|
EDIT: Bloodba7h helped out this discussion a lot by using the map editor to find out what are the spawn position combinations. Apparently, you can spawn at horizontal or diagonal positions only. Of course, you can still use the nat-nat tank siege to deny gas but you wont be doing it from the cover of your own natural.
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.
So as you may have seen here, in a few hours Shakuras Plateau will be one of the two maps replacing Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine. In celebration, I've collected some data on Shakuras to help the TL community get a jump-start on exploiting this very cleverly designed map.
Shakuras Plateau Map Image
Here are the times, in-game seconds, for a marine to move from a ramp to attack range of a base assuming vertical spawn positions (I used a marine because they have an average speed).
Main ramp -> Main Base: 34 seconds
Main ramp -> Nat Base: 23 seconds
Nat ramp -> Main Base: 28 seconds
Nat ramp -> Nat Base: 16 seconds
Here are some pics of some fun tricks to try when you get access to this map:
[See the mini-map in the screen-shots for context]
Attacking opponents natural gas from your nat's plateau [SEE EDIT]
+ Show Spoiler +
Attacking opponents main mineral line from behind the destructible rocks
+ Show Spoiler +
Nuking opponents main mineral line from behind destructible rocks
+ Show Spoiler +
Double cliff drop all the way (behind destructible rocks).
+ Show Spoiler +
Hopefully this will be a fun and exciting map! What do you guys think about it? Personally it reminds me of Incineration Zone in terms of rush distances for vertical spawns, and Incineration Zone back door rush distance as well for horizontal spawns. Cross spawns actually seem like they'd be quite fun however.
|
this change has not taken place on the US server as of 02:36 GMT (+00:00) 10-09-10
Kulas is trash but I always enjoyed playing on Oasis as all the races.
|
Wow props to finding a lot of cool things, im probably gonna x this because right now it seems like terrans can do a lot of harrass on this map (not QQ just being realistic), reapers are probably gonna be annoying too
|
Is this some sort of joke?
Just looking at it makes me physically sick.
So at first glance, they take out Kulas and DO to put in an even worse map? I guess its not a good map design if tanks cant be abused.
Also why proxy, when you can just walk right over. And even in cross positions there are very narrow chokes everywhere where units such as tanks and collossus can be easily abused.
From the layout it looks like it is just a map that promotes cheese.
Maps like this is why we need SC2 ICCup.
|
Wow @_@
meme aside, that's actually insane. nat to nat tank fire? dear god. does blizzard actually test these maps? at all? how would this NEVER come up in testing if testing occurred.
|
Sarcasm detector is broken. So in short did you wan to express that terran is imba on this map?
|
Why does blizz put these maps in with 4 spawns that have weird things like "can attack one's gas safely from your own natural"?
Imo.. this map is gonna ROCK with cross positions but suck worse than Incineration Zone with everything else.
|
I am going to only 6 pool on this map, seriously what idiot designed this? More importantly, what idiot put this in the map pool?
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:11 AlBundy wrote:
Sarcasm detector is broken. So in short did you wan to express that terran is imba on this map?
Yes, but he's saying it with a smile on his face, clearly. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
|
On October 07 2010 12:11 mOnion wrote:
Wow @_@
meme aside, that's actually insane. nat to nat tank fire? dear god. does blizzard actually test these maps? at all? how would this NEVER come up in testing if testing occurred.
And isn't it funny how someone on TL finds this stuff in like 2 hours?
|
If im not mistaken i think you spawn cross locations so this wont come into effect until late game?
|
Oh well. A thread like this won't change blizzard's mind, and in the meantime, you just showed all terran players on TL how to abuse tanks on that map. Most would have figured it out eventually, but that's still a strange way to complain about imbalance.
|
On October 07 2010 12:13 Keitzer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:11 mOnion wrote:
Wow @_@
meme aside, that's actually insane. nat to nat tank fire? dear god. does blizzard actually test these maps? at all? how would this NEVER come up in testing if testing occurred. And isn't it funny how someone on TL finds this stuff in like 2 hours?
hilarious T_T sigh...
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
my main gripe is that tanks can sit on the watchtowers and blast away at the 2nd naturals near the center of the map.
oh and someone on the SEA server told me, out of the 5 times he played on this map, the players never spawned vertically. it just might be that vertical spawn was removed by blizzard. that or it was a fluke.
|
And this is why you don't use maps designed for 2v2 in 1v1.
Well, at least its not the ones with the shared bases.
Close spawns work in 2v2 because your ally's always the one that spawns close...but that Nat to Nat distance is...tiny.
|
I would expect nothing else from blizzard when it comes to map making and choosing the ladder maps >.>
|
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur.
|
On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur.
If the map always spawns cross it is a great map. Otherwise it has serious problems.
|
I tried 3 games and didnt get the close spawns on this map. Looks like it aint possible from what others are saying aswell.
|
Australia7069 Posts
Cliffing opponents nat gas from my own nat puts me in mind of the brood war lost temple. Gets me all giddy inside ^_^. Cant wait to abuse this map out of the map pool
|
On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur.
wtf thats garbage lol that makes odds rushing 100% effective
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:29 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur. wtf thats garbage lol that makes odds rushing 100% effective
...just like in any 1v1 map? What is so bad about this?
|
Wow, lol. Blizzard really needs to pull in the reigns on their mapmaking team and get some better maps out there. Replacing a thumbed down map with another thumbed down map, whatever.
|
On October 07 2010 12:35 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:29 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur. wtf thats garbage lol that makes odds rushing 100% effective ...just like in any 1v1 map? What is so bad about this?
4 player maps should have different dynamics than a 2player map.
|
You people could at least try the map before starting to complain. It's all fine and dandy to point out tank abuse in theory, but what happens when it's used in an even match between two good players. Is the position easy to reach, does it open for counters? You all know fairly well that there's always a way to attack an expansion by positioning tanks somewhere. That's the purpose of tanks, not find a way to counter it instead of lamenting yourself over map choice.
|
On October 07 2010 12:12 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:11 AlBundy wrote:
Sarcasm detector is broken. So in short did you wan to express that terran is imba on this map? Yes, but he's saying it with a smile on his face, clearly. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
I don't know what made me laugh harder. The OP, or this post. Ah man, good times.
On October 07 2010 12:29 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur. wtf thats garbage lol that makes odds rushing 100% effective
This "rumour" is because someone in the other thread said he'd "played it like 5 times, and doesn't remember spawning in vertical positions"
Now that's science folks.
|
Oh that backdoor access for horizontal positions is gonna make for some interesting play.
Balance Prediction:
Toss Favored (generally)
Terran Favored (depending on positions)
Zerg favor? (no high yield will be interesting)
|
On October 07 2010 12:40 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:35 motbob wrote:On October 07 2010 12:29 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur. wtf thats garbage lol that makes odds rushing 100% effective ...just like in any 1v1 map? What is so bad about this? 4 player maps should have different dynamics than a 2player map.
Well if cross positions are the only ones it is essentially a large 2 player map. I see no problem with that ... in fact I'd like more large 2 player maps (instead of Steppes?).
|
On October 07 2010 12:12 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:11 AlBundy wrote:
Sarcasm detector is broken. So in short did you wan to express that terran is imba on this map? Yes, but he's saying it with a smile on his face, clearly. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
This guys gets it. Spot on.  I wasn't so much trying to point out some sort of Terran imba on this map, but Terran has units which really expose the flaws of this map. However, as a Zerg player, I won't be playing this map anyway - so I really could care less. I think it's a great map... for it's pure comic genius.
On October 07 2010 12:17 intergalactic wrote:
Oh well. A thread like this won't change blizzard's mind, and in the meantime, you just showed all terran players on TL how to abuse tanks on that map. Most would have figured it out eventually, but that's still a strange way to complain about imbalance.
I figured it out in the first 5 seconds that I looked at the map overhead picture, and I don't even play Terran. I'm sure I didn't reveal anything to the Terrans that they wouldn't have immediately discovered.
On October 07 2010 12:28 Pekkz wrote:
I tried 3 games and didnt get the close spawns on this map. Looks like it aint possible from what others are saying aswell.
Do you know if people are only getting cross spawns? Horizontal is almost as bad, maybe worse, because they can range your actual mineral line + 1 gas with seige from behind the rocks. Then there is the nuke...  Who knows, maybe with some maneuvering they can even range your CC/Nexus/Hatch from that position.
Can anyone confirm that you only get diagonal positions? Diagonal and horizontal? Or can anyone debunk the theory that you never get vertical?
|
Australia7069 Posts
What i dont understand is that map making communities are doing SO much good work, like the iccup team making a sick number of great maps. And instead blizzard brings a map they had for 2v2 early in beta? Did they just get 1 person to whip up some maps in the first week of alpha then go home? now they'll just cycle through their shitty map pool? THis makes me wish we could make a custom ladder, and therefore get good maps
|
I honestly don't really like this map, it's ugly. It's not the best map, especially considering if you are right next to each other, you can just like back door each other like nuts. Which makes me really wonder if that's a great design choice by Blizzard. Good job on being an idiot blizzard.
|
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base.
|
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit.
|
On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base.
why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them?
On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit.
Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing.
Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever.
|
On October 07 2010 12:42 Tdelamay wrote:
It's all fine and dandy to point out tank abuse in theory, but what happens when it's used in an even match between two good players. Is the position easy to reach, does it open for counters?
Are the positions easy to reach? The backdoor horizontal seige / nuke position and the nat-nat seige position don't even require medivacs. The tanks literally just drive over. Of course, it requires scans or air to get vision. So that's an important consideration.
Do they open for a counter? In the nat-nat position the tank that ranges your opponents gas also covers the front wall / ramp to your natural. Pretty safe as far as seige positions go. And in the backdoor position, your opponent has to break down the rocks or walk across the map, through your front door / base and then kill the tank.
|
United States47024 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:40 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:35 motbob wrote:On October 07 2010 12:29 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur. wtf thats garbage lol that makes odds rushing 100% effective ...just like in any 1v1 map? What is so bad about this? 4 player maps should have different dynamics than a 2player map.
Would you rather have weird spawning mechanics, or straight-up imbalance.
What's wrong with a 4-player map playing like a 2-player map?
|
DO is way better than this. Plus, we need a map with badlands tileset. =(
|
On October 07 2010 12:56 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:40 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:35 motbob wrote:On October 07 2010 12:29 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur. wtf thats garbage lol that makes odds rushing 100% effective ...just like in any 1v1 map? What is so bad about this? 4 player maps should have different dynamics than a 2player map. Would you rather have weird spawning mechanics, or straight-up imbalance. What's wrong with a 4-player map playing like a 2-player map?
neither? can I have neither???
obv i would pick this over imbalance, but why even make it an issue?
|
On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit.
Ever wonder why most bw maps have unpassable terrain behind/around the minerals? Yeah.
|
Are you serious? You can shoot down an enemy gas geyser from your natural? What, just because zerg won gsl, blizzard thinks zerg is op now? This is like LT from BW, and that did not turn out well
|
this map looks like a terran buff to me :/
|
so i go from checking off kulas ravine and desert oasis to checking off jungle basin and shakuras plateau. great!
|
On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever.
It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them).
There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck.
|
On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck.
just so you know the general annoying point we've been discussing is the fact that a Terran player can hit your natural safely from his own natural. which is huge.
|
On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck.
Wow glad you have it all figured out. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" is going to stop a tank from shelling their nat from his own nat? Thanks.
+ Show Spoiler +Honestly your posts are so ridiculous I'm starting to think you're just a troll.
|
On October 07 2010 13:14 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck. Wow glad you have it all figured out. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" is going to stop a tank from shelling their nat from his own nat? Thanks. + Show Spoiler +Honestly your posts are so ridiculous I'm starting to think you're just a troll.
Cheese every single game, and kill them before Siege Tanks are out
|
Ugh, this will be a nightmare TvT. well back to playing Customs on iCCup maps! 
|
On October 07 2010 13:14 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck. Wow glad you have it all figured out. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" is going to stop a tank from shelling their nat from his own nat? Thanks. + Show Spoiler +Honestly your posts are so ridiculous I'm starting to think you're just a troll.
I can tell you exactly how, actually. You don't spawn in Vertical positions. Wow, that was easy. Try reading the whole thread(s) next time.
|
On October 07 2010 13:20 Sylvr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:14 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck. Wow glad you have it all figured out. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" is going to stop a tank from shelling their nat from his own nat? Thanks. + Show Spoiler +Honestly your posts are so ridiculous I'm starting to think you're just a troll. I can tell you exactly how, actually. You don't spawn in Vertical positions. Wow, that was easy. Try reading the whole thread(s) next time.
Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" can avoid spawning in vertical positions?
|
On October 07 2010 13:24 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:20 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 13:14 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck. Wow glad you have it all figured out. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" is going to stop a tank from shelling their nat from his own nat? Thanks. + Show Spoiler +Honestly your posts are so ridiculous I'm starting to think you're just a troll. I can tell you exactly how, actually. You don't spawn in Vertical positions. Wow, that was easy. Try reading the whole thread(s) next time. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" can avoid spawning in vertical positions?
I've read both threads in their entirety. It has been stated several times that nobody (that has posted, admittedly) has yet spawned in vertical positions. The general consensus is that those spawn conditions are disabled. AKA, you CAN'T spawn in vertical positions. If someone can show otherwise, then I guess I'm wrong, but many people have been asking about it (who can't play it yet), and so far nobody has claimed to have spawned such yet.
|
I cant wait to get tank dropped behind the destructable rocks and have to attempt to break through with lings... then have both my nat bombed by tanks...
or 2 base allins on jungle basin, good luck taking a 3rd zergs!
|
On October 07 2010 13:27 Sylvr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:24 Sentenal wrote:On October 07 2010 13:20 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 13:14 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck. Wow glad you have it all figured out. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" is going to stop a tank from shelling their nat from his own nat? Thanks. + Show Spoiler +Honestly your posts are so ridiculous I'm starting to think you're just a troll. I can tell you exactly how, actually. You don't spawn in Vertical positions. Wow, that was easy. Try reading the whole thread(s) next time. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" can avoid spawning in vertical positions? I've read both threads in their entirety. It has been stated several times that nobody (that has posted, admittedly) has yet spawned in vertical positions. The general consensus is that those spawn conditions are disabled. AKA, you CAN'T spawn in vertical positions. If someone can show otherwise, then I guess I'm wrong, but many people have been asking about it (who can't play it yet), and so far nobody has claimed to have spawned such yet.
Do you realise how bad and lazy and sloppy your map design has to be that to fix a problem you DISABLE spawning positions?
That is utterly pathetic. Just make a decent map Blizzard.
|
On October 07 2010 13:27 Sylvr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:24 Sentenal wrote:On October 07 2010 13:20 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 13:14 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck. Wow glad you have it all figured out. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" is going to stop a tank from shelling their nat from his own nat? Thanks. + Show Spoiler +Honestly your posts are so ridiculous I'm starting to think you're just a troll. I can tell you exactly how, actually. You don't spawn in Vertical positions. Wow, that was easy. Try reading the whole thread(s) next time. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" can avoid spawning in vertical positions? I've read both threads in their entirety. It has been stated several times that nobody (that has posted, admittedly) has yet spawned in vertical positions. The general consensus is that those spawn conditions are disabled. AKA, you CAN'T spawn in vertical positions. If someone can show otherwise, then I guess I'm wrong, but many people have been asking about it (who can't play it yet), and so far nobody has claimed to have spawned such yet.
medi-vacs dont care where u spawn
|
well, I've tried it 6 times in the map editor now and it was always crossed positions. Wow, didn't know that blizz actually could do that. Would be awesome if they enabled that on LT/Metalopolis too.
|
You know, Blizzard can just save everyone's times here by just promoting and "officializing" well-made community-made custom maps instead of these sort of maps that would look more suitable in the Sunday Funnies.
|
Played it once today, TvT, decided to view the map and as soon as I saw TWO 2nd nat expos (from both sides) being so close that a marauder could probably hit the workers from another player while standing at his own 2nd nat I immediately 'X'd the map.
Jungle Basin seems pretty good thought, lets hope Blizzard will include community created ladder maps soon 
|
On October 07 2010 13:39 Torte de Lini wrote:
You know, Blizzard can just save everyone's times here by just promoting and "officializing" well-made community-made custom maps instead of these sort of maps that would look more suitable in the Sunday Funnies.
hey look, someone with the right idea
:D
|
On October 07 2010 13:36 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:27 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 13:24 Sentenal wrote:On October 07 2010 13:20 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 13:14 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck. Wow glad you have it all figured out. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" is going to stop a tank from shelling their nat from his own nat? Thanks. + Show Spoiler +Honestly your posts are so ridiculous I'm starting to think you're just a troll. I can tell you exactly how, actually. You don't spawn in Vertical positions. Wow, that was easy. Try reading the whole thread(s) next time. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" can avoid spawning in vertical positions? I've read both threads in their entirety. It has been stated several times that nobody (that has posted, admittedly) has yet spawned in vertical positions. The general consensus is that those spawn conditions are disabled. AKA, you CAN'T spawn in vertical positions. If someone can show otherwise, then I guess I'm wrong, but many people have been asking about it (who can't play it yet), and so far nobody has claimed to have spawned such yet. Do you realise how bad and lazy and sloppy your map design has to be that to fix a problem you DISABLE spawning positions? That is utterly pathetic. Just make a decent map Blizzard.
That's a little harsh, yeah? Let's just, somehow, forget about Shakuras for a second. If you put right in the map description that only specific spawns are possible and made an interesting map out of it, that could be a cool new family of maps we didn't have in SC1. Right?
|
Better than Kulas worse than DO. There are just too many fucking rocks damn it.
|
this sounds exciting i can't wait to play terrancraft.
|
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 13:40 dimfish wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:36 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:27 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 13:24 Sentenal wrote:On October 07 2010 13:20 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 13:14 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck. Wow glad you have it all figured out. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" is going to stop a tank from shelling their nat from his own nat? Thanks. + Show Spoiler +Honestly your posts are so ridiculous I'm starting to think you're just a troll. I can tell you exactly how, actually. You don't spawn in Vertical positions. Wow, that was easy. Try reading the whole thread(s) next time. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" can avoid spawning in vertical positions? I've read both threads in their entirety. It has been stated several times that nobody (that has posted, admittedly) has yet spawned in vertical positions. The general consensus is that those spawn conditions are disabled. AKA, you CAN'T spawn in vertical positions. If someone can show otherwise, then I guess I'm wrong, but many people have been asking about it (who can't play it yet), and so far nobody has claimed to have spawned such yet. Do you realise how bad and lazy and sloppy your map design has to be that to fix a problem you DISABLE spawning positions? That is utterly pathetic. Just make a decent map Blizzard. That's a little harsh, yeah? Let's just, somehow, forget about Shakuras for a second. If you put right in the map description that only specific spawns are possible and made an interesting map out of it, that could be a cool new family of maps we didn't have in SC1. Right?
I don't think so. Shakuras has been around since early in the beta, and was removed because it was clearly terrible.
Now they just chuck it into the map pool, the only change being that they force spawning positions? Seems like they're just too damn lazy to actually make a decent map, so they just did a little quick fix on a crap map and threw it into the ladder pool.
That's pretty poor imo.
|
On October 07 2010 13:45 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:40 dimfish wrote:On October 07 2010 13:36 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:27 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 13:24 Sentenal wrote:On October 07 2010 13:20 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 13:14 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 13:12 Sylvr wrote:On October 07 2010 12:53 Subversion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:51 AssuredVacancy wrote:
If you spawn horizontal positions terran/protoss can just push directly into the zerg's main late game.. screw map dynamics in the middle when there's a direct path to your opponent's base. why break down the rocks at all when you can siege his mineral line from behind them? On October 07 2010 12:51 Sylvr wrote:
This just in: Tanks have long range!
Seriously people, There will be spots on every single map ever where Tanks can be put to hit something that you don't want to be hit. Your complete lack of understanding about the game and the problem here is honestly mindblowing. Please don't post if its going to be garbage like that. That does not contribute anything to the discussion whatsoever. It contributes plenty. I'm showing that people are complaining about something that's always been in the game as though it's some new breaking news. (funny, I could have sworn I worded it perfectly to convey that point, but I guess some people just need it spelled out for them). There aren't many maps where you CAN'T shell someone's mineral line from somewhere that isn't immediately accessible. This instance isn't nearly as bad as Lost Temple or Kulas Ravine. At least here the tanks are on the low ground, and you still either need drops to get them there, or you need to break down 1 set of rocks. A single Spine Crawler (or any ranged unit) can keep it completely off of your mineral line/gas if you don't suck. Wow glad you have it all figured out. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" is going to stop a tank from shelling their nat from his own nat? Thanks. + Show Spoiler +Honestly your posts are so ridiculous I'm starting to think you're just a troll. I can tell you exactly how, actually. You don't spawn in Vertical positions. Wow, that was easy. Try reading the whole thread(s) next time. Can you tell me how a person who "doesn't suck" can avoid spawning in vertical positions? I've read both threads in their entirety. It has been stated several times that nobody (that has posted, admittedly) has yet spawned in vertical positions. The general consensus is that those spawn conditions are disabled. AKA, you CAN'T spawn in vertical positions. If someone can show otherwise, then I guess I'm wrong, but many people have been asking about it (who can't play it yet), and so far nobody has claimed to have spawned such yet. Do you realise how bad and lazy and sloppy your map design has to be that to fix a problem you DISABLE spawning positions? That is utterly pathetic. Just make a decent map Blizzard. That's a little harsh, yeah? Let's just, somehow, forget about Shakuras for a second. If you put right in the map description that only specific spawns are possible and made an interesting map out of it, that could be a cool new family of maps we didn't have in SC1. Right? I don't think so. Shakuras has been around since early in the beta, and was removed because it was clearly terrible. Now they just chuck it into the map pool, the only change being that they force spawning positions? Seems like they're just too damn lazy to actually make a decent map, so they just did a little quick fix on a crap map and threw it into the ladder pool. That's pretty poor imo.
How about we wait and play a bit before we throw our hands up in disgust?
|
I swear, more bad maps with abusable cliffs/tanks plus retarded empty space at the edge of the maps. Seriously, if you're air units get caught off guard in your enemy's base, they should not be able to just float a few inches to the corner and be completely safe. You already made your air to ground units absurdly strong, why should they have cover fire too.
|
yuck!. what is this that i have just seen.
when we asked for new maps in the pool we expected them to be better then whats there already.
i can with 100% certainty, predict that gsl 2 will NOT use this map in anyway or form. unless blizzard twists their arms to show off their new terran buf.......i mean balanced map.
|
At cross-positions, this should be fine for zerg, provided they play intelligently. Suppose the spawn is T at 1 and Z at 7. Z can safely take a 3rd at the 10 O'Clock base. The base at 6 might also be good, though the gas there is vulnerable to tank fire from the SE middle base. I think it'll be important to take down the destructable rocks in the middle to open that area up a bit more, making it tougher for the T to just camp it.
My concern would be that it seems rather easy for T to take as many as 4 bases without over-extending himself (1, then 2, then 12 and the NE middle). Frankly, I think it would be a better map without the bases at 12 and 6. The minerals at the natural also seem difficult to harass with muta.
Another interesting dynamic is how good this map seems for reaper play. There's just so many places for a reaper to enter from that it seems very difficult to defend them all. I'll probably open with at least one reaper vs. T and Z, possibly P as well.
|
On October 07 2010 13:40 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:39 Torte de Lini wrote:
You know, Blizzard can just save everyone's times here by just promoting and "officializing" well-made community-made custom maps instead of these sort of maps that would look more suitable in the Sunday Funnies. hey look, someone with the right idea :D
I wasn't the first to think that way :3
|
I msy be missing something here...but if you guys have been unable to play this on the NA server, just go into single player and select Play Versus A.I. this map is in that map pool. Just seems like no one here has really even tried out the map.
|
On October 07 2010 13:53 snakeyes wrote:
I msy be missing something here...but if you guys have been unable to play this on the NA server, just go into single player and select Play Versus A.I. this map is in that map pool. Just seems like no one here has really even tried out the map.
its in the custom pool too im pretty sure - i know jungle basin is
|
Thats alot of tank abuse on this map Going to be very hard to deal with just like on Delta and LT. I would of loved it if they would just put python into the map pool.
|
On October 07 2010 13:57 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 13:53 snakeyes wrote:
I msy be missing something here...but if you guys have been unable to play this on the NA server, just go into single player and select Play Versus A.I. this map is in that map pool. Just seems like no one here has really even tried out the map. its in the custom pool too im pretty sure - i know jungle basin is
Shakuras isn't in custom map pool for me (SEA server).
|
On October 07 2010 13:36 Subversion wrote:
Do you realise how bad and lazy and sloppy your map design has to be that to fix a problem you DISABLE spawning positions?
That is utterly pathetic. Just make a decent map Blizzard.
Bad enough that you have to poop ugly rocks all over it? I think Shakuras might actually make a fun diagonal spawn 1v1 map. Horizontal and vertical positions just seem so thoroughly fucked though.
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.
Nice work! Epic find! Thanks for putting that to rest.
|
Yeah, I tried 6 times against AI and its always non-vertical positions.
Back door is actually good for zergs for counter attack or back stab.
|
shouldn't this map be only for 2v2?
|
I like this map. Besides the fact it looks amazing. Siege tank turtling = <3 (if I'm the one doing it, that is).
I'm glad they made it so you can't spawn in vertical positions, really doesn't seem like a map where such close positions would make for interesting gameplay.
|
You know, I was skeptical when people were talking about how maps could completely change the game around, and how we couldn't fuss about balance until proper maps were made.
Then I played an ICCup map.
Yeah, I'm not going back to blizzard-made maps any time soon. Not with these kind of horrible ladder maps. I'm grateful that I met enough people through matches, custom games and school to be able to completely ignore the ladder and play the amazing maps being put out by the community. Thank you, ICCup. Thank you, Starcraft 2 Community.
Blizzard: please fire every person in your map making team, and hire some people who actually know how to make a proper map. Please.
|
Blizzard needs to make a map that has snow on it ):
|
I swear it's like some people won't be happy until the only two ladder maps are Metalopolis and Novice Blistering Sands.
|
On October 07 2010 14:29 kojinshugi wrote:
I swear it's like some people won't be happy until the only two ladder maps are Metalopolis and Novice Blistering Sands.
not even close to true. metalopolis isn't even that great and honestly its getting bland.
the map pool is just bad.
|
The fact that you can literally tank the other nat from your own nat makes me physically ill.
Even if you always spawn at cross positions, this WILLLL become a factor at some point, and perhaps even more so in late game when you are dieing to get gas.
|
On October 07 2010 14:32 On_Slaught wrote:
The fact that you can literally tank the other nat from your own nat makes me physically ill.
I don't think you can. Maybe you're thinking of the 3rd bases?
|
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.
I hope it's alright if I add this to the OP. This is a pretty important find and would aid the maturation of this thread. Thanks a bunch (lemme know if it isn't ok)!
|
That's cool 
|
On October 07 2010 14:33 Genome852 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:32 On_Slaught wrote:
The fact that you can literally tank the other nat from your own nat makes me physically ill. I don't think you can. Maybe you're thinking of the 3rd bases?
It's the "nat" of that base. Even if you can't spawn there, if any game on this map makes it to the endgame (which is pretty unlikely with all the all-ins and rushes you will see), the fact tanks can cover most the expos on the map with ease will be a game-deciding factor.
|
On October 07 2010 14:33 Genome852 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:32 On_Slaught wrote:
The fact that you can literally tank the other nat from your own nat makes me physically ill. I don't think you can. Maybe you're thinking of the 3rd bases?
He is talking about this:
On October 07 2010 12:06 Obsolescence wrote:Attacking opponents natural gas from your nat's plateau [SEE EDIT]+ Show Spoiler +
If vertical positions were possible (see OP edit) then this would be natural to natural tank fire.
|
What is wrong with having an open middle of the map? We don't really need chokes and destructible rocks everywhere, maybe just a nice open plain with a watch tower in the center.
|
On October 07 2010 14:48 wonderwall wrote:
What is wrong with having an open middle of the map? We don't really need chokes and destructible rocks everywhere, maybe just a nice open plain with a watch tower in the center.
Blasphemy!
|
Hmmm, if this map would be posted in the custom game section, I would have some questions:
1) The small patches of high ground in the middle, are they droppable?
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".
3) Double height main seems nice to fend of reapers. However, please tell me they can't jump past the back door destructible rocks!
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?
|
wtf Blizzard, not again...
|
On October 07 2010 14:48 wonderwall wrote:
What is wrong with having an open middle of the map? We don't really need chokes and destructible rocks everywhere, maybe just a nice open plain with a watch tower in the center.
Apparently no one told the SC2 level designers about the pro BW maps, because every ladder map they've made has broken several key rules that made those maps, and in turn BW, balanced.
|
Blizzard replacing bad maps with bad maps.
We need to start an ICcup map movement, blizzard isnt cutting it.
|
Lol, now combine that with MMM drops that bounce between Nats faster than you can ever move between them
|
And here I've been worrying about making nats tankable... at all.
|
This map has already been convicted in this thread when it's the only large map in an already shitty map pool. The only map that forces a different early-mid game.
All the other maps are equally pathetic or even worse than this. And the people complaining about this being a T map are probably trolls or silver players.
The focus should be on the fact that the entire map pool is made by amateurs and designers who don't understand the game at all. The community should try pressure Blizzard include Iccup maps or at least mymic their style, not meaninglessly whine on an issue everyone is more or less aware of.
|
Norway28667 Posts
I don't see why people are negative towards always making it cross position. I think that is AWESOME personally.. most two player maps struggle with not having enough expansions. now we have enough expansions, but you also eliminate the randomness and imbalance that comes with different spawning positions. (take metalopolis for example - it's one of the best maps around for "total balance", but as a zerg player, I feel like I am advantaged every game I get cross positions, and disadvantaged every time I get close positions.) forcing cross position in every game is awesome I think.
|
its just weird cuz they could've just as easily removed the other 2 cross position spawns and just called it a 2 player map....
but i guess this is cute. its like a 2 player map with different scenery each spawn. yay.
|
On October 07 2010 19:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't see why people are negative towards always making it cross position. I think that is AWESOME personally.. most two player maps struggle with not having enough expansions. now we have enough expansions, but you also eliminate the randomness and imbalance that comes with different spawning positions. (take metalopolis for example - it's one of the best maps around for "total balance", but as a zerg player, I feel like I am advantaged every game I get cross positions, and disadvantaged every time I get close positions.) forcing cross position in every game is awesome I think.
But they don't force cross positions. Either cross position or horizontal position. So there will be a similar scenario. You'll scout your opponent and either sigh or double expand.
|
Given the spawn information this map seems fine.
I have some questions regarding reapers. Is the main's cliff a double height one ? (but single down to natural) and is there space for reapers around the back door rocks?
I think that reapers have to jump up to the nat on this map ... and I don't think reapers can go through the back door on horizontal positions.
On both the new maps I will probably go roaches (except ZvZ) because 5 roaches kill rocks fast and it looks like the maps will be very good for Z if you can open them up early.
|
On October 07 2010 14:29 kojinshugi wrote:
I swear it's like some people won't be happy until the only two ladder maps are Metalopolis and Novice Blistering Sands.
Uhm no. All maps are pretty bad...
|
On October 07 2010 19:16 kasumimi wrote:
The focus should be on the fact that the entire map pool is made by amateurs and designers who don't understand the game at all. The community should try pressure Blizzard include Iccup maps or at least mymic their style, not meaninglessly whine on an issue everyone is more or less aware of.
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.
|
On October 07 2010 19:30 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 14:29 kojinshugi wrote:
I swear it's like some people won't be happy until the only two ladder maps are Metalopolis and Novice Blistering Sands. Uhm no. All maps are pretty bad...
What's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious.
|
Closepositions are to close.
|
I think the map is fine as Zerg, and until I have been crushed a 100 games I will not say otherwise. I can probably expect reaper play from all Terrans on Shakuras, its a large main to drop hellions on too, and imba tank positions 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.
|
On October 07 2010 19:32 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 19:16 kasumimi wrote:
The focus should be on the fact that the entire map pool is made by amateurs and designers who don't understand the game at all. The community should try pressure Blizzard include Iccup maps or at least mymic their style, not meaninglessly whine on an issue everyone is more or less aware of. 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.
|
I've seen a few people asking about reapers on this map : they cannot jump up directly into the main and have to go through the natural and, iirc, can't jump through the backdoor. However, for you reaper fans, remember that these crazies are very apt at blowing up rocks!
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.
|
As a Terran player.. this makes me giggle.
|
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).
|
Aaah, I'm steaming right now! DO was actually one of the best Maps for Zerg and I liked it very much after the recent changes and now they take that1 out and add two Maps that seem very imbalanced in favour of Terran and probably Toss (look at all the warp-in-possibilities).
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!
|
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.
|
In the thread that spawned this one, people were saying that Dustin Browder mentioned in an interview that big maps were too complex for nublets and so they would only be making tiny maps presumably with nice tight corridors so that players wouldn't have to worry so much with unit positioning...
|
So here is my SC2 day , my first matchup i got this map , never seen it before and of course when something new and unexpected thing happens to me i responds by playing like a idiot and i get kill by a few early hellions. Fine on to the next game, Jungle Basin ... Fine never seen that map either but this time im not gona do anything stupid like pause the game just to get a few free second to study the mini map and then by misstake missclick the resume button and instead hit the surrender button,,,, oh wait.
Well that was my SC2 day.
|
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.
|
On October 07 2010 20:35 228zip wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On October 07 2010 20:35 228zip wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On October 07 2010 19:33 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 19:30 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 kojinshugi wrote:
I swear it's like some people won't be happy until the only two ladder maps are Metalopolis and Novice Blistering Sands. Uhm no. All maps are pretty bad... 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:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50121 Posts
On October 07 2010 20:28 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
If I'm quite honest, I think people should give this map a try first.
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.
|
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.
|
On October 07 2010 20:38 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 20:35 228zip wrote: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. 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.
|
i hate oasis , worst map ever, it takes forever to fuking get to your enemies's base!!
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50121 Posts
On October 07 2010 20:52 228zip wrote:Show nested quote +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.
its a very rare sight though....
but again the players should not suffer imbalance for the sake of the viewer.
|
On October 07 2010 20:40 Shikyo wrote:
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.
Okay, so any map that makes expanding anything less than super comfortable is bad. Every map should be LT without the cliffs, and while we're at it lets get rid of Colossi, Blink Stalkers and Reapers too so they can't abuse the wide ledge. Let's harass fourth expansions with 2-3 units and make 200/200 armies and then clash them in the middle of the map.
|
Honestly, I hated this map when it was in beta as a 2v2 map and I have a feeling I will hate it as a 1v1 map too.
|
funny, kulas was since beta my [x] and now it gets replaced by another map which is even worser and will get [x] aswell, without playing it once
|
Total count of posts saying they have played the map in the 2 Let's Play threads so far: 7.
|
The edit makes the map OK for me ... maybe i have a detailed opinion when i have some experiences with it...
|
On October 07 2010 21:14 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 20:40 Shikyo wrote:
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. Okay, so any map that makes expanding anything less than super comfortable is bad. Every map should be LT without the cliffs, and while we're at it lets get rid of Colossi, Blink Stalkers and Reapers too so they can't abuse the wide ledge. Let's harass fourth expansions with 2-3 units and make 200/200 armies and then clash them in the middle of the map.
Well... I don't go the the extreme of Shikyo (so: I don't have any problem with Metalopolis), but with the current state of the game you pretty much have to open with mutas on LT during every ZvT. That's not too good for variety.
|
On October 07 2010 19:33 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 19:30 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 kojinshugi wrote:
I swear it's like some people won't be happy until the only two ladder maps are Metalopolis and Novice Blistering Sands. Uhm no. All maps are pretty bad... What's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious.
Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z
Beta:
TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ]
PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ]
International:
TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ]
PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ]
Korean:
TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ]
PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ]
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50121 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:27 Teddyman wrote:
Total count of posts saying they have played the map in the 2 Let's Play threads so far: 7.
am i counted in there...just wondering.
|
the first situation is likely to never happen given that spawn locations are never verticle
|
On October 07 2010 21:30 Sfydjklm wrote:
Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z
Beta:
TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ]
PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ]
International:
TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ]
PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ]
Korean:
TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ]
PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ]
I wouldn't call meta Zerg favored, but with the crap pool we've got now, its the best option out there.
Pretty much any ICCup map beats the crap out of it.
|
On October 07 2010 21:30 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 19:33 kojinshugi wrote:On October 07 2010 19:30 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 kojinshugi wrote:
I swear it's like some people won't be happy until the only two ladder maps are Metalopolis and Novice Blistering Sands. Uhm no. All maps are pretty bad... What's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious. Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z Beta: TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ] ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ] PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ] International: TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ] ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ] PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ] Korean: TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ] ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ] PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ]
[Citation Needed]?
Sorry, but where did you get this data? Is this your personal record? You and friends? I'm assuming the Koreans have played more than 5 games of TvZ on meta. Are those ratios or actual # of games? You have an interesting set of data there but I have no idea if it is actually meaningful or if it is entirely fabricated (no offense).
|
On October 07 2010 21:30 Sfydjklm wrote:
Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z
Beta:
TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ]
PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ]
International:
TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ]
PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ]
Korean:
TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ]
PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ]
You're making extensive assumptions from a sample size of A HUNDRED games spanning months of balance changes and strategy evolution? And to think I got flak for making map stats with a sample size of tens of thousands of games spanning a week or two...
|
On October 07 2010 21:45 Obsolescence wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 21:30 Sfydjklm wrote:On October 07 2010 19:33 kojinshugi wrote:On October 07 2010 19:30 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 kojinshugi wrote:
I swear it's like some people won't be happy until the only two ladder maps are Metalopolis and Novice Blistering Sands. Uhm no. All maps are pretty bad... What's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious. Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z Beta: TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ] ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ] PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ] International: TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ] ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ] PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ] Korean: TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ] ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ] PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ] [Citation Needed]? Sorry, but where did you get this data? Is this your personal record? You and friends? I'm assuming the Koreans have played more than 5 games of TvZ on meta. Are those ratios or actual # of games? You have an interesting set of data there but I have no idea if it is actually meaningful or if it is entirely fabricated (no offense).
TLPD
|
On October 07 2010 21:47 Silu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 21:30 Sfydjklm wrote:
Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z
Beta:
TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ]
PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ]
International:
TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ]
PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ]
Korean:
TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ]
ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ]
PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ]
You're making extensive assumptions from a sample size of A HUNDRED games spanning months of balance changes and strategy evolution? And to think I got flak for making map stats with a sample size of tens of thousands of games spanning a week or two...
Well that and experience. I always thought meta was shitty for zerg, and when i sc2geared my reps i found out to my enormous surprise that Metalapolis was the only map where my winrate dipped below 50% And the one of the two where it dipped below 60%(the other being delta quadrant).
I understand all yada yada about sample size but thats teh best thing we got right now, and we only have two option, either hypothesize out of thin air or hypothesize using concrete facts.
I chose the sane option.
Other then that i bet that there is no zerg out tehre that has metalapolis in top 5 of their ladder maps if tehy sc2gear it.
Also i would like the link to the map stats youre talking about.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50121 Posts
On October 07 2010 21:45 Obsolescence wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 21:30 Sfydjklm wrote:On October 07 2010 19:33 kojinshugi wrote:On October 07 2010 19:30 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 kojinshugi wrote:
I swear it's like some people won't be happy until the only two ladder maps are Metalopolis and Novice Blistering Sands. Uhm no. All maps are pretty bad... What's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious. Meta contrary to the popular belief is one of the worst maps for Z Beta: TvZ: 35-18 (66%) [ Games ] ZvP: 17-26 (39.5%) [ Games ] PvT: 28-21 (57.1%) [ Games ] International: TvZ: 43-20 (68.3%) [ Games ] ZvP: 8-27 (22.9%) [ Games ] PvT: 51-59 (46.4%) [ Games ] Korean: TvZ: 1-4 (20%) [ Games ] ZvP: 1-5 (16.7%) [ Games ] PvT: 2-9 (18.2%) [ Games ] [Citation Needed]? Sorry, but where did you get this data? Is this your personal record? You and friends? I'm assuming the Koreans have played more than 5 games of TvZ on meta. Are those ratios or actual # of games? You have an interesting set of data there but I have no idea if it is actually meaningful or if it is entirely fabricated (no offense).
its taken from the TLPD SC2 stats..
|
On October 07 2010 21:29 Meff wrote:
Well... I don't go the the extreme of Shikyo (so: I don't have any problem with Metalopolis), but with the current state of the game you pretty much have to open with mutas on LT during every ZvT. That's not too good for variety.
That's fine. I think the LT cliff is a bit stupid. I try not to even use it unless I'm really behind, because it feels kind of like a dick move.
I think a good solution is to give Zerg a better way to deal with those cliff drops, rather than making all maps safe and boring. Or maybe increase the dead zone of tanks when they're shooting one cliff level down, so queens+ovies can actually kill the tank.
|
On October 07 2010 19:33 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 19:30 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 07 2010 14:29 kojinshugi wrote:
I swear it's like some people won't be happy until the only two ladder maps are Metalopolis and Novice Blistering Sands. Uhm no. All maps are pretty bad... What's bad about Metalopolis? I'm honestly curious.
My opinion:
First off it's pretty dull. The first natural is placed good. It's fairly easy to expand but not for free. However, the starting positions are a bit weird. The game develops very differently depending on the starting positions. This results in a randomness playing a part in who wins and who doesn't (because, for example, zerg likes cross positions). I don't like that. Again, the next expansion you take may depend on start positions.
It's probably the best map out of the blizzard maps, but it's far inferior to the quality of the maps we were used in BW.
And even though I've previously complained about the gimmicky watch towers, rocks and so on I don't think such gimmicks are bad in general. A LOT of pro bw maps had buildings blocking paths and so on. But they were fine!
For some reason, blizzard can't make maps like those... The ICCup maps blew me away when I saw them. They _felt_ good.
|
On October 07 2010 21:55 Sfydjklm wrote:
Also i would like the link to the map stats youre talking about.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=149880
I would have made additional runs since then (for multiple regions), always yielding the last 25 games of everyone, but it seemed like people weren't interested in anything else than overall race balance whine (which isn't and can't be seen from stats such as seen there, due to how the matchmaking system works) or simply were more interested in trolling. Granted, those stats don't tell everything (namely, they don't try tell the "absolute win percentages" in a way the TLPD stats could) , but taken with a grain of salt they tell many things about the relative balance ordering/magnitudes of the maps.
Also didn't bother with Chi-square tests or similar because everyone who would understand anything about the tests understands enough without.
|
On October 07 2010 22:12 ParasitJonte wrote:
First off it's pretty dull. The first natural is placed good. It's fairly easy to expand but not for free. However, the starting positions are a bit weird. The game develops very differently depending on the starting positions. This results in a randomness playing a part in who wins and who doesn't (because, for example, zerg likes cross positions).
I don't think it decides who wins and who doesn't. Of course Zerg likes cross positions, but it's not an automatic loss to spawn in other positions. This "randomness" is pretty much the point of playing 1v1 on a 2v2 map. Of course it's really not so much "random" as it is 3 maps in one. If you have a solid strategy for all positions you're not really doing anything random.
For a spectator (looking at SC2 as an esport) it adds very easily understood variables to the game. Things that work cross positions don't work so well close, and vice versa. It's information you have from the start but the players don't until they scout.
Tournaments where every now and then you're forced to diverge from norms like "I get to expand away from my opponent" are more interesting. I just don't understand this insistence on safety in what's basically a war game.
|
I dont think this maps are any worse then DO or Kulas for that matter. Like the change
|
On October 07 2010 12:40 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:35 motbob wrote:On October 07 2010 12:29 mOnion wrote:On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur. wtf thats garbage lol that makes odds rushing 100% effective ...just like in any 1v1 map? What is so bad about this? 4 player maps should have different dynamics than a 2player map.
Well then imagine its 2 player map
problem solved.
|
Watching this map beeing played on giasados stream, hyperdub vs a protoss. Really entertaining game even tho the protoss suck. Map will never spawn you vertically so map should be pretty balanced, maby with the exeption of some early all inn to take down dobbel back door rocks.
|
Most of the shakuras games on gisado have been epic macro wars, this bodes well for the future.
Hyperdub just pulled off an awesome comeback after flubbing a ghost rush TvT and ending up way behind.
|
On October 07 2010 22:20 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 22:12 ParasitJonte wrote:
First off it's pretty dull. The first natural is placed good. It's fairly easy to expand but not for free. However, the starting positions are a bit weird. The game develops very differently depending on the starting positions. This results in a randomness playing a part in who wins and who doesn't (because, for example, zerg likes cross positions). I don't think it decides who wins and who doesn't. Of course Zerg likes cross positions, but it's not an automatic loss to spawn in other positions. This "randomness" is pretty much the point of playing 1v1 on a 2v2 map. Of course it's really not so much "random" as it is 3 maps in one. If you have a solid strategy for all positions you're not really doing anything random. For a spectator (looking at SC2 as an esport) it adds very easily understood variables to the game. Things that work cross positions don't work so well close, and vice versa. It's information you have from the start but the players don't until they scout. Tournaments where every now and then you're forced to diverge from norms like "I get to expand away from my opponent" are more interesting. I just don't understand this insistence on safety in what's basically a war game.
It's fine for maps to force you out of your comfort zone every once in a while. It's not fine for maps to penalize some factions more than others.
|
The fact that you can't spawn vertically actually makes this a pretty damn good map, IMO. An interesting combination of being reasonably macro-oriented, while still having some unique features.
90% of the complaints seem to be from people who haven't realized you can't spawn vertically. They're all saying things like, "cross-positions and horizontal is fine, but vertical is sooo broken, FFFFUUUUUU bli$$ard". But, in fact, thats been taken into account.
I think once people give this map a try they're actually gonna like it a lot.
|
loved shakuras during beta,
sad that desert is getting removed though with the destructable rocks it made zerg alot easier lol
|
On October 08 2010 00:11 awesomoecalypse wrote:
The fact that you can't spawn vertically actually makes this a pretty damn good map, IMO. An interesting combination of being reasonably macro-oriented, while still having some unique features.
90% of the complaints seem to be from people who haven't realized you can't spawn vertically. They're all saying things like, "cross-positions and horizontal is fine, but vertical is sooo broken, FFFFUUUUUU bli$$ard". But, in fact, thats been taken into account.
I think once people give this map a try they're actually gonna like it a lot.
Haha yup. And everyone told that first guy saying you cant spawn vertically a liar
Anyone know how GSL2 map pool is gonna work?
|
On October 08 2010 00:11 awesomoecalypse wrote:
The fact that you can't spawn vertically actually makes this a pretty damn good map, IMO. An interesting combination of being reasonably macro-oriented, while still having some unique features.
90% of the complaints seem to be from people who haven't realized you can't spawn vertically. They're all saying things like, "cross-positions and horizontal is fine, but vertical is sooo broken, FFFFUUUUUU bli$$ard". But, in fact, thats been taken into account.
I think once people give this map a try they're actually gonna like it a lot.
Yeah, I didn't realize you can't spawn in vertical positions - that's really neat. Backdooring is pretty annoying, but it's 2 sets of rocks. I'd also be worried about Terran "cutting the map in half" but I think the back doors might help mitigate that?
I guess it's not so bad.
Still not a fan of Jungle Basin, but eh. Better than Kulas.
|
This map is actually pretty good for zerg, if horizontal and they go through the backdoor you have a lot of time to make units. If diagonal the rush distance is medium size and the natural is quite easy to defend. Nice addition to the map pool I must say!
|
On October 07 2010 22:20 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 22:12 ParasitJonte wrote:
First off it's pretty dull. The first natural is placed good. It's fairly easy to expand but not for free. However, the starting positions are a bit weird. The game develops very differently depending on the starting positions. This results in a randomness playing a part in who wins and who doesn't (because, for example, zerg likes cross positions). I don't think it decides who wins and who doesn't. Of course Zerg likes cross positions, but it's not an automatic loss to spawn in other positions. This "randomness" is pretty much the point of playing 1v1 on a 2v2 map. Of course it's really not so much "random" as it is 3 maps in one. If you have a solid strategy for all positions you're not really doing anything random. For a spectator (looking at SC2 as an esport) it adds very easily understood variables to the game. Things that work cross positions don't work so well close, and vice versa. It's information you have from the start but the players don't until they scout. Tournaments where every now and then you're forced to diverge from norms like "I get to expand away from my opponent" are more interesting. I just don't understand this insistence on safety in what's basically a war game.
It's not necessarily a bad thing that different positions result in different type of games. But as someone else said, if certain positions favor one race over another and vice versa: then it's a problem. This was a major problem with Lost Temple in BW.
I don't know if Metalopolis is too bad in this respect. But again, it's just a pretty dull map. I want maps that are unique but still somehow has a structure that results in good games.
|
Interesting! I'm excited to test this map out.
|
Thanks for the insight. I really dislike having minerals that are so exposed. It really favors races with long range units like Colossus and Tanks but I guess there has to be some variety in maps. Not all maps can have a protected natural
|
wow just played shakuras..... i had no fucking idea where i was lol. I was like "huh wtf did this map come from?".
Anyways I spawned top right, toss opponent bottom left..... i felt sooooooo safe the whole game. Main base was super easy to defend and the natural between the two mains is super easy to pick up as terran and safe as houses too.
|
are we ever gonna have the unplayed blizz maps? anyone, go check the custom game map list, find crossfire and tell me that's not an awesome map.
|
Horizontal spawn is horrible! Terran walls-off. Fast Factory, lifts his factory between the destructible rocks and shoots your gas from behind the rocks. The he just has to fortify this position and he can ROFLsteamroll you whenever he wants by destroying the rocks.
|
This map actually isnt that bad, i did lots of practice matches on it and it works fairly well imo
|
shakuras is an awsome map for void ray abuse, when you use the rocks behind to charge up you can go straight to gas and CC - just added a replay to show what I mean (custom game, opponent was completely unprepared...not a good player)
|
dont ya find it funny where only terran can abuse maps like this? is it so hard for blizz to actually make WIDE maps instead of have maps with such close rush distances/siegable locations? honestly...
do blizz hate macro THAT much or are they just retarded when it comes to map making? because these small ass maps are getting annoying.
|
Blizzard should realize what balanced BW was partly due to the maps..Wonder if they look at statistics on each match up on each maps?
|
On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur.
Is this 100% confirmed?
|
On October 08 2010 09:37 IPA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 12:24 Ryalnos wrote:
Rumor has it that in 1v1, close positions won't occur. Is this 100% confirmed?
Yup. read OP update.
|
Wow, Sweet! it looks like kulas without the bogus extra opening into the natural...
|
blizzard maps pale in comparison to iccup maps, they bring out exiting games every time, games that last longer than 10minutes...
blizzard maps promotes tactics and games that end within first 10minutes, its like a huge bottleneck of fun this games could potentially be
|
god its so easy to have 4 bases on this map. i kind of like it. i'll hate it so much vs protoss though.
|
if blizz had a pro-gamer look over the map for just 2 hours and got rid of all the abuse possibilities (tanks shooting at gas/minerals everywhere, void rays charging up and going straight to the main) this could actually be a great map
on this map it's BY FAR the easiest to defend your natural - LT comes close but on LT there's always the danger of teh almighty cliff-drop; here you can at least get to the harassing tanks/etc. with ground armies and don't need vision of high-ground
I've tried some nexus-first-play in PvZ into 2 stargate phoenixes, turned out to be amazing; I even got baneling-busted once, but it's no problem to defend your (natural-)ramp with just a few sentries and cannons;
without vertical spawning positions this map definitely encourages macro-oriented games with lot's of air-harassment
|
I quite like this map. Easy to defend natural, multiple options for a third depending on matchup and build. Some interesting options.
|
Void Rays anyone?
This won't be in the pool for long.
Why they have to go so overboard with those rocks all the time?
That charging thing on this map is seriously ridiculous. Those rocks are like 2 grids away from the gas.
Just so hope that blizzards answer for this won't be another toss nerf. "Void Rays no longer can charge on rocks"
|
Has anyone figured out a good way to wall-off baneling bust as Terran?
every map in the pool you are able to wall off with a factory, barracks, depot, and then build a ling tight wall with a bunker behind the depot, and it pretty much nulifies baneling busts, without effecting your BO at all.
Except on Shakuras Plateau. I've been messing around with it for about 10 minutes and I'm convinced that it's impossible to do this without adding another building, which is a huge pain in the ass. Anyone else notice this?
|
Bronze here.
I played this map a couple of times and I find it to be quite fun compared to other maps. Don't know how much my opinion will matter but...
Having a side to yourself just feels all cozy. I hope to play this more. I have some gripes, of course, such as the really closely placed 3rd bases and the prominent backdoors. But they shouldn't be a problem if you have good map awareness.
|
This isn't the first map you can abuse ledges to tank/nuke expansions, etc, etc.... that's in like almost every map. I think the map is actually really good since there are no close position spawns.
|
played here about 3 times now, and I find it quite fun since you can't spawn close
|
We need more games played on it to get a general consensus on it, it's very good that close positions won't occur in 1v1, that's important. I just don't know yet.
|
I got this map for the first time today, never saw those backdoor rock, Since i was bottom left and my opponent bottom right i had one hell of a surprise. :o
|
The cliffs and rocks make this map extremely easy to abuse colossus, not just tanks, so I wouldnt just say its terran favored..... its a pretty fun map and voids on those back rocks will own... soooooo hard... omg.
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-155618.jpg)
|
|
|
Voted down already
|
I think Zerg is pretty good on this map because of the wide open spaces. If you control both watch towers, you can set up perfect flanks pretty easily
|
Yeah, actually I think this map is actually quite awesome compared to some of the other maps in the pool. Sure, there are abusable spots, but they're easy to deny, and getting your natural is SO easy, and that is excellent for a Zerg player.
|
So how about we just have one ladder map, a completely square open field with a base in two corners. Maybe that will stop the balance complaints....or maybe it would just cause people to scream that it's an OP zerg map.
Must I remind you all that this is a GAME? If you are not having fun with this game, there's about 500 other games you can try that you might enjoy! Or you can just complain on TL for six hours a day...that must be entertaining.
|
I got steamrolled by a toss on this map and i couldnt stop him cause theres only one path where the army can run, meaning any zergling shenanigans are going to get shut down by just parking your army right at the other entrance. And it seems hard for me to get a third or maybe thats just cause i tool the wrong third
|
Played like 15 ladders games and I never get this map WHY The map Seems fun
|
Why don't they jsut cut the map in half and make it Booty Bay.
|
On October 08 2010 07:17 Ballistixz wrote:
dont ya find it funny where only terran can abuse maps like this? is it so hard for blizz to actually make WIDE maps instead of have maps with such close rush distances/siegable locations? honestly...
do blizz hate macro THAT much or are they just retarded when it comes to map making? because these small ass maps are getting annoying.
What close rush distances? It takes like 8 hours to get from one base to another.
|
On October 09 2010 11:54 KiLL_ORdeR wrote:
Has anyone figured out a good way to wall-off baneling bust as Terran?
every map in the pool you are able to wall off with a factory, barracks, depot, and then build a ling tight wall with a bunker behind the depot, and it pretty much nulifies baneling busts, without effecting your BO at all.
Except on Shakuras Plateau. I've been messing around with it for about 10 minutes and I'm convinced that it's impossible to do this without adding another building, which is a huge pain in the ass. Anyone else notice this?
That's if you want addons.
|
That's the coolest map in map pool for me atm.
I think every zerg should love it
|
Played this against Z and T only so far (No P, thank god. I'd probably just cannon them anyways)
I like it quite a bit; certainly a lot more than Kulas Ravine, and a bit more than Desert Oasis.
|
great map in my opinion. Already skyrocked to my 2nd favourite after Meta. The only thing i hate are the rocks at the main.
|
On October 10 2010 05:38 knL wrote:
great map in my opinion. Already skyrocked to my 2nd favourite after Meta. The only thing i hate are the rocks at the main.
I actually think the rocks at the main are kinda cool, since you have to kill your own to get there if you're in horizontal. If you're in cross positions they let you get a Kulas-style third expo protected by rocks.
|
I play toss and i think this is just really stupid map.
Like if you can spawn only cross or horizontal positions it kinda means that in long run you'll play horizontal about 50% of the games.
When not counting mirror matches the rest are true bo poker between 4 gate and vr rush.
And to counter vr from charging from those rocks its probably best to destroy them and then toss pushes in with 4 gate from 2 directions since the rocks are down.....
Hiding tech > scan, overlord
|
Loving this map. It takes nearly twice as long to go around than it does to break through the rocks and take the back. It makes for a great counter attack path if you have the watch tower and see his army coming.
|
Delta quadrant and lost temple are also really tank friendly maps, you can get you natural on lost temple tanked, and your "other" natural on Delta tanked as well; I suppose tank friendly also equals nuke friendly -_-'
|
It seems like tank drops would be severely hampered by any muta play.
the marines would have a hard time getting into position to defend tanks, while mutas quickly dispose of dropships and then tanks.
|
As a zerg player I see no reason whatsoever not to go crawler defense + mutas against protoss on this map. Ever. You can shut down 2/4 gate so easily if they go 1 base and if they go rays then you already have the best zerg counter.
For terran it might be a little more tricky against rays. Still, the terran must love all the potential drop abuse possibilities on here.
|
On October 09 2010 14:00 ryanAnger wrote:
Yeah, actually I think this map is actually quite awesome compared to some of the other maps in the pool. Sure, there are abusable spots, but they're easy to deny, and getting your natural is SO easy, and that is excellent for a Zerg player.
This is true, but that also means that Protoss can get up a second base just as fast, and they don't even need to devote minerals to a Forge to do it.
I really have no idea what to do in that situation... I try to grab a third and macro up even more, but my army off 3 bases seems so much weaker than his off 2.
|
The rocks in between mains are not really that bad. Only because if you destroy them you take the risk of failing in you'r attack and getting easily countered so this hardly ever happens in my games. I love this map, very macro oriented and I think I along with many others just jumped to conclusions when this became a ladder map.
|
Do we really need designated proxy areas?
|
IMO, now that I've gotten to play on this map several times...
its the best map in the pool. Like, hands down. It encourages and supports solid macro play, yet it still has some interesting features. There are things that can be "abused" by each race, but each of them has reasonable counters. Its a fun map, and at least IME so far, easily the most well-balanced in the pool.
I think everyone screaming at Blizzard when this was added to the pool was 100% wrong. WAY better than DO, thats for sure.
|
It will be interesting to see how the pros play this one. After a few tries I have concluded I have no idea. I predict sensor towers will be very powerful on this map.
|
United States7166 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:06 Obsolescence wrote:EDIT: Bloodba7h helped out this discussion a lot by using the map editor to find out what are the spawn position combinations. Apparently, you can spawn at horizontal or diagonal positions only. Of course, you can still use the nat-nat tank siege to deny gas but you wont be doing it from the cover of your own natural. 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.
awesome, but for christ's sake if they did this for this map why not do the same for metalopolis (which has the shortest walking distance between 2bases by far), and also LT (also really close, but not as bad as metal)
|
I've just played a few games on it and I love it. It's BIG! It's more of a BW-esque macro map than anything they've put out so far. Toss in a 50/50 shot for cross positions and you're gearing up for some late game play, finally.
Overall a nice step in the right direction.
|
This is by far my favourite map in the pool. It is BIG, you can expand safely at most cases, rush distances are reasonable, and the map looks fantastic and relaxing with the twilight-esque graphics. Absolutely fantastic map. Metalopolis used to be my favourite, but now, this map is my favourite map.
It's something like:
1.Shakuras
2.Metalopolis
3.Lost Temple/Xel'naga Caverns
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
I really love this map, so many cool plays you can do and late game vs Toss, taking the middle and the towers allows you to do some cool nukes on expos. You can still die doing them, but it's just fun to nuke stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i55.tinypic.com/akg4g6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i54.tinypic.com/2iurvuo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i53.tinypic.com/k4tohx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i55.tinypic.com/dwv293.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-155643.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/1ZEKm.jpg)
