EPTWhat's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious.
[D] Let's Play Shakuras Plateau! - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
What's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10814 Posts
| ||
|
Tef
Sweden443 Posts
 No news really. However, if a zerg can hold of the initial harass there are 4 expos that are fully viable to take. I think it reminds me of Metalopolis because of the forced cross positions that players can spawn at. Let's see how this map will fair in GSL2. | ||
|
tacrats
476 Posts
On October 07 2010 19:32 kojinshugi wrote: This isn't Brood War. The designers understand the game just fine, it seems more like a lot of BW players don't understand that SC2 is a different game that will go where the designers want it to go instead of regressing into BW once you're done screaming about the changes enough. For a spectator sport, smaller, more volatile maps are better. If there's nothing "abusable" about a map the map is boring and fosters long macro games. The only person I've seen comment on this whose opinion I actually give two craps about is Artosis, and he said he quite likes the map. But the threads are full of people spouting one-liners about ICCup. Blizzard won't make this into BW. Screaming even louder won't make that any less true. yea, cuz BW games were boring... ROFL. Troll less please. now due to the new maps i just get ball vs ball every game. fun. its fine that the designers want it to be different than bw, but taking it in the wrong direction which is worse than before is not good. | ||
|
228zip
France36 Posts
EDIT : Due to contradictory answers, I tested it : REAPERS CANNOT jump through any of the backdoors. Oh, and I also noticed that there is a little area right between the two vertical naturals that's hidden by bushes. Looks ideal to hide proxies, zerglings and even tech. | ||
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
Meff
Italy287 Posts
On October 07 2010 15:12 NeoLearner wrote: 1) The small patches of high ground in the middle, are they droppable? Yes. 2) The watch towers in the middle, do they cover this ground? That would suck... I really like that spot to park on overlord. Don't immediately see another "parking space". They seem to be specifically made for that, as a watchtower will gain you sight over pretty much every part of the high ground; I used this in a ZvZ to get a free OL snipe with my hydras. There might be a strip of unpassable terrain at the edge of the watchtower vision that could be used to park an overlord, but I'm 80% confident that it's not large enough to do so. 3) Double height main seems nice to fend of reapers. However, please tell me they can't jump past the back door destructible rocks! I thought that they could, but after direct testing they can't pass in the back. I think that there's a bit of unpathable terrain right next to the destructible rocks (the pine-like thingies). 4) One attack path... There is quite a few destructible paths, but even they are close. If you siege up in the middle, will you cover these additional paths also? Edge to edge, the whole area is about 30 units wide (at the center; it widens out towards the back). You can't cover it perfectly with a single tank, as you'll have a gap that is about as wide as a couple of roaches side to side. Sieging up with multiples could work, depending on what you're trying to stop and whether the rocks are already down or not (for instance: zerglings might be able to run by through open rocks, enduring one shot per tank). | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
I don't mind removing Kulas, but why DO and not Delta or Steppes or other much more imbalanced Maps. IMHO, Blizzard doesn't care for balanced Maps, they just want small and simple Maps, that's why they've removed Kulas and DO. The fact that Kulas was totally IMBA doesn't seem to play a huge role in their decision, cuz DO is actually a quite balanced Map IMHO, maybe slightly favouring Zerg, but that's pretty much the only Map that does so. Srsly: Why don't they just completely remove their whole Ladder-pool (besides maybe Metal) and add the Iccup-Maps! | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On October 07 2010 19:45 tacrats wrote: yea, cuz BW games were boring... ROFL. Troll less please. BW games absolutely weren't boring for BW players. They were really really exciting to play and exciting to watch if you were also a BW player. But to the uninitiated (i.e. understands games and RTS but hasn't really played BW seriously) it really doesn't look like much of anything. And yeah, I know it's different in Korea. But Western audiences won't watch BW because it's too macro-oriented and slow. You, as a BW player will actually see a lot of cool shit happening during these "boring" periods, but to most people it just looks like someone's driving around with a couple of bikes putting spider mines in an empty field for 3 minutes straight. now due to the new maps i just get ball vs ball every game. fun. If you choose to play ball vs ball then you're doing it wrong. If you're watching pro games where it's ball vs ball then you're really not watching any of the games I'm watching. its fine that the designers want it to be different than bw, but taking it in the wrong direction which is worse than before is not good. That's your subjective opinion. Most pro gamers I've heard opine about SC2 love the game, even if BW will forever be better in their eyes. The smarter ones even realize some of that is the weight of more than a decade of nostalgia. The rhetoric from a lot of random BW players here seems to be "Everything that is not like BW is the devil and Blizzard are stupid and mean and smell bad". That's not a discussion, it's just ranting. | ||
|
Obsolescence
United States270 Posts
| ||
|
Neverever
Sweden19 Posts
Well that was my SC2 day. | ||
|
228zip
France36 Posts
Srsly: Why don't they just completely remove their whole Ladder-pool (besides maybe Metal) and add the Iccup-Maps! Here's the real reason people : 15-25 minutes is actually the target duration for a SC2 match (this was actually mentionned in one of the interviews during the alpha). iCCup matches encourage longer games. Thus Blizzard doesn't like iCCup maps, and they may be right : Their characteristics are argued to be outdated and imba, and I'm pretty sure most casual gamers prefer most games to be shorter, rather than long and exhausting. Remember that Blizzard wants to make money, and they can't survive by feeding off their fanbase. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On October 07 2010 20:35 228zip wrote: Here's the real reason people : 15-25 minutes is actually the target duration for a SC2 match (this was actually mentionned in one of the interviews during the alpha). iCCup matches encourage longer games. Thus Blizzard doesn't like iCCup maps, and they may be right : Their characteristics are argued to be outdated and imba, and I'm pretty sure most casual gamers prefer most games to be shorter, rather than long and exhausting. Remember that Blizzard wants to make money, and they can't survive by feeding off their fanbase. Actually the pace at which "casual" players play promotes long drawn out games. Not the short fast paced action you see at the top end of the spectrum. I don't get how people think it's the other way around. A slow player will not have the speed to have the constant combat that is seen in short games. | ||
|
Obsolescence
United States270 Posts
On October 07 2010 20:35 228zip wrote: Here's the real reason people : 15-25 minutes is actually the target duration for a SC2 match (this was actually mentionned in one of the interviews during the alpha). iCCup matches encourage longer games. Thus Blizzard doesn't like iCCup maps, and they may be right : Their characteristics are argued to be outdated and imba, and I'm pretty sure most casual gamers prefer most games to be shorter, rather than long and exhausting. Remember that Blizzard wants to make money, and they can't survive by feeding off their fanbase. In the most recent State of the Game podcast Day9 states that ICCup matches had an average game length of 12 minutes overall, but his ZvT and ZvP typically last 18min (above average). How then do you justify the reasoning that ICCup maps would violate the 15-25 minute goal, if we now know that ICCup was working within those constraints? Unless I heard him incorrectly. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On October 07 2010 19:33 kojinshugi wrote: What's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious. Seriously? Too narrow pathways, natural is too difficult to defend, ramp is blockable with 2 pylons(still don't get why this isn't patched out of every map), the fog in the mainbase is bad, etc. Metalopolis isn't a good map either, it just is less worse than pretty much all the others. I seriously think that Lost Temple would be a brilliant map if they just put something like forest or stuff on the ledge above the natural so that no units could be placed there. I really don't understand why they're letting the cliff ruin the game when it'd be so simple to fix. On October 07 2010 20:28 kojinshugi wrote: BW games absolutely weren't boring for BW players. They were really really exciting to play and exciting to watch if you were also a BW player. But to the uninitiated (i.e. understands games and RTS but hasn't really played BW seriously) it really doesn't look like much of anything. My friend who'd never played RTS before really loved SCBW games even though he couldn't understand anything about what was going on in WC3 for instance. | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50595 Posts
On October 07 2010 20:28 kojinshugi wrote: BW games absolutely weren't boring for BW players. They were really really exciting to play and exciting to watch if you were also a BW player. But to the uninitiated (i.e. understands games and RTS but hasn't really played BW seriously) it really doesn't look like much of anything. And yeah, I know it's different in Korea. But Western audiences won't watch BW because it's too macro-oriented and slow. You, as a BW player will actually see a lot of cool shit happening during these "boring" periods, but to most people it just looks like someone's driving around with a couple of bikes putting spider mines in an empty field for 3 minutes straight. I unquoted the rest of your post because it was irrelevant. Its true that for the "uninitiated" that long Macro games are boring to them,its true but you have to understand that no one would watch a game of BW or SC2 before playing it and even if they do they would understand why the game led to a macrofest.I mean come on would you be so dedicated to a game that you never played that you would watch a live broadcasted game between 2 players unless someone introduced it to you. on the balance side smaller maps and tight chokes are a nightmare for Zerg players(although SP is probably one of least zerg unfavored maps in my opinion)and Zerg is a macro oriented race. You can't expect blizzard to just say stuff like, "okay guys screw gameplay,lets make small maps so the games become more action packed and less macro oriented" Especially when 90%* of those are people who actually played the game and actually do understand shit about it. *Note:superly rough estimate. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12024 Posts
The double height main seriously screws around with Reapers on the map which was a very big problem for zerg on something like Kulas. It'll be interesting to see how the map actually goes, since I don't think it'll be extremely easy to defend tank drops in those locations so mutas can easily take them out, also unlike say Kulas for example, there's basically room for one tank to shoot at stuff, unlike Kulas where you could have 5 tanks at once shooting at your nat. So damage will be more minimal and give you more time to deal with it. | ||
|
228zip
France36 Posts
Actually the pace at which "casual" players play promotes long drawn out games. Not the short fast paced action you see at the top end of the spectrum. I don't get how people think it's the other way around. A slow player will not have the speed to have the constant combat that is seen in short games. I know, double bunker at the ramp seems like a standard once you get down a few leagues =/ Still, these games often end with one of the players attacking with a bigger force than his opponent and take the game, not letting them develop into macro-oriented games. In the most recent State of the Game podcast Day9 states that ICCup matches had an average game length of 12 minutes overall, but his ZvT and ZvP typically last 18min (above average). How then do you justify the reasoning that ICCup maps would violate the 15-25 minute goal, if we now know that ICCup was working within those constraints? Unless I heard him incorrectly. I haven't listened to that yet, and I must admit that my experience in BW is quite limited. But all that I can read in the iCCup thread(s) is that these maps promote macro play, with longer rush distances, easily defendable expansions, and make all-ins and violent game ending pushes less powerful. I bet Blizzard also sees them that way and doesn't necesarily listen to their experienced players; they've already demonstrated their inefficiency with the recent ultralisk and phoenix bugs, as well as the removal of DO right after its fix.EDIT: its true but you have to understand that no one would watch a game of BW or SC2 before playing it So very wrong. Any spectactor sports should be interesting even without knowledge of the more complex rules. And experience has demonstrated many times that even people who usually don't play videogames can be interested in watching competitive eSports. | ||
|
Grebliv
Iceland800 Posts
On October 07 2010 20:38 Numy wrote: Actually the pace at which "casual" players play promotes long drawn out games. Not the short fast paced action you see at the top end of the spectrum. I don't get how people think it's the other way around. A slow player will not have the speed to have the constant combat that is seen in short games. Well it's probably at the bad "good" level that the games are the shortest, the 4 gate/3rax/bling-bust level. | ||
|
FALAPARK
United States224 Posts
| ||
| ||
