|
On January 07 2011 12:05 Turgid wrote:
Blizzard still hasn't said why Shakuras was removed or why it's STILL gone. It's really weird.
no they haven't... however, there was a bug discovered a week before it was removed... also what's weird about them not saying anything about it?
For everyone talking about BW maps this and that, SC2 is a brand new game (were most of you too young to play 'vanilla' SC?) give it some time. Second, SC2 has a lot of different/new mechanics (mainly WG and cliff walking/jumping). I don't think maps that ignore those elements make for particularly good maps.
My favorite maps right now are the larger 4-6 player maps for 1v1 (I'm not a huge fan of the iccup ports - but that could also be from lack of exposure).
|
Blizzard is trying to balance the game, and the inclusion of new maps into the ladder would make this very difficult. I imagine Blizzard is going to take it slow with the maps until they're pretty sure that the game is balanced.
|
Eliminate Steppes,Jungle Basin, Delta
Fix the cliff on Lost temple
Add a few huge maps with 4 starting locations
problem solved
|
I only like 1-3 maps in the map pool, rest are just rubbish.
I wish Blizzard gets their heads out of their asses and starts adding usermade maps soon cause the current ones are fucking awful and are hindering game balance progress :/
|
On January 07 2011 12:33 zDUST wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 12:05 Turgid wrote:
Blizzard still hasn't said why Shakuras was removed or why it's STILL gone. It's really weird. no they haven't... however, there was a bug discovered a week before it was removed... also what's weird about them not saying anything about it?
I thought that the bug could be fixed or at least band-aided in this period, even with the holidays and all.
Not saying anything is weird because there WAS a post when they added Shakuras in in the first place.
|
I want some really good map-maker to get some crazy stuff going on and make games more micro-oriented. Honestly for me that's where all the fun is at, the micro. Remember TLOwnage? All that good stuff? That was exciting (objectively, if you have an opinion different then please remove yourself) stuff! Nowadays it's just a-moving large armies. Maybe they should cut down on the resources or something. Another idea was to make smaller maps so that rushes and faster-oriented plays. I get the feeling that once SC2 settles down we'll be able to see some more dynamic play.
|
I only really like shakuras plateau, xel naga and scrap station. The rest of the maps are garbage except for metalopolis on far away positions.
|
I'm surprised it's been half a year and still no significant updates have been made to Bnet 2.0 or the map pool, are they even trying to improve or just don't care since the game is out and they made the profit. >_<
I fricking loathe the map pool except Metalopolis, especially teamgames, the gameplay in 3vs3 is horrid because of the stupid maps. OH and Blistering Sands is fucking AWFUL to play TvP...
|
On January 07 2011 12:33 TERRANLOL wrote:
Blizzard is trying to balance the game, and the inclusion of new maps into the ladder would make this very difficult. I imagine Blizzard is going to take it slow with the maps until they're pretty sure that the game is balanced.
I don't think you understand how much the maps make up so much of the ballance of the game, right now in BW the maps are largely zerg favored which is why in the msl there are at least 1 zerg in every game you see, and a couple zvz's. Trying to balance a game with lackluster maps and waiting to change, isnt going to balance the game when new maps, POSSIBLY larger maps would completely change how each race would respond to certain scenarios.
To put it bluntly, if we had a map that was 4 player with the distances of Scrap Station from each player's base, thor rushing simply wouldn't be as powerful, zergs could easily delay spine crawlers in each match up, and 4 warp gate would take several seconds longer, all and all making that push weaker.
And if you still are not conviced go and read Map of the Swarm By Konadora. It is a great article and talks a lot about how that map affected BW play.
|
the iccup maps blow dick for sc2
User was warned for this post
|
Macro games are still micro and positioning intensive if you're playing very well. In fact it might be even tougher on your micro skills to do it very well than shorter 1base games because holy crap does managing a few bases and defending harass make it hard to blink your stalkers around. But since micro techniques are still, to a large degree, valid in medium and large numbers, the best players will do them. There are still epic micro moments in macro games. Imagine some SC2 god years in the future keeping his minerals and gas below 100 while on 5 bases and marine splitting versus speedbanes on creep. Imagine the sick feints, fungals, and surrounds from the responding zerg player. With automine and MBS, the micro involved in humongous macro games could be insane. That makes sense in my head, at least.
Although I do want small rush distances to remain in the game for as long as it takes for me to see a queen transfuse a fired-on baneling and save it for long enough for it to make contact with a group of marines.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On January 07 2011 12:49 SonKiE wrote:
the iccup maps blow dick for sc2
I am sorry.. but you took the effort to decide that comment is necessary and then post it?
OT: If we know how important maps are to balance, surely blizzard knows; they do not live underneath a rock somewhere in the middle of the desert. They understand the importance of maps but altering more variables make identifying current balance issues even harder.. just have patience.
|
On January 07 2011 12:49 SonKiE wrote:
the iccup maps blow dick for sc2
You got a start, lets add a middle and an end to that, and bam you have a post that actually would contribute to something...
It's exciting really, I'm curious as to why they "blow dick".
|
I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but the ever changing bw map pool annoyed me, and i found it difficult to keep up with. the game is complicated as is, and when you add fancy new map features every month, it's too much imo.
|
to go as far as saying killing interest is wayyyyyyyyyyy overboard.
its way to early to even consider that.
|
sorry to dash and rash but i'll be reading the whole thread after
just have to say you forgot one polling possibility (at least):
"the map pool is what it is, i'll handle it"
my pov:
+ Show Spoiler +i don't care for the map pool much, however i think any map has interesting potential (need tweeking maybe) ...sort of... and f..k blizz for not having added to the pool (basically you should never substract (yes even incineration) to the pool, or possibly after you've added as many as you're withdrawing) + Show Spoiler +... oh and mostly where is this custom ladder with "community green lit maps"? Cause blizz takes care of blizz and community.. well ?!
|
I personally feel we need new maps, for the sole reason that they are just too small. Every time I watch a BW game I just wish I could play on those maps. I played on the ICCup's match point port over to SC2 and that map felt huge by comparison to like blistering sands or metalopolis. I mean really you can pylon art the center of it. Python is another one of my favorite port, because not only is it an old friend from the BW days, but the middle is massive. I'm fairly sure you can fit stepps of war in the center of python.
|
On January 07 2011 12:36 Essentia wrote:
Eliminate Steppes,Jungle Basin, Delta
Fix the cliff on Lost temple
Add a few huge maps with 4 starting locations
problem solved
wow dude you are fucking genius. you should be on the blizzard development team. have they heard any of these ground breaking ideas yet? they are absolutly amazing and i take my hat off to you sir.
|
On January 07 2011 13:04 PhiliBiRD wrote:
to go as far as saying killing interest is wayyyyyyyyyyy overboard.
its way to early to even consider that.
No it's not. SC2 interest in Korea is very clearly dwindling. There's another thread on it x]
I said in the other thread, but I'll say it again here. Larger maps are necessary.
People really need to get out of their heads the misjudged and false idea that larger maps automatically mean long macro games. You can get plenty of cheese/unorthodox/early rush type play on large maps. For example, take the current BW map, Pathfinder. It's very similar to DO and Scrap Station except on a much larger scale. Because of the layout of the map, more uncommon air-based play is the norm, unlike games on other maps, where play is more ground-based. Not only that, but short, fast games are still very possible. Stork had an amazing (read: one-sided rape) game against Hiya on Pathfinder, which ended in less than 20 minutes despite Pathfinder being bigger than every SC2 map out there. (Yea, it's mostly due to Hiya's fail but still.) Short games can happen on larger maps. Same is true for unorthodox and cheesy play. What larger maps do, rather, is allow for the possibility of longer and more action-packed games rather than the current SC2 map pool which basically forces a specific type of play.
EDIT: Also, when the fuck will Blizzard put in community made maps into the ladder? If it's not in ladder, then all the gesturing by Blizzard saying "community maps are great!" or "tourneys can use their own maps" is utter and completely fucking bullshit. Ladder accounts for the majority of practice by pros and amateurs alike. Community maps not being on ladder is practically the same fucking thing as community maps not existing (in the big picture anyways).
Also, Blizzard's view of "larger maps is bad for noobs" has some weight, but honestly, just give diamond league (maybe even platinum) a different mappool if noobs are held in such high regard at Blizzard HQ.
|
all i have to say is.... blizzard took a racially imbalanced crap map from 1998 that was considered imbalanced years ago. redid it in the map editor so that it has fancy textures, nothing inspiring but a step above the bw ones, and threw it in the beta pool. and it has been there since.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
