GSL map switch concerns - Page 6

On January 10 2011 07:38 link0 wrote:
The bigger the map, the more likely Protoss will win because warp-gates ignore the defender's advantage.

On January 10 2011 08:57 Piski wrote:
How in the hell you changed this thread to be about balance. The OP made a legitamate concern that has nothing to do with balance but somehow people just managed to derail this quickly.

I think this should be talked about and I really hope blizzard is rethinking their maps. Best thing that could happen is that these GSL maps would be included into the ladder map pool and the removed maps removed.

On January 10 2011 07:10 uberdeluxe wrote:
So we all know that some ladder maps have terrible imbalances, that's just a fact. GSL decided to do something about this and implement new custom maps they created( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182734 )

I think all of us are wondering "what will Blizzard do?" These maps are publicly available for anyone to play on, but for players to continue to ladder, we will have to keep playing on all the blizzard ladder maps until Blizzard changes them. If they don't, it could be pretty terrible for blizzard hosted tournaments, since how people are invited is based off of their laddering points, which might force pros to play on outdated and poorly made maps.

I had checked the blizzard site to see if there was an appropriate way to ask about this in the contact section, but there was only places to send mail for policy questions and bugs. So, my dear gamers, is what do you think blizz will do about the ladder maps, and do you think that playing on the ladder may be completely extinct among pros in the future?

*edit* accidentally put this in strategy... can a mod move it?

On January 10 2011 16:46 YoiChiBow wrote:
They need to implement unbuildable terrain like in the old brood war map Luna.

would help alot with proxy pylons.

On January 10 2011 07:47 link0 wrote:


Of course Zerg > Terran in larger maps. But Protoss benefits even more than zerg from map size.

On January 10 2011 14:19 synapse wrote:

Well, half that and half "FUCK YEAH CANNON RUSH!"

On January 10 2011 18:49 Disastorm wrote:

I disagree, I think the majority of newbies hate cheeses and cannon rushes, they only do it because thats the best way for them to win BECAUSE the maps are small. If Blizzard believes larger maps would detract from newbies, they are completely wrong.

On January 10 2011 17:35 Befree wrote:
I think we're completely overestimating the difficulty of these maps.

A rough analysis of the start location to start location distance (cross positions if more than one):

Clocked my SCV with the in game clock at about
Tal'Darim Altar ~1:10
Terminus ~1:05
Aiur Garden ~1:03
Biohazard ~0:58
Crossfire ~0:55

as opposed to

Shakuras ~1:05
Scrap Station ~1:00
Steppes ~0:45

My timings aren't done with an exact method but the idea is that the times are still similar. Early game play that you may see in lower leagues should stay similar. It is not as if the rush distances were doubled or something significant.

The maps do not hinder early game play, what they do is stop hindering mid/late game play. Their more accessible expansions and greater area allow for taking and keeping bases easier. A map being good for pro players does not mean it has to be bad for average players.

Conclusion: I feel I'm having trouble conveying my point with this mess but what I'm trying to say is that it is not that these maps discourage one base play, it is that they no longer discourage macro oriented (which the current ladder map pool does). So because of this, lower league should so no real negative effect or change from using these maps, while pro level will see positive effects. Therefore I believe it is completely realistic for Blizzard to implement these maps into the map pool of all leagues without there being any harm to any league.