|
On February 27 2011 02:34 sevia wrote:
So basically, according to Blizzard: macro games are bad, islands are imbalanced, and fast expanding should be impossible.
Wait, that's what you're taking away from that statement?
Here, I'll translate it for you properly:
Turtling Terrans with Siege Tank/Turret defense lines and no action is bad. (also see: Goody's and avilo's TvT)
Islands on LT have been abused to draw out games and force stalemates that weren't really necessary.
Fast expanding is fine, but not when Terrans and Protoss gain a big advantage over Zerg due to being able to easily wall-in, whereas Zerg is not.
All fair statements to make. Stop trying to be so negative just for the sake of being negative.
|
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.
I cant really remember that Shakuras got that much hate when it came. People were only affraid since the close position would be totally imba, but they made it so that you could not spawn that close. Still no-one says that Shakuras is the best map or a superb map. It is just that it is one of the 3/2 best maps in the ladder pool. And they say they dont want these rush maps, and takes out one of the few decent macro ,maps in the pool and replaces them with some maps that have even worse distances and impossible to defend naturals. I just cant get Blizzards logic.
|
It feels pretty rough to try and fast expand as protoss without some kind of wall. I'm not necessarily saying you should be able to wall off with two/three buildings a la LOT but on Shattered it's gone too far the opposite direction. I can't imagine zergs are too happy either, though at least the cliff thing seems to be dealt with.
Typhon Peaks seems pretty good to me so far. The 2nd base feels pretty difficult to take, but the natural is almost ridiculously easy to defend - kinda sending mixed signals when compared to ST.
Slag Pits feels like the worst of the bunch to me. The Xel'Naga tower sees almost nothing and is pretty much redundant. The naturals are WIDE open and very hard to defend against early T pressure, especially with the short distance if you spawn vertically opposite. I'm really not keen on this map, and think i'll probably veto it.
Haven't played on Gulch yet, but i wanted to echo the thoughts of people discussing the Shakuras/Delta issue. Like, really? They took out one of the consensu best maps in the pool while leaving one of the least popular (personally i don't mind DQ so much). It's great to have new maps, but Blizzard's logic in their implementation is difficult to fathom.
|
On February 27 2011 03:15 Neivler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 02:32 FrostOtter wrote: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. I cant really remember that Shakuras got that much hate when it came. People were only affraid since the close position would be totally imba, but they made it so that you could not spawn that close. Still no-one says that Shakuras is the best map or a superb map. It is just that it is one of the 3/2 best maps in the ladder pool. And they say they dont want these rush maps, and takes out one of the few decent macro ,maps in the pool and replaces them with some maps that have even worse distances and impossible to defend naturals. I just cant get Blizzards logic.
Blizzard's logic is probably something along the line of that, since everyone bitches about everything they do, it takes them a while to wade through what is legitimate criticism and what is people being stupid.
|
Its seems like the community as a whole has nothing good to say about Delta Quadrant. I'd love to see the stats on the most vetoed maps. I don't see how Shakuras was a map without "interesting features." Shakuras was one of the few maps that used destructible rocks properly. Putting rocks on top of expansions hurts the macro game. What's so bad about a natural expansion that is easy to defend? Aren't two-base games more interesting and allow for the cooler more expensive unit? Do people really enjoy 10 minute Marine/Marauder v. Zealot/Stalker/Sentry matches? Is Blizzard just committed to keeping games shorter?
|
On February 27 2011 03:09 Bobster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 02:34 sevia wrote:
So basically, according to Blizzard: macro games are bad, islands are imbalanced, and fast expanding should be impossible. Wait, that's what you're taking away from that statement? Here, I'll translate it for you properly: Turtling Terrans with Siege Tank/Turret defense lines and no action is bad. (also see: Goody's and avilo's TvT) Islands on LT have been abused to draw out games and force stalemates that weren't really necessary. Fast expanding is fine, but not when Terrans and Protoss gain a big advantage over Zerg due to being able to easily wall-in, whereas Zerg is not. All fair statements to make. Stop trying to be so negative just for the sake of being negative.
your comments regarding fast expos...no...just no....
|
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....
They're credible dude, they've been around for 15 years.
|
imo these maps makes blizzard look very childish, people been asking for larger maps and more viable maps, GSL makes some quite good maps for it, and blizzard apparently acts up and makes some extremely wide open everything, huge ramps, huge naturals, extremely huge middle area's, and enforce people to play them or don't ladder, it seems like a really childish act from blizzard's side, this really goes under bad moves from their side.
|
On February 27 2011 04:34 Salvarias wrote:
imo these maps makes blizzard look very childish, people been asking for larger maps and more viable maps, GSL makes some quite good maps for it, and blizzard apparently acts up and makes some extremely wide open everything, huge ramps, huge naturals, extremely huge middle area's, and enforce people to play them or don't ladder, it seems like a really childish act from blizzard's side, this really goes under bad moves from their side.
i'd have to agree at least in part with this post... seems like they are not quite ready to give up the control of map making... MINE!
|
A wide open area in the center is very welcome.
However, TAKE OUT that xelnaga watchtower in the center of Neo LT for gods sake... thats just plain stupid.
|
Didn't see this discussed so far: Has anyone checked whether the ramps on these maps conform to current guidelines on blocking with buildings?
|
Calling Shakuras plain and uninteresting while keeping Crap Station is outright asinine. Calling Slug Pits a suitable macro replacement also makes me chuckle. 10 expansions and a ridiculously hard to defend third makes me believe that map is going to turn into a ton of 2-base timing allins against the player who takes the third first.
|
i fucken hate the maps so badly. Did they say why they aren't going to use gsl maps
|
On February 27 2011 03:09 Bobster wrote:
Turtling Terrans with Siege Tank/Turret defense lines and no action is bad. (also see: Goody's and avilo's TvT)
That's actually more interesting then 1a'ing terrans with MMM, running randomly around the map (see: 90% of the terrans). MMM play should be reduced, but thanks to blizzard all terrans are kinda forced to go MMM (expect in TvT, but then some randommers complain that it's boring).
|
On February 27 2011 04:57 Dont Panic wrote:
i fucken hate the maps so badly. Did they say why they aren't going to use gsl maps
They said they would be adding one GSL map to the pool soon
|
On February 27 2011 05:13 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 04:57 Dont Panic wrote:
i fucken hate the maps so badly. Did they say why they aren't going to use gsl maps They said they would be adding one GSL map to the pool soon
Source please?
|
GJ Blizz, I just stopped laddering. Shakuras was the best map.
|
On February 27 2011 05:18 eveo wrote:
GJ Blizz, I just stopped laddering. Shakuras was the best map.
Yeah honestly I'm not laddering ever again... these maps are even worse than before.
|
On February 27 2011 03:00 Grebliv wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'm quoting this because i feel like it needs to be reiterated. The ramp placement on gulch is just SILLY. i am going to attack, oh, your natural is defended, i will just walk straight into your main without stopping, and get to your juicy insides...
|
The new maps are not all that bad, but they still should keep more of the old maps. You know, so there's more variations of style:
-Steppes of War removed: No rush, micro-intensive map. Sometimes you feel like 6 pooling, 2 gating, 2 raxing...
-Lost Temple and Shakuras removed: Bye bye Forge FE. There's no way to pull off a FE on the other maps (perhaps on Scrap?). Bad, very bad Blizzard.
Also, I believe map rotation should be done at peridoc intervals (ie: every three months) and should be small: 2 changes max.
And yeah, include a non-blizzard made map, which we can all choose by voting or something like that, with a contest, etc.
There's a lot to be done with ladder map poll, hope Blizzard takes up the challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
