|
On February 27 2011 02:29 AimlessAmoeba wrote: Can we please give the maps a month or so to at least get some mileage before we start throwing down all the hate?
You wanted new maps, you got them. Chill!
Agree.
|
On February 27 2011 02:30 Smurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 02:29 FrostOtter wrote:On February 27 2011 02:24 Smurphy wrote:On February 27 2011 02:16 FrostOtter wrote:On February 27 2011 02:02 headies wrote:On February 27 2011 01:54 FrostOtter wrote:On February 27 2011 01:42 Excludos wrote:On February 27 2011 01:08 FrostOtter wrote: After all the mockery of Zerg players QQing over the last few months, it is refreshing to watch the Terran and Protoss squirm. Dude, look around. Even Zergs are hating the new maps. People hate maps now just to hate maps. 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. 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. No, I honestly do not get your point. My point is that people screamed about how much Shakuras sucked when it first was introduced, and now they mourn its loss. If you actually go and play the maps, and practice your game, instead of theorycrafting about the maps on the forum or QQing because you've lost both games you've played on them so far, you'd be a better player and wouldn't have to fill the forums up with so much drivel. And not just you, but everyone bitching.
|
On February 27 2011 02:31 ineversmile wrote: I don't think that Shakuras was a fully-conceived idea for the map pool. The types of pushes that could happen between horizontally-adjacent bases made for a lot of the same type of game: one guy breaking down the rocks and pushing with a deathball at some timing, and the game degrading to whether the defender could hold the push or not. I'm not against timing pushes in a RTS game, but there was seriously something repetitive about horizontal spawn games in--more than just tvz and tvp match-ups. It got really boring, both as a player and as a member of the GSL audience. What do you expect, though? If the spawning positions on a map grant you this awesome backdoor right into your opponent's main base, why wouldn't you just push it with leapfrog tanks every single time?
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.
Couldnt they of just made it a 2 player map spawning in opposite corners?
|
Problems of Lost Temple: + Show Spoiler +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.
Small islands in the corners were problematic in that they were difficult to assault as each of the three races. We noticed it's possible to hold out at one or both of these islands and drag on a game for longer than needed. It was also problematic in that in some matchups, these islands were just free expansions that almost never get attacked, which is not what we wanted in an expansion.
The choke point by the natural expansions were too small; it was possible to block them off easily using only a few buildings.
So basically, according to Blizzard: macro games are bad, islands are imbalanced, and fast expanding should be impossible.
(4)Shakuras Plateau + Show Spoiler + This map we decided to remove for a different reason. There isn't a huge problem with this map, but we felt there aren't enough interesting features of this map. The natural expansion is easy to take and defend; there are only two possible attack paths only one of which is generally used, and main bases aren't easy to harass. For a change, we wanted to replace this relatively plain map with something new.
Yeah, they genuinely have no idea what they're doing.
|
On February 27 2011 02:29 AimlessAmoeba wrote: Can we please give the maps a month or so to at least get some mileage before we start throwing down all the hate?
You wanted new maps, you got them. Chill!
Erm, have you played on them yet? Id rather hang myself than play on these ridiculous pieces of art for a month.
|
Just had a pretty macro game against a zerg on slag pits. At least on cross positions (which it was) this map seems decent enough, if a bit plain. Lots of open space at least, which was refreshing in some ways.
|
good changes, removing shakuras is fine with me, that map is just to big and has really few attack routes.
but keeping DQ in seems odd, one of the worst maps ever kept in...?
|
On February 27 2011 02:34 sevia wrote:Show nested quote +Problems of Lost Temple: + Show Spoiler +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.
Small islands in the corners were problematic in that they were difficult to assault as each of the three races. We noticed it's possible to hold out at one or both of these islands and drag on a game for longer than needed. It was also problematic in that in some matchups, these islands were just free expansions that almost never get attacked, which is not what we wanted in an expansion.
The choke point by the natural expansions were too small; it was possible to block them off easily using only a few buildings. So basically, according to Blizzard: macro games are bad, islands are imbalanced, and fast expanding should be impossible. Show nested quote +(4)Shakuras Plateau + Show Spoiler + This map we decided to remove for a different reason. There isn't a huge problem with this map, but we felt there aren't enough interesting features of this map. The natural expansion is easy to take and defend; there are only two possible attack paths only one of which is generally used, and main bases aren't easy to harass. For a change, we wanted to replace this relatively plain map with something new.
Yeah, they genuinely have no idea what they're doing.
You know..... I love they fail to mention the cliff issue on LT. And what the hell are they smoking about Shakuras?
|
On February 27 2011 02:35 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 02:29 AimlessAmoeba wrote: Can we please give the maps a month or so to at least get some mileage before we start throwing down all the hate?
You wanted new maps, you got them. Chill! Erm, have you played on them yet? Id rather hang myself than play on these ridiculous pieces of art for a month.
Please do!
Im going to give these maps a shot and wait a little before I cast my judgement on them.
|
On February 27 2011 02:35 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 02:29 AimlessAmoeba wrote: Can we please give the maps a month or so to at least get some mileage before we start throwing down all the hate?
You wanted new maps, you got them. Chill! Erm, have you played on them yet? Id rather hang myself than play on these ridiculous pieces of art for a month.
Really. THAT is what you would rather do?
The maps are fine. Sure, it's a little terrifying running blind ATM and these maps aren't perfect but they're still better than Steppes or JB were. Maybe you'll feel a little better after some progames are played on them and you can copy their strats.
|
Keep in mind though, Shakuras was bashed to hell here when it was first introduced. The backdoor rocks and the overall plain design were the big offenders. Now its considered the holy grail of mapmaking all of the sudden? 
I think we need a little more time on these new maps. Some will probably have to go (the desert one for example), but they are still better than what we had before.
|
Almisael
Austria235 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.
as someone posted earlier there's a spawning position imbalance in the new temple map. the distance between your main and your natural on the 3:00 starting position is longer than on the 9:00 starting position. the air distance is 33% longer which means it's harder to defend 2 pronged harass on this position (at least that's what i think). travel time from main to exe is about 1.5-2 seconds longer (scv speed). can't test this more accurately...
|
On February 27 2011 02:39 koveras wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 02:35 Cain0 wrote:On February 27 2011 02:29 AimlessAmoeba wrote: Can we please give the maps a month or so to at least get some mileage before we start throwing down all the hate?
You wanted new maps, you got them. Chill! Erm, have you played on them yet? Id rather hang myself than play on these ridiculous pieces of art for a month. Please do! Im going to give these maps a shot and wait a little before I cast my judgement on them.
Its a figure of speech you fucking dick.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I don't know, I liked Shakuras because of the size, but I hated it because of the horizontal spawns. If these new ones have a similar size, that's fine with me. I still think they look a bit dull compared to alternatives and if there really are positional imbalances (again) those need to go, but let's see how they work out. I'll personally miss Blistering, but the logic there is sound I guess. Hope we learned something about backdoors now Blizz <3
Why DQ is still in there though.. ? I guess they want to make sure there's something left to veto?
|
I am disturbed by how little Blizzard seems to understand their own game. WTF. Who gave the green light on these decisions? And even worse, who gave the green light on making their stupidity public with that explanation? They don't need to be experts, but I'd like the people behind Starcraft to not be idiots. Everything they said runs counter to everything said on every forum in every Starcraft community, ever, period. Dustin Browder, you need to facepalm so hard right now.
|
Too bad they just couldn't add the maps instead of killing over 50% of them and replacing them.
|
4) Backwater Gulch
Backwater Gulch has a familiar main to first expansion layout. Early game play on this map should feel familiar and there probably aren't too many early game threats or difficulties in terms of gimmicky strategies you need to worry about. The second expansion, however, features a high ground area that is accessible by two ramps, meaning it can be easily harassed. The center area has two watch towers as well as two high yield expansions that will be difficult to maintain, and the key to victory in some games could come down to how long you hold one or both of these center expansions.
??????????????????????????''
????????????????????????????
? ???????????????????????'
If you're used to 1 o'clock original lost temple perhaps. + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/82_Lost%20Temple.jpg) with added rocks obviously
I'd have bought the bold part if they directed the ramp towards the expansion making it, like perhaps possible to take early game.
![[image loading]](http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8540/gulch.png) This would literally take like 5 minutes to fix in the editor, maybe 15 for the good texture work.
|
On February 27 2011 02:35 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 02:29 AimlessAmoeba wrote: Can we please give the maps a month or so to at least get some mileage before we start throwing down all the hate?
You wanted new maps, you got them. Chill! Erm, have you played on them yet? Id rather hang myself than play on these ridiculous pieces of art for a month.
then don't and shut up, seriously... give the maps a chance and play on them for a week and then if you still dont like them go complaint on the bnet forums.....
|
On February 27 2011 02:46 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 02:39 koveras wrote:On February 27 2011 02:35 Cain0 wrote:On February 27 2011 02:29 AimlessAmoeba wrote: Can we please give the maps a month or so to at least get some mileage before we start throwing down all the hate?
You wanted new maps, you got them. Chill! Erm, have you played on them yet? Id rather hang myself than play on these ridiculous pieces of art for a month. Please do! Im going to give these maps a shot and wait a little before I cast my judgement on them. Its a figure of speech you fucking dick.
yes you are bound to stay here for a long time with this kind of posts
|
United States5162 Posts
On February 27 2011 02:32 FrostOtter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 02:30 Smurphy wrote:On February 27 2011 02:29 FrostOtter wrote:On February 27 2011 02:24 Smurphy wrote:On February 27 2011 02:16 FrostOtter wrote:On February 27 2011 02:02 headies wrote:On February 27 2011 01:54 FrostOtter wrote:On February 27 2011 01:42 Excludos wrote:On February 27 2011 01:08 FrostOtter wrote: After all the mockery of Zerg players QQing over the last few months, it is refreshing to watch the Terran and Protoss squirm. Dude, look around. Even Zergs are hating the new maps. People hate maps now just to hate maps. 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. 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. No, I honestly do not get your point. My point is that people screamed about how much Shakuras sucked when it first was introduced, and now they mourn its loss. If you actually go and play the maps, and practice your game, instead of theorycrafting about the maps on the forum or QQing because you've lost both games you've played on them so far, you'd be a better player and wouldn't have to fill the forums up with so much drivel. And not just you, but everyone bitching.
People were complaining about Shakuras until they figured out you can spawn vertical positions. That was the only issue people saw on the map besides the backdoor rocks, which people still dont like.
|
|
|
|
|
|