossible to stop which you clearly indicated when you don't wall off.
Which is where you were wrong.
|
On October 07 2010 17:52 shannn wrote:
Cool is not retarded enough to six pool on a 4 player map.
Cool was retarded enough to 6 pool Inca on Kulas Ravine....
|
On October 07 2010 17:55 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:52 shannn wrote:
Cool is not retarded enough to six pool on a 4 player map.
Cool was retarded enough to 6 pool Inca on Kulas Ravine....
Kulas Ravine isn't even a map.
|
On October 07 2010 17:59 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:55 happyness wrote:On October 07 2010 17:52 shannn wrote:
Cool is not retarded enough to six pool on a 4 player map.
Cool was retarded enough to 6 pool Inca on Kulas Ravine.... Kulas Ravine isn't even a map.
Bad troll is bad.
Glad to see the map pool change, got tired pf playing Kulas anyway
|
Remember everybody:
Kulas Ravine can't be a bad map, because it no longer exists.
|
no gold expo, interesting.
also, i have brilliant idea how to make shakuras playable - spawning positions only top right and bottom left! (ye, i know im genius)
|
On October 07 2010 17:52 shannn wrote:
Even on a 4 player map 6pooling is still an option. And this game was just in the GSL for the $85k grand prize. Are you telling me that Cool is retarded ?
Inca is a PROTOSS. Cool obviously knew the timings of that build on the map, it would have worked for any position. Note that his Ovie arrived at bottom right ramp pretty much the same time as his drone hit the bottom left map. His lings were just barely past the midpoint. He would have arrived at any protoss position before the wall completed or the first zealot was even out.
This wouldn't work against terran on Kulas because terran starts their rax earlier. If lings actually got to the terran's base before the first marine was out, zerg can do a shitton of damage. Except any terran would wall off on Kulas anyway (1 depot 1 rax) and the lings wouldn't arrive on time.
The reason I'm telling you and what others also tried to explain to you is that 6pooling is not impossible to stop which you clearly indicated when you don't wall off.
Which is where you were wrong.
6 pool where lings arrive before you have your first rine is impossible to stop as terran without walling. It will do significant damage if not outright kill you. This is a fact, unless you can will the lings to commit suicide instead of pulling SCVs.
Don't wall off against 6 pool on Steppes or some other close distance map and see how you do.
|
On October 07 2010 17:38 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:32 Half wrote:
Yeah I'm an idiot for bringing legitimate criticism and analysis to Iccup maps instead of blindly accepting them like sheep. Only Iccup supporters are allowed to write in an angry rant style apparently.
You're an idiot for attacking someone whos contributed so much in such a varied way to the community with stupid generalizations made from ignorance. The fact that some of your criticisms happened to be relavent was mere coincidence. Kind of like Hitler disliking meat. But please continue the ad hominem and strawman tactics, it basically proves my point.
You have to state a point in order to prove it. As far as I can tell, you haven't actually said anything that hasn't been directly 100% factually refuted. You briefly inferred that Diamond was unprofessional, but I'm fairly sure that's not what the argument is actually about?
|
On October 07 2010 18:01 arb wrote:
Bad troll is bad.
Glad to see the map pool change, got tired pf playing Kulas anyway
Are you calling me a troll for thinking it's window-lickingly idiotic to say that Toss and Terran shouldn't be allowed to wall in because it's unfair to the zerg?
I wasn't even talking specifically about six pools, there's a billion reasons why wall-ins are good, and six pool is one of them (on maps where it can arrive before you have enough units). Then two morons started bringing up the GSL finals, as if a 111 rax/factory walloff somehow proves that I'm wrong.
EDIT: I especially like the "proof" where Inca loses to a six pool while not having a walloff. You can bet your ass if he'd scouted cross positions first and saw the lings he'd have immediately made a 100% tight wallin since he didn't even have a zlot out.
|
Hmm... I don't really like them. Jungle Basin is just going to be another Blistering, in other words another 4 warp gate all in heaven. Shakuras could be interesting I guess. After all, double rocks are more time consuming to break than single rocks. Furthermore if you try to backdoor rush and fail, you've opened up a very short path for counter attacks.
Thumbed down maps for the new pool:
Blistering Sands
Scrap Station
Jungle Basin
Might switch Scrap with Shakuras if it turns out to suck badly.
|
On October 07 2010 17:55 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:52 shannn wrote:
Cool is not retarded enough to six pool on a 4 player map.
Cool was retarded enough to 6 pool Inca on Kulas Ravine....
How is 6-pool on a 4-player map even a bad idea? It's the best map for 4pool - you might not be scouted right away.
When you 6pool on a 4-player map you scout one position with your overlord and as you start your lings, you send a drone to another position. Then you'll know where they are(with no downtime) and can get there and kill your opponent.
|
On October 07 2010 18:20 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 18:01 arb wrote:
Bad troll is bad.
Glad to see the map pool change, got tired pf playing Kulas anyway Are you calling me a troll for thinking it's window-lickingly idiotic to say that Toss and Terran shouldn't be allowed to wall in because it's unfair to the zerg? I wasn't even talking specifically about six pools, there's a billion reasons why wall-ins are good, and six pool is one of them (on maps where it can arrive before you have enough units). Then two morons started bringing up the GSL finals, as if a 111 rax/factory walloff somehow proves that I'm wrong. EDIT: I especially like the "proof" where Inca loses to a six pool while not having a walloff. You can bet your ass if he'd scouted cross positions first and saw the lings he'd have immediately made a 100% tight wallin since he didn't even have a zlot out.
Out of curiosity, oh wise one... if it is absolutely necessary for a player to wall off from a six pool, how come every ZvZ doesn't start with both players six pooling?
In your average 14 gas/14 pool build a zerg player actually gets his pool up AFTER a Terran gets his rax up by a fair bit because not only is your standard 12 rax started EARLIER, but it also only has 75% of the build time (60 seconds, vs 80 seconds).
So again, if walling is so neccesary, why don't all zergs die to 6pools anytime they don't get a pool earlier than 13 themselves?
|
On October 07 2010 18:20 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 18:01 arb wrote:
Bad troll is bad.
Glad to see the map pool change, got tired pf playing Kulas anyway Are you calling me a troll for thinking it's window-lickingly idiotic to say that Toss and Terran shouldn't be allowed to wall in because it's unfair to the zerg? I wasn't even talking specifically about six pools, there's a billion reasons why wall-ins are good, and six pool is one of them (on maps where it can arrive before you have enough units). Then two morons started bringing up the GSL finals, as if a 111 rax/factory walloff somehow proves that I'm wrong.
Now you're just trolling. You should stop flaming too before you get warned/banned. You should respect the veterans (talking about ppl like mOnion etc) who were trying to give you advice.
The people talking to you were talking about six pools since you brought it up.
The point of the discussion was that you said 6pools are unstoppable against P/T when you don't wall off.
This is where you're wrong about. Whether it's a 2player map or 4 player map isn't the point and doesn't contribute to this argument of yours. The point is whether it was unstoppable. You are changing your point now. So just admit you were wrong on that point.
We did not say that you should never wall off we are just saying that it isn't necessary to always wall off against a 6pool respectively. Which you are every time contradicting with nonsense that do not contribute to your first point which you are trying to change now afterwards.
Edit:
And the reason why Inca lost was partly due his unlucky probe scouting the pool late but more importantly because of the open space the zerglings got which made the 6pool more effectively.
- Open space for zerglings
- a pylon that got destroyed
- drone block from 2nd gateway while InCa didn't completely walled off too
The reason why we said ITR of the GSL games was because you said and again like all of my and other's post towards you was because you said 6pool is unstoppable without a walloff and then you bring in an argument about that every Terran walls off because you do it too which is why we took ITR from one of the latest pro games in which he didn't walled off in the beginning while he could be 6pooled by someone who is known to 6pool on a 4 player map which you are also stating that Cool isn't retarded enough to 6pool on a 4 player map AND again stating you're wrong.
And then flaming everyone who tried to prove you're wrong?
I'm done I'm not gonna reply like mOnion is doing. Can't believe there are people like you who don't even accept that they're wrong when they are being given arguments to prove it.
|
On October 07 2010 18:26 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:55 happyness wrote:On October 07 2010 17:52 shannn wrote:
Cool is not retarded enough to six pool on a 4 player map.
Cool was retarded enough to 6 pool Inca on Kulas Ravine.... How is 6-pool on a 4-player map even a bad idea? It's the best map for 4pool - you might not be scouted right away. When you 6pool on a 4-player map you scout one position with your overlord and as you start your lings, you send a drone to another position. Then you'll know where they are(with no downtime) and can get there and kill your opponent.
i agree, so a small 4 player map with short rush distances like shakuras is a 6pool heaven. btw has any1 tested if spawning vertically is possible? too lazy to read through 21 pages.
|
On October 07 2010 17:55 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:52 shannn wrote:
Cool is not retarded enough to six pool on a 4 player map.
Cool was retarded enough to 6 pool Inca on Kulas Ravine....
That quote is wrong. It's from that other guy who removed some quote wrong and it made it look like I'm saying that statement which I didn't but replied to this argument stating he was wrong.
|
Uh, wasn't shakuras an FFA map in the beta?
|
On October 07 2010 18:36 Aeyn wrote:
Uh, wasn't shakuras an FFA map in the beta?
yeah, but so was metalopolis. FFA maps were just any 4p map.
|
On October 07 2010 17:41 Fodder03 wrote:
@Ocedic
You are fucking retarded please dont ever post again.
I dont care if i get banned it needed to be said.
Edit: quoted wrong person
He brings up pretty valid points and is being shot down with "you're retarded" and "you're an idiot" rather than anyone actually addressing his argument. If he's an idiot, he's definitely not the biggest one in this thread.
|
I actully like these maps I played them during the beta and had fun. They're both macro maps. I'd like to see an ICCUP ladder supported by blizzard but hey, whatever floats their one dimension boat. I for one like our hive minded leaders.
|
LOL at thread turning into a dual flame war.
I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.
Jungle Basin looks good though.
|
Damn Shakuras.. way to go, remove a terrible map to replace it with another terrible map :D
Jungle Basin is a step forward i guess. Anything is a step forward from Desert Oasis.
|
He brings up pretty valid points and is being shot down with "you're retarded" and "you're an idiot" rather than anyone actually addressing his argument. If he's an idiot, he's definitely not the biggest one in this thread.
LOL. Are you serious? I wrote like 1000+ words talking about his points, even agreeing with some of them.
|
Yay, another 2 free losses to 4gate in ZvP.
At least Blizzard helps the term "blizz map" to remain an insult among map makers.
|
|
|
Zerg player here
I love the Kulas change but HATE HATE the Desert oasis change...
New maps are not that appealing either
... therefore I dislike it
|
On October 07 2010 18:41 faction123 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 17:41 Fodder03 wrote:
@Ocedic
You are fucking retarded please dont ever post again.
I dont care if i get banned it needed to be said.
Edit: quoted wrong person He brings up pretty valid points and is being shot down with "you're retarded" and "you're an idiot" rather than anyone actually addressing his argument. If he's an idiot, he's definitely not the biggest one in this thread.
You are just as retarded for supporting him.
|
On October 07 2010 18:29 shannn wrote:
Now you're just trolling. You should stop flaming too before you get warned/banned.
I'm not flaming. You're the dipshit who felt the need to post my profile to boost your retarded condescension ("you don't know how to deal with 6 pool herp derp").
You should respect the veterans (talking about ppl like mOnion etc) who were trying to give you advice.
I don't need advice. If mOnion is a veteran then he needs to learn to read before he replies. It's absolutely disingenuous to harp on ridiculous minutiae and distort the argument of another person, especially in the guise of "helping them play". I didn't ask for advice.
The point of the discussion was that you said 6pools are unstoppable against P/T when you don't wall off.
No, the point of the discussion was that some other moron said walling off is imba. And obviously Inca couldn't stop that 6 pool, because it was timed to ensure that he couldn't, so your point is?
This is where you're wrong about. Whether it's a 2player map or 4 player map isn't the point and doesn't contribute to this argument of yours.
Yes it does contribute to my argument, since 6 pooling a terran on a 4 player map vs 6 pooling a terran on a 2 player map vs doing the same thing to a protoss are all completely different things.
The point is whether it was unstoppable. You are changing your point now. So just admit you were wrong on that point
I never made that point, but whatever.
We did not say that you should never wall off we are just saying that it isn't necessary to always wall off against a 6pool respectively.
I didn't say it's always necessary. I said it's impossible to stop a 6 pool without it. There's a significant difference. Maps where 6 pools can get to you before you have units (Steppes) require a wall for Terran. If the SCV that built your depot at 10 scouts, you are guaranteed to see the pool before the lings get to you. You now have enough time to complete the wallin. 6 pool stopped.
Maps where six pools can't get to you before you have units are dumb maps to six pool on in the first place. But the reason Terran can wall off, and is designed to wall off, is because their early units are weak against melee. This dick waving that you can just micro SCVs against six lings and shrug it off is just asinine.
Which you are every time contradicting with nonsense that do not contribute to your first point which you are trying to change now afterwards.
Please show me where I said toss needs to wall in against 6 pool and I'll give you a hundred fucking dollars. I said toss walls in against zerg, not specifically against 6 pool.
Anyway, I'm really gonna stop now. This is asinine. If you want to continue this asinine discussion do it in PM.
|
I really don't understand Blizzard and their maps anymore.
replacing two horrible maps, with two more horrible maps?
We as members of SC2 need to get an ICcup map movement going, starting with tournies using the good ones.
Blizzard just isnt cutting it.
|
Shakuras Plateau is :/, how to defend MMM drops? The distance between your front naturals is SO long, Terran can bounce between them so easily :/
|
i dont understand how they can put a terrible 2x2 map as a 1x1 map : (
|
This is an absolute joke, i had hope to be a fake before i checked on B.net. Jungle basin completly favors one-base play (no real natural) and shakuras plateau's distances are so short. How can zergs play there?
|
Shakuras looked pretty okay. But then I took a closer look...
It's just weird. The same as the other maps. Destructible rocks at annoying locations, super-short rush distances or super-long depending on the starting positions.
If they would just remove all this weird shit with rocks, gold minerals and watch towers and produce some standard, good maps we might get a good game...
Edit: and yeah, rather than moving towards more macro-oriented play we mvoe to more one-basing. Which is soooooooooo boring. Well, cross positions on shakuras is an exception...
|
People need to realize something, Blizzard has a history of this. Blizzard has learned a thing or two about map design and balances from IcCup and the proleagues. But the problem is that, they are still Blizzard. And I think it is difficult to put our faith in their hands for creating great maps. I think they hired or are working with some outside map designers (if I am mistaken, please let me know). Alas, look at the maps Blizzard had designed for Starcraft and Broodward. Horrid design, bad mineral placement, and usually quite imbalanced.
Blizzard is simply following suit with a slightly better hand. With that said, we (as a community) have three choices; either accept the atrocious maps as they are not carry on, change it on the preferences so you do not play it, or stand up and flat out tell Blizzard that the maps are bad and give them valid reasons why. I mean, we have the numbers, we have some of the most competitive and influential players out there. Who are we going to leave it up to? Those on the Battle.net forums? Are we going to leave it up to those who talk about how Zerg are now Op and that Zerglings need to be nerfed? Well for me, hell no. If all of us changed our preferences, Blizzard would be able to see that a large portion of people are not playing the maps. They will either just ignore it or they will have to figure out why. I mean, the maps they have given us are not perfect. Even some of their terrain design is mediocre and soon to be passed by dedicated map designers.
I went to the forums and noticed that the map making contest or post was gone. Which leads me to believe that either; these are maps that had been decided by Blizzard to be used, or that they are simply horrific at making balanced maps. I may criticize, but I also accept that I could not do better. I am horrific at making maps, they are doing a better job then I could ever do. But in the end, just look at the IcCup maps. They are not perfect, we can see what races are more favored then the other. But they are not so unbalanced to where they would mean an auto-win. If there were, they would be removed, and changed (which shows in the various versions). Blizzard has a stranglehold on the ladder maps, we cannot play our own for ladder. We must rely on them to make balanced maps. But they are failing and simply not cutting it. So need to take a stand and make it clear, they need to get on the ball!
P.S. sorry for the braveheart like (fails in comparison) speech, I just want to see something get done.
Edit: ParasitJonte makes a good point about the towers, destructible rocks, and gold minerals. I think one thing that Blizzard needs to do (and I agree with ParasitJonte) is that, they need to not focus on towers, on rocks, and on the golden minerals. Those are all gimmicks to make the matches interesting, but they cannot make the difference between a bad map to a good map. They need to focus on sheer map design, work out the design, focus on balance, terrain, and the expansions. And only then can they consider the rocks and whatnot. They are the very last thing that should go through their minds.
|
On October 07 2010 19:06 Superouman wrote:
This is an absolute joke, i had hope to be a fake before i checked on B.net. Jungle basin completly favors one-base play (no real natural) and shakuras plateau's distances are so short. How can zergs play there?
Zerg can 1-base too, with 2 hatcheries in the main. But i agree it's not a tournament level map. Blizzard's map makers obviously don't even play the game so we have to wait for some player made maps.
|
Bad news. But who expected Bliz to make a good move...
|
I want desert oasis back
|
So they removed Desert oasis once they made it a respectable map....
Played a few customs on the shakaras map, it is utterly and absolutely terrible. Even for 2v2 (which it looks like it was designed for) it just plays terrible.
|
On October 07 2010 18:58 kojinshugi wrote:
I don't need advice. If mOnion is a veteran then he needs to learn to read before he replies. It's absolutely disingenuous to harp on ridiculous minutiae and distort the argument of another person, especially in the guise of "helping them play". I didn't ask for advice.
its a starcraft forum. if you post saying essentially "I have to wall to beat 6pool" then people are going to try and help you, but you lashed out against every single person who tried like a toddler who doesn't want help with his fingerpainting.
fine we wont help, but we're certainly not putting your replay on the refrigerator.
|
On October 07 2010 19:27 Agh wrote:
So they removed Desert oasis once they made it a respectable map....
Played a few customs on the shakaras map, it is utterly and absolutely terrible. Even for 2v2 (which it looks like it was designed for) it just plays terrible.
My thoughts exactly. The destructible rocks do help. Even friends I play with that abhor DO have given it another shot to positive avail.
Blizzard... I just don't know.
|
lol if these maps are played in GSL 2, then I'll eat my sc2-booklet if we don't see custom maps in GSL 3
|
Russian Federation899 Posts
blizzards proving one more time that they suck at map making.
If i saw current sc2 map pool back in bw days - would've just lold and claimed that those were made by some sick warcrafter (no offense).
|
I just don't get it and it pisses me off so much that we don't have any control in this matter.
1) The mapmaker scene makes a ton of better, more fun, more balanced maps
2) If you don't want to search around for maps Blizzard introduce a voting system ingame were people are able to vote in one or two favourites every week
3) Stop your facking misuse of rocks. Yes the koreans came up with some great maps where you can open up new paths in BW but it isn't just the placed rocks/buildings but also the time it takes to break them open that makes the map worthwhile!!!!
|
haha that's a good thing for me I guess I haven't played either of those maps in forever. Now I can get some different maps in my rotation.
|
On October 07 2010 19:27 mOnion wrote:
Its a starcraft forum. if you post saying essentially "I have to wall to beat 6pool" then people are going to try and help you, but you lashed out against every single person who tried like a toddler who doesn't want help with his fingerpainting.
This isn't the strategy forum, I didn't ask for your advice, and I didn't say I have to wall to beat 6pool in every possible situation.
I wasn't even talking about 6 pool in general, I used it as one possible example where wall-ins are necessary. My general point was that early toss and early terran need to wall in against early aggression because their unit production takes ramping up (because they produce out of buildings and not larva). Once the queen is out, Zerg has full one-base production capability. Zerg also has spine crawlers, which are basically cannons that don't require a forge.
On maps with close rush distances, terran will be crippled if not defeated by zerg all-in cheese if they don't start a wall at their choke. That's by design. That was my argument and maybe you'd be better served if you at least read through the specific conversation you were jumping into if not the whole thread.
|
A main with backdoor, I don't like that.
|
On October 07 2010 19:44 sleepingdog wrote:
lol if these maps are played in GSL 2, then I'll eat my sc2-booklet if we don't see custom maps in GSL 3
GSL has strong links with Blizzard, actually I'm not sure they are a separate entity. You may have to eat your booklet :D
|
On October 07 2010 20:11 CruelZeratul wrote:
A main with backdoor, I don't like that.
Neither do I, but I guess they do discourage turtling, so they make for interesting play. If you don't like two entrances to your base, then move your front line out into the map.
|
Haha I had a good record on Kulas and DO.
Although I admit that DO was nothing but cheese fest after the patch. (In gold league)
|
|
|
Nice punch in the face.
I hope tournaments change their mappools as fast as possible to own / iccup maps, because it's getting shittier and shittier.
|
Blizzard just does NOT want to see more Zergs win by having larger and more open maps, they also don't want to see long macro games.. beacuse god forbid 1 base play is so much more entertaining!!
...
Blizzards ideas about maps are: "fast-paced" "action-packed" "Multiple entrances to your main" "small and tight areas".
This gives great entertainment value.
But does it really? All it does is promote short games, cheesy all-in play and zergs having low win ratios..
Who wants to see Cool lose in the prelimins beacuse Ghettoboy84 proxied 2 raxes outside the backdoor of his main?
I want maps that promote the better player to win, not the player who does nothing but all-in cheese play.
|
DO was actually a good map compared to Steppes, Kulas, Blistering, and these two new terrible ones.
|
[quoteSo they removed Desert oasis once they made it a respectable map....[/quote]
Just my thoughts. I hated DO before the patch but now I really liked it. Just when the map got more fun they are taking it out and then they add two of the strangest maps in the map pool. Shakuras might be pretty cool though if you really cant spawn next to each other. Lots of expansions .)
|
Dear Blizzard, i'm happy you removed Kulas ravine (less DO), but next time, try not to replace bad maps by even worst maps. You also could have tried to create something NEW instead of recycling some abandonned old maps which happen to be there.
|
my favorite map is gone.
T-T
|
I like how they have an amazing map ready to go in Crossfire and WON'T put it in rotation.
|
I suspect this thread gets locked within the hour. You guys are getting out of hand.
|
Should have removed steppes. X_X
|
Blizzard takes out 2 godawful maps, puts one godawful map back in and one that looks decent. They're making progress I guess, but I still recall certain issues with Steppes and Scrap station that need to be fixed.
|
pretty obvious that blizzard has no clue how to design maps, they dont take racial differences into consideration at all, just try and make a pretty and symetrical map.. pure terran/toss garbage maps these are...like the rest of the maps.
|
United States4126 Posts
Wtf, they turned an old 2v2 map into a 1v1 map?
That map was already horrible in 2v2, what made them think it would be better on ladder? I had some really retarded games on it just because of the destructible rocks shared when you're on horizontal positions.
|
Imo you always spawn cross position on Shakuras and so i think its actually a pretty nice map.
|
Noooo, the fact that everyone hated Desert Oasis made me love it even more. You'd always get some major crazy looking games on that map. Oh well. I'm rather disappointed with the new additions though.
Shakuras Plateau is a fricken 2v2 map, and the other looks just like Steppes at first inspection.
EDIT: Ok, fine, not too much like Steppes except the tileset. I'll save my judgments until I play it :D
|
On October 07 2010 22:48 way_too_good wrote:
Imo you always spawn cross position on Shakuras and so i think its actually a pretty nice map.
you dont always spawn cross positions.
|
On October 07 2010 22:34 Gescom wrote:
Should have removed steppes. X_X
i actually like Steppes
|
Desert Oasis wasn't that bad once they added rocks in the back, making the rush distance even longer, and the natural actaully defensible.
Natural DEFENSIBLE, not siegable from the opponent's natural
LF more people that want to play on iccup maps. Time to head to #tlpickup i guess.
w-t-f?????????
|
The amount of whine in this thread is dumb.. They took out the two maps that everybody complained about, replaced them with 2 that might be better..
|
They made it so you can't spawn vertically in Shakuras Plateau, which actually makes it a very decent map IMO. The games on gisados stream on this map have so far all been really good.
|
Jungle bassin, really?
This map is soooooooooooooo small
ANd I won't even talk about the other one :x
|
On October 07 2010 22:34 Gescom wrote:
Should have removed steppes. X_X
Agree, hate that map so bad.
|
Jungle Basin > Kulas or just use Crossfire. This Shakuras map is pretty weird though imo.
|
On October 08 2010 00:32 PangO wrote:Agree, hate that map so bad.
I actually think that Steppes is one of the best maps design-wise and balance wise. I think a large version of it would go over very well with most players.
|
I think I need to try them, but i'm actually like jungle basin! I love maps with backdoors as zerg!
the other map is just too wierd to talk nothing about without actually playing it so! Anyways, ICCup maps FTW!
|
This Shakuras map is pretty weird though imo.
I'm watching Gisados stream, and its actually producing some really good games. With no possibility of spawning vertically, the horizontal and cross positions are both well-balanced and make for interesting, macro-oriented matchups. its definitely a little unorthodox, but I think its actually a very solid map and once people play it for a bit it will be one of the most popular in the map pool.
|
I am going to miss DO. Even though so many pros thumbs down DO I think it has more to do with it being so different thus hard to prepare for rather than sucking as a map. The tileset is sub-optimal but the layout promotes awesome macro games once you figure out how to not die to fast banshee/void ray/muta harass... it was just SO easy to FE with the destructable rocks.
I'm interested to see what maps GSL2 uses (are kulas and DO out now?), and if players will thumbs down these new ones over other popular thumbs down maps (BS, Steppes, Delta)
|
Isn't even Peaks of Baekdu in the game, aka Blizzard made the map? But its not being used for ladderplay? It's a bit narrow the remake and to me it screams a terran map(I play P, only played vs Z on it) due to the siege possibilites, but i'd say its alot better then many maps in the current map pool.
|
I'm actually happy that Blizzard is willing to put new maps in the pool (I doubted it) so I vote for "like". Played a ladder ZvZ on Jungle Basin (win) and a custom ZvT (loss) on Shakuras today but that not's enough to judge them really, I'm just appreciating the variety.
I didn't have so strong feelings about Kulas despite being Zerg but I understand that many people disliked it so it's a good removal I guess, what I don't understand is the removal of DO! After the patch it was pretty decent and I really enjoyed playing on it (albeit rarely because so many players vetoed it I guess). It was the only map besides Scrap Station that encouraged a longer, macro-oriented play and they removed it ...
I'd be happier if they removed Blistering Sands and Steppes of War instead. I really hate those.
|
Shakuras is so bad.
Positional based balance (to a ridiculous degree) and more backdoors.
Seriously, the push distance for 10 and 7 and 2 to 5 isn't even a full screen.
|
Jungle Basin is an amazing map for tanks! <3
But also for carriers -_-
|
On October 07 2010 15:28 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:52 TheRabidDeer wrote:
The same way protoss and zerg stop them? Make a bunker, make marines, use workers... you know, defend. Toss and terran wall off against Z for a reason. Lings are too fast for rines and zealots to handle if they can run around as they please. The idea of stopping 6 pools with bunkers is pretty hilarious though. Kudos. Terran is DESIGNED to wall off against MELEE units. These walloffs put critical structures in vulnerable positions. Seriously, this is Starcraft, not Age of Empires.
Wow I literally just played against a random on steppes of wars (as terran) who ended up 6 pooling me. I went 10supp 10 rax (because its the cheese map) and when my scout got to his base, his lings popped out. I dropped a bunker and got it up in time for my marauder (didn't even make a marine) and his 6 pool was done.
This was at 1000 diamond rating. Even teams.
|
On October 08 2010 01:46 Piy wrote:
Shakuras is so bad.
Positional based balance (to a ridiculous degree) and more backdoors.
Seriously, the push distance for 10 and 7 and 2 to 5 isn't even a full screen.
You only spawn cross as far as i heard.
|
Shakuras is so bad.
Positional based balance (to a ridiculous degree) and more backdoors.
Seriously, the push distance for 10 and 7 and 2 to 5 isn't even a full screen.
Its set up so you can't spawn vertically. Its cross or horizontal spawns only.
Which actually makes it a pretty good map.
|
I wonder how many of the votes for "dislike it" on shakuras are based on the vertical rush distance.
If it's true that vertical spawns are impossible on shakuras, it should be on the front page; it's a pretty significant factor in judging the map.
|
|
|
Honestly, both of these maps were my least favorite of the "extra" Blizzard maps But! I'm glad they're rotating in maps at least. That's definitely a positive, though I think they can accelerate map rotations a little bit. Two maps every two months feels like a good pace, rather than two maps every three months.
|
On October 07 2010 12:25 Camlito wrote:
What the fuck, more backdoor maps?
yes... more backdoor maps ((
|
Really disappointing to see DO go... I felt it was a great map after the changes and finally a map that felt like it favored Zerg a bit.
|
Always thought Shakuras was a pure 2v2 map considering the layout, weird that they would put it in the same league as LT/Metal.
|
This is really just all the more reason for tourneys to start using 3rd party maps and get out of this "we must play Blizz maps" mindset.
|
Seems nobody remembers Shakuras Plateau from the beta, they removed it from the list after seemingly being deemed balanced and added new maps to test. I like it.
|
You know Diamond, since Blizzard is so far not responding to your rant, can we make an attempt to work on my idea of getting Blizzard to make edits to their existing maps?
I PM'd ProdiG about it but he stopped responding.
|
So glad DO is gone, it's such a weird map, it's to big to be a ground map, but to open to be an air map.
|
Even tho Kulas and DO are off the pool in terms of that screen, I still played a couple of games Kulas today, so its not completely out of the map pool (ladder)
|
why can't they just let iCCup do this work for them
|
 very busy day for sc2 lol. my first impression is that these maps are awesome
|
Wow, people don't like Shakuras Plateau? I really like it, tbh. I think it plays a lot more balanced than the others, and it's the macro-oriented, no gold expo map people have been clamouring for for a while now. The only think i can think of that I don't like is the huge impact of spawn positions. But if anything, that adds variety to the map that makes playing on it less tedious and repetitious.
|
Honestly I liked kulas and DO, they were frustrating to play on but just required a very different mindset. Kulas made me rage occasionally at cliffdrops though, I think the cliff rocks should have had like half health.
|
Sweet, now I can thumbs down Basin, DQ, and BS instead of Kulas and DO.
|
I still didn't have the new maps this morning on NA, has it even happened on NA yet?
|
|
|
What the fuck are they thinking putting shakuras plateau in the 1v1 map rotation? Jungle basin looks like it might not make me want to kill myself when I play on it, but Shakuras plateau? Its a fucking 2v2 map... I'm kinda hoping this thread is 31 pages of troll.
|
I player on shakuras a game and it felt just like caverns with 4 players for me.. Jungle basin looks interesting though, with terran you can expand off 1 or 2 Marines if you wall in, i think.. I wonder if smth like 9 pylon, 14 nexus works in pvp.. Would be cool to see some FE builds.. Just my 2 cents..
|
I played a couple games on the Shakuras map and I'm a bit mixed... the first was a ZvP which was an LOLwin since getting a 14 hatch was ezpz and we were on diagonal positions (8 and 2). I thought it was pretty sweet personally since you had a lot of breathing room and a lot of the stupid tricks you see on maps like Steppes or LT don't happen. The second game was a zvz where we were next to each other (11 and 2) and it's interesting to see the strategy that can come from choosing to break the rocks or take the main (longer) road.
Haven't played any on Jungle Basin yet, hope it won't be lame
|
It is so hard to play zerg on Jungle Basin. I was trying to go for a muta build that requires spines, but the back door makes a spine defense impossible. And if I do set up the defense at the back door, and spines finally hit the ground, the toss will just hit the front. Ugh. I hate that back door sooooo much.
|
Will IEM be using the new ladder pool 2moro???
|
On October 08 2010 04:39 Pudge_172 wrote:
Will IEM be using the new ladder pool 2moro???
I highly highly doubt it as most players have been practicing on the maps like DO/Kulas (or I imagine so anyway). Would be dumb of them to add these 2 maps to the IEM map pool tbh
|
Diamond, I value your passion and admire your contributions to this community.
Ocedic, there is merit in many of your concerns.
Half, you make some of the most consistently insightful replies on TL.
That said, you could all stand to edit some manners into this thread.
On October 07 2010 17:38 Ocedic wrote:
Instead of treating the integration of custom maps as an open discourse....
This is probably the best place to start a civil conversation. Diamond and Half, while you may not like Ocedic's perspective, in truth it describes a minority understanding of iCCup's agenda. Agenda--what a dirty word? Yet even Raelcun felt the need to clarify:
As the second reply to Diamond's b.net post, Raelcun wrote:
iCCup.Raelcun here let me say something.
This is in no means saying bring in JUST iCCup Maps. Just bring in custom maps we of course believe the iccup maps are great but even if you bring in custom maps and our maps dont get as much attention as we want FINE as long as they're good well thought out and designed maps. Our map team and pool is only trying to advance map making as a whole and by no means saying we're the definitive and only option out there. Just trying to advance the sport by closing up the major weakness the maps.
Here Raelcun astutely describes iCCup's true goals, but unfortunately not everybody understands things this way.
I am as much a fan of the iCCup effort to help the development of SC2 e-Sports as the next guy. I just don't want to see you guys inadvertently give yourselves a bad image by mishandling your frustrations. Always choose your words carefully, and like Kennigit said on Weapon of Choice this week, focus on building evidence for why your maps are good.
I think you'll have more success that way, and SC2 will benefit with your success. That's all I have to say for now. And do try to treat each other like gentlemen. 
|
Vatican City State95 Posts
Just played on jungle basin, didn't know these maps were coming so it was pretty suprsing when it popped. I like the map though, made for an interesting game, my Zerg opponent was harassing me on all sides till I smashed through the front. Made a for a fun 16 minute game.
|
I'm convinced that I'll only be able to get TvT on Shakuras Plateau.
|
So Jungle Basin and Scrap station to be down rated most likely for me, I don't know, maybe the other new one.
|
On October 08 2010 04:35 darthcaesar wrote:
It is so hard to play zerg on Jungle Basin. I was trying to go for a muta build that requires spines, but the back door makes a spine defense impossible. And if I do set up the defense at the back door, and spines finally hit the ground, the toss will just hit the front. Ugh. I hate that back door sooooo much.
Yeah it's a truly horrible backdoor. Worse than Blistering. if they got rid of the backdoor the map might not be terrible, though it's still kind of small, there's good flanking opportunities etc.
Just that backdoor ruins the entire map
|
Just played Jungle basin for the first time and my first impression is that I will down vote this map just as I did Kulas. I'm not sure how to play this map as zerg because everything is so narrow and there are so many choke points that it's hard to get a good surround off. Perhaps it's just a lack of experience with the map but it seems to be painful for zerg.
Exposed third
Nasty backdoor
Very little open space
Choke points galore
|
I don't like Jungle Basin very much at all. I wish it more like a 2 player Delta Quadrant, at least in the way the starting bases are.
|
On October 08 2010 04:13 Wr3k wrote:
What the fuck are they thinking putting shakuras plateau in the 1v1 map rotation? Jungle basin looks like it might not make me want to kill myself when I play on it, but Shakuras plateau? Its a fucking 2v2 map... I'm kinda hoping this thread is 31 pages of troll.
This just in, there's 2v2 maps on the 1v1 ladder.
I don't understand why so many people keep saying that. You won't ever spawn top/bottom close positions, the natural isn't wide open, rush distance isn't short.
What's wrong with Shakuras?
|
i played jungle basin a few times back when it was just on the custom games map pool. I must say that its a horrible map especially for zerg. it honestly seems like they make a map and just throw expansions any where and everywhere and think it will be good. thats exactly what they did on jungle basin. the worst part of it all is the high ground expansions in the middle. each one of the expansions are so hard to defend because it leads u closer and closer to the opponents main or the oponents expansion. and they all link up to each other for easy access.
toss and terran will have a field day with expansion happy zergs on that map.
|
On October 08 2010 06:44 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 04:13 Wr3k wrote:
What the fuck are they thinking putting shakuras plateau in the 1v1 map rotation? Jungle basin looks like it might not make me want to kill myself when I play on it, but Shakuras plateau? Its a fucking 2v2 map... I'm kinda hoping this thread is 31 pages of troll. This just in, there's 2v2 maps on the 1v1 ladder. I don't understand why so many people keep saying that. You won't ever spawn top/bottom close positions, the natural isn't wide open, rush distance isn't short. What's wrong with Shakuras?
A better question is what is wrong with most of the knee-jerk posters on TL? Just imagine taking some time and thought before posting, this could be a much better/more constructive discussion.
Both maps have their niches, but we ultimately can't make any rash decisions until they have been played for awhile.
|
On October 08 2010 07:03 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 06:44 kojinshugi wrote:On October 08 2010 04:13 Wr3k wrote:
What the fuck are they thinking putting shakuras plateau in the 1v1 map rotation? Jungle basin looks like it might not make me want to kill myself when I play on it, but Shakuras plateau? Its a fucking 2v2 map... I'm kinda hoping this thread is 31 pages of troll. This just in, there's 2v2 maps on the 1v1 ladder. I don't understand why so many people keep saying that. You won't ever spawn top/bottom close positions, the natural isn't wide open, rush distance isn't short. What's wrong with Shakuras? A better question is what is wrong with most of the knee-jerk posters on TL? Just imagine taking some time and thought before posting, this could be a much better/more constructive discussion. Both maps have their niches, but we ultimately can't make any rash decisions until they have been played for awhile.
jungle basin was on the top of the custom games pool for a good few weeks awhile back, so alot of people played them. shakuras was also on the top of the list for awhile. they are very old maps and not even remotely new. i have played on jungle basin a few times and it is just a pure suck map.
i cant speak for shakuras tho since i only played one game on shakuras.
|
On October 08 2010 07:03 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 06:44 kojinshugi wrote:On October 08 2010 04:13 Wr3k wrote:
What the fuck are they thinking putting shakuras plateau in the 1v1 map rotation? Jungle basin looks like it might not make me want to kill myself when I play on it, but Shakuras plateau? Its a fucking 2v2 map... I'm kinda hoping this thread is 31 pages of troll. This just in, there's 2v2 maps on the 1v1 ladder. I don't understand why so many people keep saying that. You won't ever spawn top/bottom close positions, the natural isn't wide open, rush distance isn't short. What's wrong with Shakuras? A better question is what is wrong with most of the knee-jerk posters on TL? Just imagine taking some time and thought before posting, this could be a much better/more constructive discussion. Both maps have their niches, but we ultimately can't make any rash decisions until they have been played for awhile.
I don't know, is it an adolescent contrarianism thing? You see the same stuff all over gaming forums. People who play games constantly bitch and moan about them and compare them to some downtrodden past that they probably never even experienced.
I've seen people advocate BW style maps and mechanics while admitting they never actually played BW. All they know it was the Golden Age of Balance and was made by a kinder gentler Blizzard.
|
I played Jungle Basin three times today. I think the map is ok. 3rd Base seems kind of bad placed but overall pretty ok also i played 3 TvP on SP. SP is a really great map for the first impression. Very Macro oriented. But the destructible rocks near the main really favors fast Voidrays. I think you have to prepare for that in every TvP.
Thats just my 2 cent.
|
No! DO was my favorite (at least till they put shitty rocks). At least these maps have nice 1st expansions.
|
I enjoy Jungle Basis, though I'm admittedly a little weak on it. Same with Blistering Sands, stupid backdoor rocks.
I think its a good map though. A bit different than a lot of the other ones.
|
woop woop, finally a zerg map!!! love shakuras plateau!!
:D
expos everywhere, its like a macro zergs dream come true!
|
On October 08 2010 07:28 foo wrote:
woop woop, finally a zerg map!!! love shakuras plateau!!
:D
expos everywhere, its like a macro zergs dream come true!
Yea, and probably exactly the reason why most terran and protoss players will just block it. Rush distances on vertical are shorter than on blistering sands, or I think so. The natural expansion in front of your ramp is way too easy to protect, 16 hatch will become nonpunishable. And then, there is another arguably safe expand behind your base.
I find jungle Basin a little better, but there again, fast expand is hardly punishable.
Anyways, good luck playing on these maps other than in ZvZ :S
|
The new maps are so Zerg favored. Definitely thumbs down.
|
shakuras plateau = bad
jungle basin = WHTOFIASOÑDASO KCOASCKOASKCAOCK
|
wtf why was kulas replaced? I was just starting to like that map...
|
Your all whiners. Jungle basin looks pretty cool. Shakuras might be a little boring if the only spawns are cross position. There is alot of open ground on that map.
|
@Jungle Basin, where is my third?!
|
Earlier today I was waiting around for friends to log on so we could initiate villain slaying, when I decided to get onto Shakuras Plateau to see where I could abuse protoss units, when I found something pretty huge.
The natural of the Top Right starting location in Shakuras Ravine has a small advantage compared to the other naturals.
As shown below, in all three of the other starting locations the second gas(as well as the first) gas are able to be sniped by Stalkers/Marauders
+ Show Spoiler +
While at the Top Right location the second gas is having the time of it's life(the probe is a marker, as to how far the stalker can shoot):
+ Show Spoiler +
As to how much of a deal this is, I'll leave that up for debate... but what I can say for sure is the map is nowhere near symmetrical.
|
I bet Diamond is pretty livid right now, with blizzard posters responding to all the threads asking about the race v race statistics they posted, and nobody touching the map thread.
Pretty upsetting day.
|
wow now there are more bad maps then i can veto T_T
EDIT: at least kulas ravine is gone, but i would have liked to see a good map take its place
|
New maps are nice I guess. but can't Blizzard make them more better like BW pro maps?
|
Either blizzard or these tournament organizers need to start looking at some of the ICCup maps, it's nice that blizzard has taken out 2 maps that are considered pretty universally bad but they still have several maps in the pool that have major balance issues. I also continue to be dumbfounded about how these maps are not all perfectly symmetrical, it's just such a ridiculous oversight.
|
Reasons for bliss not using custom maps in ladder may be a result of copyrights. Does anybody know what type of creative ownership one has with the creation of a custom map? I'm just interested to know, because blizzard may be obligated to use a contractual agreement with the author if they wish to use a custom map on their official ladder. Blizzard emplyee is contractually obligates any creative licenses to Blizzard based on employment. Given the nature of ownership on the Internet, may be hard to track down creators of said custom works.
Again, interested to see what people know in regards to copyright and the custom map system.
|
On October 08 2010 09:24 FunnelC4kes wrote:
Reasons for bliss not using custom maps in ladder may be a result of copyrights. Does anybody know what type of creative ownership one has with the creation of a custom map? I'm just interested to know, because blizzard may be obligated to use a contractual agreement with the author if they wish to use a custom map on their official ladder. Blizzard emplyee is contractually obligates any creative licenses to Blizzard based on employment. Given the nature of ownership on the Internet, may be hard to track down creators of said custom works.
Again, interested to see what people know in regards to copyright and the custom map system.
SC2 ToS states that any and every custom map created is the sole property of Blizzard.
|
Sounds like Blizzard is just very slow to pull any trigger. I'm sure the idea of "map-changing" took months of deliberation before the boff-man decided it may be a good idea. You never know, we could be waiting on Michael Scott for God's sake.
But I, for one definitley think they need to adopt iCCup's maps.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 08 2010 08:40 qpeeved wrote:Earlier today I was waiting around for friends to log on so we could initiate villain slaying, when I decided to get onto Shakuras Plateau to see where I could abuse protoss units, when I found something pretty huge. The natural of the Top Right starting location in Shakuras Ravine has a small advantage compared to the other naturals. As shown below, in all three of the other starting locations the second gas(as well as the first) gas are able to be sniped by Stalkers/Marauders + Show Spoiler +While at the Top Right location the second gas is having the time of it's life(the probe is a marker, as to how far the stalker can shoot): + Show Spoiler +As to how much of a deal this is, I'll leave that up for debate... but what I can say for sure is the map is nowhere near symmetrical.
That's actually kind of a huge deal. Surprising.
|
So we get a map that was originally designed for 2v2 (Shakuras) and a map that essentially has no 3rd expansion (Jungle Basin). Cool.
|
blizzard should really try out some bigger maps without all the gimmicks, just look at metalopolis. easily the most liked map in sc2 right now, there is a reason for this..
and IF they insist on having these gimmicky small maps with awfully short distances in some spaws (or all of them on some maps) there should be some maps that benefit all races, not just the terran race.
|
Wish we could down-vote more than 3 maps... Blizzard maps truly are terrible.
|
On October 07 2010 19:27 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 18:58 kojinshugi wrote:
I don't need advice. If mOnion is a veteran then he needs to learn to read before he replies. It's absolutely disingenuous to harp on ridiculous minutiae and distort the argument of another person, especially in the guise of "helping them play". I didn't ask for advice.
its a starcraft forum. if you post saying essentially "I have to wall to beat 6pool" then people are going to try and help you, but you lashed out against every single person who tried like a toddler who doesn't want help with his fingerpainting. fine we wont help, but we're certainly not putting your replay on the refrigerator.
I see this guy getting into heated arguments on so many threads. think he's just one of those people that starts big arguments with inflammatory comments and bull-headedness
edit: btw im talking about kojinshugi, not mOnion
|
It really amazes me how Blizzard overlooks these types of balance things. I am glad I can stand the other maps at the moment (barely) because I have enough down votes for both of these :D
|
Small maps again? Isn't that the biggest problem with the current maps for tournaments?
|
i hate this change. these maps are not even good.
|
On October 07 2010 14:02 Spaceball wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Reads like one big 'argument from authority' to be honest. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence presented as damning and many statements from iccup-ers that that are just supposed to be taken as fact that I am not so sure about. From Diamond:
"For those that do not know, one of the very main things that made Starcraft Brood War have such a long life cycle was the maps made for it not from Blizzard."
(Makes an implication about SC1 : Maps :: SC2 : Maps that might not actually be true.)
"We at iCCup TV have hosted hundreds of games on these maps and no major glaring problems like the above maps have been documented."
(So you have these maps that people didn't really test out yet that you want to use to replace the other maps that people didn't really test out?)
"Metalopolis is a great map but at this point is OLD. I've been playing that map for like 7 months now, it's just so blah... "
(LOL what? So even the good maps have to go now too because they are simply declared old and boring.)
"I did a poll about if iCCup events should go to all custom maps (on TL), and received a 94% approval rating into rotating out most Blizzard maps from over 1500 votes. The voice is there, the fans want to see something new."
(Based on polling 1% of the top 5% of hardcore fans? Teamliquid might contain *all* of the top players and strategists on Earth but that doesn't mean they are representative of 100% of the people who play. Sorry.)
And here is one from Raeclun: "The casuals are not the ones who draw people into playing the game those are the pros who play at a high level for the entertainment of others."
Ummm, maybe? Time for my anecdotal evidence I guess: exactly none of my 20+ real-life friends who plays SC2 gives a rat's ass about the GSL or progaming and they all started playing from word-of-mouth and their WoW/Modern Warfare buddies all playing.
If the point people are trying to make is BW's maps 10 years out were way better than SC2's maps 3 months out thanks in large part to the efforts of kespa/iccup mapmaking. Yes agreed but maybe you should have some small amount of patience and more tact in approaching blizzard. I understand the frustrations but I have my doubts about this being a good way to get match point added to the 1v1 ladder pool.
|
On October 08 2010 15:13 tpir wrote:
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.
Reads like one big 'argument from authority' to be honest. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence presented as damning and many statements from iccup-ers that that are just supposed to be taken as fact that I am not so sure about. From Diamond:
There has been 5 iCCup members posting there. That is all out of 12 pages of discussion.
"For those that do not know, one of the very main things that made Starcraft Brood War have such a long life cycle was the maps made for it not from Blizzard."
(Makes an implication about SC1 : Maps :: SC2 : Maps that might not actually be true.)
No just stated a fact. Let me quote Liquipedia here: "Custom-made Maps are the bread and butter of competitive StarCraft. Without frequent exchange of maps to accomodate for trends and shifts in the meta game, the incredibly dynamic evolution of StarCraft progaming arguably could not have happened."
I just stated it was a big factor in the life cycle of SC, which it was.
"We at iCCup TV have hosted hundreds of games on these maps and no major glaring problems like the above maps have been documented."
(So you have these maps that people didn't really test out yet that you want to use to replace the other maps that people didn't really test out?)
Actually quite the opposite, these maps have hundreds of games played on them by top players. They ARE tested.
"Metalopolis is a great map but at this point is OLD. I've been playing that map for like 7 months now, it's just so blah... "
(LOL what? So even the good maps have to go now too because they are simply declared ood and boring.)
7 months is a LONG time for a map. It IS old.
"I did a poll about if iCCup events should go to all custom maps (on TL), and received a 94% approval rating into rotating out most Blizzard maps from over 1500 votes. The voice is there, the fans want to see something new."
(Based on polling 1% of the top 5% of hardcore fans? Teamliquid might contain *all* of the top players and strategists on Earth but that doesn't mean they are representative of 100% of the people who play. Sorry.)
No but 1500 people is a great sample size for something like this. Look into how 98% of polls for companies are run, they sample a small group.
And here is one from Raeclun: "The casuals are not the ones who draw people into playing the game those are the pros who play at a high level for the entertainment of others."
Ummm, maybe? Time for my anecdotal evidence I guess: exactly none of my 20+ real-life friends who plays SC2 gives a rat's ass about the GSL or progaming and they all started playing from word-of-mouth and their WoW/Modern Warfare buddies all playing.
What he is saying is that the casual's may play, but it's the hardcores that are going o our friends and going "you HAVE to buy this game man" or "Make sure and watch the GSL finals, it will be CRAZY." This is true in most sports industries, even more so with the smaller ones like MMA.
If the point people are trying to make is BW's maps 10 years out were way better than SC2's maps 3 months out. Yes agreed but maybe you should have some small amount of patience. I understand the frustrations but I have my doubts about this being a good way to get match point added to the 1v1 ladder pool.
Just want to get the discussion going. Do I think Blizz is going to look at the post and go "GUYS WE'RE STUPID! ALL CUSTOM MAPS FOR EVERYONE!!!!!" No. Do I think it's something that needs to be discussed sooner rather then later? Shit yea.
It's obviously a hot topic. It's been on Reddit's front Starcraft page for over 22 hours (which for Reddit is an ETERNITY), and has 12 pages of mostly well thought out discussion on one of the most well known troll filled forums. It's not just the TL member that are interested in this.
|
I can't believe people still like jungle Basin.
I think we need REINFORCEMENTS!
![[image loading]](http://i53.tinypic.com/14lk7t3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i54.tinypic.com/2hs583o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i53.tinypic.com/2eapde9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i54.tinypic.com/o7ozll.jpg)
|
if hte map is truly imbalanced, you can always just play better than your opponent.
|
i will not rest untill Andromeda is in the map pool!!!!!!!!!!!
|
maps suck. So terrible.
Actually Shakuras is ok but it looks like a 4p incineration zone. Jungle Basin is just horrible
|
So, I don't know where all the ideas came from that Shakuras Plateau is a 2v2 map. Sure, it was featured in the beta 2v2 pool, but so was Lost Temple and Metalopolis. Clearly, it was never an official 2v2 map. It's far from a team play map.
|
On October 08 2010 15:20 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
No but 1500 people is a great sample size for something like this. Look into how 98% of polls for companies are run, they sample a small group.
Yeah, but the polling companies don't go to the Westboro Babtist Church to sample public opinon on gay marriage.
The selection bias is absurd. You're polling people who:
1) are on the forums (i.e. highly likely to be disgruntled about something)
2) read threads about maps/balance (i.e. highly likely to be balance whiners)
3) care to vote in your poll (i.e. highly likely to already be on the Blizz maps suck bandwagon)
The fact that you got 94% approval rating backing your position should have been a clue that you're doing it wrong.
94% of people don't agree about anything outside of Saddam Hussein elections and shoddy opinion polls.
|
On October 08 2010 15:50 kojinshugi wrote:
1) are on the forums (i.e. highly likely to be disgruntled about something)
2) read threads about maps/balance (i.e. highly likely to be balance whiners)
3) care to vote in your poll (i.e. highly likely to already be on the Blizz maps suck bandwagon.
You make a lot of assumptions here.
And I do what I can with what I have avaliable. I wish I could get the list for all SCII accounts and email a random 1500 asking them. But I can't. So I use the best resources avaliable to me.
|
On October 08 2010 15:57 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 15:50 kojinshugi wrote:
1) are on the forums (i.e. highly likely to be disgruntled about something)
2) read threads about maps/balance (i.e. highly likely to be balance whiners)
3) care to vote in your poll (i.e. highly likely to already be on the Blizz maps suck bandwagon. You make a lot of assumptions here.
Really? Forums being full of people with axes to grind is an assumption?
And I do what I can with what I have avaliable. I wish I could get the list for all SCII accounts and email a random 1500 asking them. But I can't. So I use the best resources avaliable to me.
When your options are no data or bad and inaccurate data, then the choice should be obvious.
Your crusade to browbeat Blizzard into using your maps is not going to work, especially if your tactics involve sensationalist stunts like "94% of people agree with me that your maps are the poop!".
|
On October 08 2010 12:38 Subversion wrote:I see this guy getting into heated arguments on so many threads. think he's just one of those people that starts big arguments with inflammatory comments and bull-headedness edit: btw im talking about kojinshugi, not mOnion
Stalker much?
I didn't start any arguments, these people jumped in halfway through a conversation and started arguing a point I never fucking made.
|
On October 08 2010 16:02 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 15:57 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On October 08 2010 15:50 kojinshugi wrote:
1) are on the forums (i.e. highly likely to be disgruntled about something)
2) read threads about maps/balance (i.e. highly likely to be balance whiners)
3) care to vote in your poll (i.e. highly likely to already be on the Blizz maps suck bandwagon. You make a lot of assumptions here. Really? Forums being full of people with axes to grind is an assumption? Show nested quote +And I do what I can with what I have avaliable. I wish I could get the list for all SCII accounts and email a random 1500 asking them. But I can't. So I use the best resources avaliable to me. When your options are no data or bad and inaccurate data, then the choice should be obvious. Your crusade to browbeat Blizzard into using your maps is not going to work, especially if your tactics involve sensationalist stunts like "94% of people agree with me that your maps are the poop!".
Congratulations, you went through an 8000 word post and picked out one single statement and are using it to counter the other 7800+ words on that thread.
If you don't like the stats, too bad, they are stats. I mentioned where the poll was done, and imo there is no better place in the world to poll Starcraft fans then TL.
If it does not meet your standards I am sorry, but it is what it is.
|
On October 08 2010 16:18 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
Congratulations, you went through an 8000 word post and picked out one single statement and are using it to counter the other 7800+ words on that thread.
If you don't like the stats, too bad, they are stats. I mentioned where the poll was done, and imo there is no better place in the world to poll Starcraft fans then TL.
If it does not meet your standards I am sorry, but it is what it is.
I'm not trying to counter anything.
I'm trying to yet again let you know that your tone in advocating these maps is confrontational, derisive, divisive, and unreasonable. I'd love to see user-made maps embraced by Blizzard, but it's not going to happen when you're so antagonistic in advocating them.
I'm not trying to start an argument with you.
|
Diamond, with all due respect, you are rightfully emotional about this issue, but it might be clouding things a bit. Your attempts to explain that you are *not* arguing from authority boil down to "well these are the facts from SC1 and that is just how SC2 will work because I said so." (I mean I am playing devils advocate to some degree because of course the maps are important. Its an RTS game ffs! )
Same with your logic for Metalopolis: "It simply IS old because I say so and I know a lot about maps. So there." Ok well the game hasn't actually been out for 7 months retail and I say Metalopolis is still fresh and awesome. So there
You are stretching with your reddit thread timing and MMA "points" (what percentage of MMA fans are also MMA fighters? vs. what percentage of SC fans also play SC?) I already told my anecdotes about people who don't care about GSL and probably never will, so telling me "well they should care!" is just making my authority point again. The pros will of course drive the direction of the changes but the casual players simply don't care at all about those details.
Serious question: Do you think Blizzard is somehow unaware of the top pros opinions on 1v1 pool being shitty right now?
Cliff notes: Patience? At least see what the eSports patch entails and hear what the plans are for 2011 GSL map pools? There could be 4 more brand new maps in the pool tomorrow for all we know.
|
Russian Federation6 Posts
You've just activated my Jungel Basin card!
|
If these maps were exactly the same but called "iCCup Shakuras Plateau" and "iCCup Jungle Basin" everyone would praise how amazing they are.
|
If these maps were exactly the same but called "iCCup Shakuras Plateau" and "iCCup Jungle Basin" everyone would praise how amazing they are.
so true.
and i love the new maps
|
On October 09 2010 00:58 Kishime wrote:
If these maps were exactly the same but called "iCCup Shakuras Plateau" and "iCCup Jungle Basin" everyone would praise how amazing they are.
Haha that is so true.
|
On October 08 2010 16:22 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 16:18 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
Congratulations, you went through an 8000 word post and picked out one single statement and are using it to counter the other 7800+ words on that thread.
If you don't like the stats, too bad, they are stats. I mentioned where the poll was done, and imo there is no better place in the world to poll Starcraft fans then TL.
If it does not meet your standards I am sorry, but it is what it is. I'm not trying to counter anything. I'm trying to yet again let you know that your tone in advocating these maps is confrontational, derisive, divisive, and unreasonable. I'd love to see user-made maps embraced by Blizzard, but it's not going to happen when you're so antagonistic in advocating them. I'm not trying to start an argument with you.
I kind of agree that Diamonds original thread was overly confrontational. It just was. Diamond, you were angry. It is understandable.
But it was still a thread that needed to be made, and it was better that it be made in that way than not made at all.
Regardless of what people think of the Blizzard maps, and regardless of whether or not the Blizzard maps will, a year down the road, be realized as much better or much worse than the current opinion states, mapmaking is something that the community can contribute towards the furthering of SC2 as a sport.
What I've seen the iCCup team do over the past couple months is put who knows how many hours into making maps, only for these maps to not really be used, and nobody except for the TL people to really talk about them.
I know a few small scale tournaments have been using them, and I've been enjoying iCCups stream. I'm slowly starting to like Realcun more and more as a caster. He's just such a nice guy.
But the large scale tournaments aren't using them, none of the maps are very popular on Bnet, and Blizzard won't make any comment at all about what it thinks on community maps. I would like to see Blizzard say what they think a good map is. What they think good sizes should be. How much differentiation there should be in maps in a given pool. Etc. There's a thread like this on the Custom Maps forum here, talking about where cliffs should be, how many expansions there should be, how many squares a natural expansions choke should be, etc. I want to see if Blizzards opinions and TL's opinions match up.
Because if they don't, that would let custom mapmakers either say 'well Blizzard is wrong and this is why', or it would let them change their maps to something Blizzard, and by association the large scale tournaments that Blizzard has to authorize, might more readily accept. It wouldn't introduce custom maps overnight, but it would start the discussion.
With such talented people putting so much work towards their maps, the fact that there is literally no discussion between the game developers and the community mapmakers is upsetting to me. It just seems like a wasted opportunity on the part of Blizzard, and I am not sure what they are thinking.
Diamond has a reason to be angry, because it's not the first time he's tried to appeal to them. And the fact that they at least seemingly do not care is distressing. If I really wanted to help with something, and spent a lot of work trying to help, only to be basically completely ignored, I would be upset too.
It was a good thread. It needed to be made. And even though it's pretty clear that Blizzard is not going to respond to it, I don't think we should just give up. There's other things we can do to try to get them to listen, and at least acknowledge it.
|
Am I the only one see Terrain nightmare with Void ray in shakuras plateau?
If spawn in Horziontal position, void ray has a free rock to charge up and it's damn close to mineral line.
|
As a protoss, I love jungle basin. A free, easy to defend expansion, small ramp, and rocks to charge void rays.
|
On October 09 2010 00:58 Kishime wrote:
If these maps were exactly the same but called "iCCup Shakuras Plateau" and "iCCup Jungle Basin" everyone would praise how amazing they are.
I'm not sure why, since only a couple of the iccup maps are actually good imho. I guess in general they're better than Blizzard maps though.
|
I really really love the new map pool ^^.
I'm not sure why people are hating .
|
I kinda like shakuras plateuau because it has lots of expansions and by opening the rocks you have a nice layout. Also the middle is wide open but has some line of sight blockers <3.
But jungle basin is just.... As a zerg I haven`t found a good place for a third base yet. The middel is so freakin narrow you cannot surround or flank them. Also they´ll see every attempt coming from miles away because both paths have a watch tower.
Edit: I think jungle would be alot better if they removed the hole between the two watchtowers. I hate thoose two small paths so much.
|
On October 09 2010 00:58 Kishime wrote:
If these maps were exactly the same but called "iCCup Shakuras Plateau" and "iCCup Jungle Basin" everyone would praise how amazing they are.
erm, no.
|
Not sure if this has been said already (just kind of skimmed the last 34 pages) but I THINK there's a tank imbalance on Shakuras Plateau.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
If someone can confirm or deny this, that would be great, thanks. Basically the idea is that you can't hit an adjacent vertical position's geyser unless you're in the top left.
|
1400 Z
Went 4-0 last night on Jungle. Liking it right now, though that could change.
Went 0-1 last night on Shakura. Seems tankcentric. I like both better than Kulas.
|
I really really miss Kulas, I recently thumbs upped it on teh ladder and I was really enjoying it... The new ones, to be honest, are pretty mediocre
|
On October 09 2010 02:49 Animostas wrote:Not sure if this has been said already (just kind of skimmed the last 34 pages) but I THINK there's a tank imbalance on Shakuras Plateau. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +If someone can confirm or deny this, that would be great, thanks. Basically the idea is that you can't hit an adjacent vertical position's geyser unless you're in the top left.
Apparently vertical positions cannot exist in this map, the only valid spawns are horizontal or diagonal.
|
Seriously? Well, that's sort of a clever way to introduce a 2v2 map into the 1v1 map pool.
|
I'm a zerg player and i feel like Shakuras plataeu favors zerg. The NE is very close by and it only takes 1 creep to basically reach the NE. The Map is pretty huge for walking distance because you have to go through the middle. Toss and Terran don't't have a good place to make a 3rd expansion. If they do make a 3rd expansion they'd have to split up their troops.
IMO Muta/ling or Nydus is pretty good on this map and I don't feel like i have to rush to defend my NE most of the time.
|
|
|
shakuras is an improvement on kulas, and who isnt sad to see DO tagged out for jungle basin?
jungle basins quite good compared to many maps from my experience with it
|
On October 09 2010 00:58 Kishime wrote:
If these maps were exactly the same but called "iCCup Shakuras Plateau" and "iCCup Jungle Basin" everyone would praise how amazing they are.
The people that like the ICCUP maps are often people that followed the bw scene for along time and actually know what makes a map good and if a map can produce good games.
On the other hand the people that usually side with blizzard in various sc2related issues are people that come from wow and dont really have any real rts experience.
Who would you want deciding what maps should be played not only by the regular ladder player but by the pros in televised events which people might pay for.
I might just want to side with experience on this one.
On a side note:
Overly small maps are just bad, they do not promote smart and strategic play. The blizzard maps are too much rush/one base oriented to produce really really good games on a regular basis.
|
Anyone noticed that the bottom bases have MUCH less space for air around them? It's pretty imbalanced...
In this image just a tiny bit is cut off at the bottom, but it's really no space for air, but at the top you almost can't be reached even by vikings.
Also the top right and bottom left bases have no space to fly at the outer sides of the base.
|
On October 09 2010 04:53 hoob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2010 00:58 Kishime wrote:
If these maps were exactly the same but called "iCCup Shakuras Plateau" and "iCCup Jungle Basin" everyone would praise how amazing they are. The people that like the ICCUP maps are often people that followed the bw scene for along time and actually know what makes a map good and if a map can produce good games. On the other hand the people that usually side with blizzard in various sc2related issues are people that come from wow and dont really have any real rts experience. Who would you want deciding what maps should be played not only by the regular ladder player but by the pros in televised events which people might pay for. I might just want to side with experience on this one. On a side note: Overly small maps are just bad, they do not promote smart and strategic play. The blizzard maps are too much rush/one base oriented to produce really really good games on a regular basis.
Did you pull these stats from anywhere besides your own ass?
|
He pulled it from _your_ ass?
|
On October 09 2010 05:51 ahwala wrote:
He pulled it from _your_ ass?
i feel violated D:
|
On October 09 2010 00:58 Kishime wrote:
If these maps were exactly the same but called "iCCup Shakuras Plateau" and "iCCup Jungle Basin" everyone would praise how amazing they are.
No; people have no problem criticizing ICCUP maps. It's just in general, ICCUP maps that come out tend to not be as awful as some as Blizzard's map choices. It seems the player base knows what they want and ICCUP maps often fulfill that need. Blizzard tends to have their own idea about what maps should be like.
Shakuras Plateau was an awful 2v2 map from Beta, and still remains an awful map. So far I kind of like the choice with Jungle Basin. I feel it's a much better map than Desert Oasis OR Kulas Ravine.
|
On October 09 2010 05:50 blagoonga123 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 09 2010 04:53 hoob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2010 00:58 Kishime wrote:
If these maps were exactly the same but called "iCCup Shakuras Plateau" and "iCCup Jungle Basin" everyone would praise how amazing they are. The people that like the ICCUP maps are often people that followed the bw scene for along time and actually know what makes a map good and if a map can produce good games. On the other hand the people that usually side with blizzard in various sc2related issues are people that come from wow and dont really have any real rts experience. Who would you want deciding what maps should be played not only by the regular ladder player but by the pros in televised events which people might pay for. I might just want to side with experience on this one. On a side note: Overly small maps are just bad, they do not promote smart and strategic play. The blizzard maps are too much rush/one base oriented to produce really really good games on a regular basis. Did you pull these stats from anywhere besides your own ass?
Almost, but really you can see the trends by just looking at this thread and the forums in general, newer players will be more incline to agree with what blizzard is doing becuase they simply dont know better. Bw players on the other hand tend to disagree more with blizzard since they know already what a great rtsgame looks like and what made that rtsgame really really good, and it wasn't supersmall maps that are just awful
|
Didn't they remove Shakuras because it was originally imbalanced? So they brought it back? Is it changed at all since beta?
|
On October 09 2010 06:38 WarChimp wrote:
Didn't they remove Shakuras because it was originally imbalanced? So they brought it back? Is it changed at all since beta?
They removed it in phase 1 Beta because it was a 1v1 map in the 2v2 map pool, just like Lost Temple and Metalopolis.
It was never used as a 1v1 ladder map, albeit being one.
|
Russian Federation6 Posts
Metalopolis -- is the only balanced, great_games-producing map for now and it's also has many funny things for veiwers, like karaoke-pub and stuff.
Delta Quadrant is a protoss' imba cuz of possibility to warp units right to the rocked natural and stalkers blink.
New maps suck for sure and protoss have advantage on them either.
|
Shakuras is ridiculously anti-Terran since you can't roll a close spawn apparently. Unchecked.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On October 09 2010 00:58 Kishime wrote:
If these maps were exactly the same but called "iCCup Shakuras Plateau" and "iCCup Jungle Basin" everyone would praise how amazing they are.
Yeah seriously, I don't get all the hate for these maps. Sure there are some positional imbalances, but overall they're a step in the right direction
- community wanted a healthy map rotation, 3 months after retail release we see the first rotation of maps, that's pretty good to me imo
- community wanted larger maps, shakuras is gigantic o.o
I'm starting to think the iccup guys just want their maps in rotation, rather than new maps getting into rotation that aren't from iccup.
|
The first time i've played shakuras plateau was on close spawn. The distance between bases is quite short the rocks path but very long otherwise, leads to some moving units around kind of like blistering sands. nice they put that one up instead of kulas ravine. it's huge ^^.
|
Shakuras has some decent concepts but they really need to fix the positional imbalances. As it is not I just pray I spawn bottom-left and that I avoid top-left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/tafqdk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i52.tinypic.com/adhg13.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/QAmMF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/h0xFI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://starcraft.incgamers.com/w/images/b/bf/Shakuras_Plateau_v3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://sc2sig.com/s/eu/834596-1.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/XH23r.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Md0ss.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/IyqlS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xnjw1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://magiccards.info/scans/en/vi/164.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/5dgHI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/5ITzN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2lPkU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/B6UW1.jpg)
