EPTI hope they give us medivac speed buff. At least a research.
Their speed just got reduced in an earlier patch... just so you know since you were not around at the time I suppose.
GSL map switch concerns - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Faze.
Canada285 Posts
Their speed just got reduced in an earlier patch... just so you know since you were not around at the time I suppose. | ||
|
hmsrenown
Canada1263 Posts
With that said, BitByBitPrime maybe the biggest loser bar none from this change. | ||
|
PackAttack
United States80 Posts
| ||
|
Scap
United States60 Posts
To sound less whiny, one thing I always hated about War3 was the diversity, or lack thereof, of the map pool. After so many games you just get sick and tired of playing the same map over and over. I'm no pro, I never will be a pro, but I think FAIRLY regular rotation of NEW maps (Like, every 2-3 months, maybe 4, move x amount of maps out, and x amount of maps in) will maintain interest in the game. And this isn't a shot at any lower players (I worked my way up from silver), but fuck the idea of lower league players disliking "more technical maps." Your average silver player probably doesn't understand what would make a map more or less technical, and they'll just have fun on the map regardless. Alternatively, institute rotating map pools in each league, and see which maps are vetoed! Do bronze players tend to hate huge maps? Then don't include MANY huge maps (Keep some in of course). Do plat players like mid-sized maps or bigger? 3 player maps? Then include more of those. The best part is, if blizzard doesn't want to take up the mantle of map-making, the community is willing to provide blizzard with these maps! Hold more map making contests, ask for different things. We need more SMALL maps! We need a 3 player map. We want a huge 2 player map with a hard to get fourth and fifth base, things like that. Then select 3-4 and rotate them in, see what happens. There needs to be some degree of risk taking on blizzard's part if they want this game to maintain it's appeal, and implementing new maps every so often is a good risk to take. | ||
|
adius
United States249 Posts
| ||
|
latan
740 Posts
bottom line is eveyon has the tools to play on alternative maps, stop trying to pin everything on blizzard, they already gave u a map editor. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 11 2011 04:02 Faze. wrote: Their speed just got reduced in an earlier patch... just so you know since you were not around at the time I suppose. Perhaps something that made them able to switch into flight mode where they can't heal. But having them remain as they are, with a speed upgrade, would be downright nuts. | ||
|
Hobokinz
United States126 Posts
On January 11 2011 04:46 latan wrote: blizzard needs to think of the common folk, a heavy rotation on maps would not be good for casual players. maybe a change in the pool with every ladder reset. bottom line is eveyon has the tools to play on alternative maps, stop trying to pin everything on blizzard, they already gave u a map editor. Problem is that Blizzard also wants people to play on the ladder more than customs. Ladder is much easier to use than custom games and will pair you with someone of closer skill than a custom will. The bottom line is that most custom games are better because the maps are just funner to play on than what Blizz has in the map pool right now. Blizz wants to have it's cake and eat it too. On January 11 2011 04:49 Mohdoo wrote: Perhaps something that made them able to switch into flight mode where they can't heal. But having them remain as they are, with a speed upgrade, would be downright nuts. I think they tried something like that in the beta and it didn't go so well. | ||
|
-miDnight-
Taiwan455 Posts
make some change in LT, scrap, sharkuas, meto. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On January 10 2011 16:35 Tiazi wrote: imo, blizzard gave us (the community) the tools (map editors) to play the game as we please and or customize the bits we dont like. So all the fuzz about blizzard not agreeing about us not playing on their selected ladder maps is overrated. Its justified until they give us our own servers to host or LAN. | ||
|
DarkwindHK
Hong Kong343 Posts
Its so easy to get to 3 bases in these maps that you can produce from like 12~14 gates non-stop. Its pretty scary in late game. | ||
|
GenesisX
Canada4267 Posts
| ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On January 11 2011 11:28 DarkwindHK wrote: It is with these maps Protoss can finally utilize the full strength of mass warp gates and pylon every where. Its so easy to get to 3 bases in these maps that you can produce from like 12~14 gates non-stop. Its pretty scary in late game. Not only that, but warp Prisms. Protoss is gonna get so scary. | ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
| ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On January 11 2011 12:27 bgx wrote: Blizzard is afraid of big maps, they have problems with small maps already since beta. I'd be shocked to see them in ladder map pool. As much as i love sc2, i dont see how big maps would fit at current state of the game. Armies are gonna look small for one. But that Blizzard's fault for doubling supply costs. | ||
Falling
Canada11586 Posts
On January 11 2011 04:46 latan wrote: blizzard needs to think of the common folk, a heavy rotation on maps would not be good for casual players. maybe a change in the pool with every ladder reset. bottom line is eveyon has the tools to play on alternative maps, stop trying to pin everything on blizzard, they already gave u a map editor. Actually, I think even the casual players would get sick of the same maps. And if we have the stagnant ladder maps of War 3 to judge by.... I asked one of my cousins who' pretty out of the pro-league loop, though Diamond. Even he was starting to get sick of some of the maps and wouldn't mind ladder switches as some maps hadn't gotten far too predictable. It need not be an entire map swap, but swapping out a few every month or so would be very healthy even for the casual player. | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
I think they don't care so much if a map has imbalances (unless they're really really egregious), because of the downvote system. In order for us to get good map that blizzard might look at, we want maps with an interesting gimmick that doesn't mess up the balance. For instance, there's some discussion about if large maps are bad for T lategame. Let's just assume this is true for a minute, and take it as an axiom. Short maps are imba for Zerg earlygame, and large maps are imba for Terran lategame. We will assume this is true because it was written in fire by God What if we made a map with a very long rush distance (~70 seconds), and destructible rocks blocking off a Steppes-sized rush distance (~35 seconds)? Almost like Scrap Station, but bigger. Thus, there's a short push distance for Terran that opens up in the midgame, but Zerg can still 14 hatch and start droning safely. That's just an example obviously, but I think that's the kind of thinking that leads to good, varied, macro maps, that would interest Blizzard. Brood War maps were developed over the years to perfectly balance Brood War. And, more to the point, Brood War several years into the metagame. This is Wings of Liberty. Very similar game. Not the same. It'll take us some time and creativity to get maps that lead to the really good WoL games. I think that a balanced WoL map will end up being more interesting than balanced BW maps. Maybe Blizzard will agree. | ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
On January 18 2011 13:46 Antares777 wrote: I understand that these GSL maps are mainly focused on macro while Blizzard's do not. They force entirely different games. GSL maps are trying to turn SCII into Brood War, and in my honest opinion, that's not going to work well. The best maps are maps that do not favor macro or rushes, but allow both to happen. If you look at the ladder maps, not all of them do a good job, but XC for example is a step in the right direction. By HotS, Blizzard will have good maps in their map pool. And if you look at these GSL maps, they favor macro games. rushes can still happen. the player would just have to proxy buildings closer to the opposing player's base. bigger maps alter the risk/reward ratio of cheese toward more risk less reward | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
Look at the original map pool: Micro Maps - Steppes - Blistering Sands Macro Maps - Kulas - Oasis - Metalopolis - Xel'Naga Caverns - Scrap Station - Lost Temple WTF Maps - Delta. I have no idea what the concept behind this map was. Kulas and Desert were replaced with Shakuras (Macro map, probably the best map in the pool) and Jungle Basin (Micro/2base map). 2/3rds of the map pool was macro. Now, you can (and likely will) argue that these maps aren't good macro maps, but Blizzard is clearly trying to do it. Give them time, it's a new game. I expect we'll see more Blizzard attempts at macro maps, that get progressively better. Shakuras is a really good map. So's Xel'naga Caverns, and kind of Metalopolis. Remember when Metal was considered the "good" Blizzard map? And hey, if you ever think WoL maps are bad, look at the official maps Starcraft 1 launched with. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Ashrigo http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/River_Styx http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Solar_Station http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Green_Valleys We've come a long way. All the maps have naturals, now! | ||
| ||
