| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
[wh]_ForAlways
United States235 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:10 romanov wrote: So could somebody explain me wat's so bad about DQ, I like that map The rush distances are ridiculously short and your natural is incredibly exposed. | ||
|
headies
United States63 Posts
I mean.. really? | ||
|
FrostOtter
United States537 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:02 headies wrote: Nah man, people hate maps now because they are terribly designed. Temple is decent, haven't played enough on it to really comment on how much the wider natural choke is going to affect it, but at least you can simcity your natural from your ramp. Unlike most of these maps. I have never lost on a map when it wasn't my fault I lost. The same is true for all of you. | ||
|
`Forte
United States128 Posts
It sucks for pros that less than half the maps are ones they can play on in tournaments, and the other half are horridly imbalanced. The only good one is the fixed LT. Backwater Gulch is a joke, and whoever thought rotational symmetry was in any way balanced needs to be shot. It's really silly that the map is already imbalanced before you even pick your race, and that's disregarding the other dumb things about it like defending your nat or Terran PFing the gold to remove that attack route. Stag Pits can't possibly be "macro heavy" as they say when there is no defendable third expansion. And they removed one of the best maps in the ladder pool because, "it was uninteresting" (I guess to Blizzard this means not enough rocks, cheese, or 1-base all-ins). It's going to be hard for me to try to do any long-term viable strategy on most of these maps. I think I'm just going to mass custom games with practice partners until these maps are fixed. | ||
|
[wh]_ForAlways
United States235 Posts
| ||
|
headies
United States63 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:16 FrostOtter wrote: I have never lost on a map when it wasn't my fault I lost. The same is true for all of you. Bottom line, most of these maps promote 1 or 2 base play. Even more so than the old map pool, which is mind-boggling that was even possible. In the event the game actually progresses to the 2 base stage (on maps that favor 1 basing heavily), it just isn't fun when you are left with the choice to secure a third that is on the other side of the map (or right next to your opponent), or just go 2 base all-in. There are a lot of positional imbalances as well. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:10 romanov wrote: So could somebody explain me wat's so bad about DQ, I like that map Ridiculous rush distance and you just can't take an early expo - let alone defend it vs a timing-push. Expo in the back is heavily exposed to drop-harassment, which is generally very powerful on the map as a whole. All of this favours terran, who are the major drop-race and furthermore they can 1 rax CC and just destroy the rocks and fly the CC over. Zerg and toss simply can't do that, destroying the rocks first will lead to a very delayed expansion. Playing toss I always felt the map also heavily favoured toss in lategame vs zerg since the gold is easy to take and hold and zerg can't really spread out. | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
If one side controls one of the center watch towers, there's no alternate ground-based route to half of the map, meaning it's too easy for the game to become a stalemate with each side taking half of the map. -------------- That's the only point I can agree on. Lost temple in late game with the stalemate that is mentioned here lacked some dynamic. We saw that in BW in TvT, which wasn't the most exciting matchup for that reason. I appreciate the less dominant position of watch towers in the new map so they don't cover all attack paths. | ||
|
headies
United States63 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:19 [wh]_ForAlways wrote: Also, how credible is shacknews? They don't seem to provide a source for Blizzard's reasoning, and I have a hard time imagining that they're actually that out of touch with the game. I suppose if they weren't, shakuras would still be in the map pool though.... This is what I'm wondering, because some of those comments seem so unbelievably stupid that I find it really hard to believe someone from blizzard actually said that. | ||
|
`Forte
United States128 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:16 FrostOtter wrote: I have never lost on a map when it wasn't my fault I lost. The same is true for all of you. Take Super Street Fighter IV. No matter what skill level I'm at, if I go Zangief vs. Akuma and lose, it's technically my fault for losing despite the fact that Akuma is favored 7:3 in that match-up (meaning that with two top level players of equal skill level, Akuma wins 7 out of 10 games vs. Zangief). It's always your fault that you lose. This doesn't mean that everything is balanced. | ||
|
cactuschewer
United Kingdom152 Posts
| ||
|
Smurphy
United States374 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:16 FrostOtter wrote: I have never lost on a map when it wasn't my fault I lost. The same is true for all of you. So what? If ladder map was made where the players spawned directly next to each other, I played on that map, and I lost, it would be my fault. Whose fault it is for losing doesn't preclude a map from being terrible nor should it prevent people from complaining about the map. As the poster above you stated, "People hate on these maps because they are terribly designed". That's a subjective opinion. There are plenty of ways to argue for or against that point. Stating "I have never lost on a map when it wasn't my fault I lost. The same is true for all of you" has no relevance to the discussion. You are either willfully ignorant or trolling. I'm astonished that Shakuras Plateau was removed for being "too boring" and Delta Quadrant was left in the map pool. I cannot fathom the reasoning that occurred there. I watch a lot of streamed tournaments and I cannot remember the last time I saw Delta Quadrant played on. I thought everyone understood "this map isn't viable". Also, Slag Pits is very tiny. I can understand their comments about wanting to reduce the rush maps but keep one or two around. However, I don't understand the desire for four player rush maps. The positions are still relatively close (I think, please feel free to show me objective numbers otherwise). Now, on rush maps, you will have more troubles scouting your opponent and the rush may come just as fast but from three possible directions instead of the certain one. Looks like on Slag Pits one position will have the rush come ever faster. Slag Pits is also setup to be a Free for All map. That's just silly. | ||
|
OurAllySucks
United States7 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:06 sleepingdog wrote: The positional imbalances are the worst - I mean, I could pretty much live with each and every stupidly designed map if it was at least EQUALLY stupid on each position. what positional imbalances are there? I know that slug used to be terrible for the 9 i think position in a TvT, but im not noticing any in any of the other maps, and i havn't played slug in a TvT so i couldn't say if those are still there. | ||
|
FrostOtter
United States537 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:24 Smurphy wrote: So what? If ladder map was made where the players spawned directly next to each other, I played on that map, and I lost, it would be my fault. Whose fault it is for losing doesn't preclude a map from being terrible nor should it prevent people from complaining about the map. As the poster above you stated, "People hate on these maps because they are terribly designed". That's a subjective opinion. There are plenty of ways to argue for or against that point. Stating "I have never lost on a map when it wasn't my fault I lost. The same is true for all of you" has no relevance to the discussion. You are either willfully ignorant or trolling. I'm astonished that Shakuras Plateau was removed for being "too boring" and Delta Quadrant was left in the map pool. I cannot fathom the reasoning that occurred there. I watch a lot of streamed tournaments and I cannot remember the last time I saw Delta Quadrant played on. I thought everyone understood "this map isn't viable". Also, Slag Pits is very tiny. I can understand their comments about wanting to reduce the rush maps but keep one or two around. However, I don't understand the desire for four player rush maps. The positions are still relatively close (I think, please feel free to show me objective numbers otherwise). Now, on rush maps, you will have more troubles scouting your opponent and the rush may come just as fast but from three possible directions instead of the certain one. Looks like on Slag Pits one position will have the rush come ever faster. Slag Pits is also setup to be a Free for All map. That's just silly. I think it has bearing on the discussion in that if most of you put the time into playing that you put into bitching, you'd probably be in the top 200. Hyperbole, obviously, but you get my point. | ||
|
AimlessAmoeba
Canada704 Posts
You wanted new maps, you got them. Chill! | ||
|
Trentelshark
Canada385 Posts
On February 27 2011 01:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Dont like any of the new maps except the fixed Temple. They all have ridiculous chokes and stupid positional imbalances - its like, if you want to encourage straight up terran play, 1 rax CC absolutely HAS to be viable for the map to have a healthy variety in openings... Xelnaga is the only map defying this rule I can think of. And 1 rax CC is only viable if you can 3 rax wall your nat or baneling bust gets you every time. Removing Shakuras might be the single most mindboggling decision ever made in this games history. My thoughts exactly. How they can call Slag a more macro based map than Metal blows my mind. Look at the map Blizzard, look at the expansion location/number of expansions. Now tell me, how is this a "macro" based map...a third is so damn far away when spawning side-by-side, and it will be SO easy to end up half map vs half map and mine it out in no time. Their interview on Shacknews says it all. They don't get it, and they need to swallow their pride and accept the GSL maps and some of the icCup maps into the rotation, and bring back Shakuras, because the current map pool is worse than before (with the exception of Steppes and Blistering being removed, but their replacements aren't really an improvement). | ||
|
Smurphy
United States374 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:29 FrostOtter wrote: I think it has bearing on the discussion in that if most of you put the time into playing that you put into bitching, you'd probably be in the top 200. Hyperbole, obviously, but you get my point. No, I honestly do not get your point. | ||
|
TarQeS
United Kingdom90 Posts
| ||
|
ineversmile
United States583 Posts
Maybe the new maps aren't perfect, but Shakuras definitely had some gaping flaws of its own. It's easy to take that for granted. | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
These maps seems very...simple. Just look at the GSL map, Koreans are the best at making SC/SC2 map.GSL maps are far more rich and show a great understanding of the game for map makers. Maps from Blizzard(except Shakuras) are more like: Pick a small size plain map, divide it into 4 equal piece, add some grass, cliff, mineral and there you go. Blizzard should just out sourcing the map making to Korea, they can actually save themselves some money by doing so. :D and we will have some awesome maps. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
