|
Canada13397 Posts
I see something interesting here, we can see that these maps as blizzard made them are very zerg favoured when expanding past the natural map
This is interesting because it supports the perspective of Blizzard
In the beta we found with macro heavy maps that Zerg was just way overpowered and unstoppable.
Source
Source 2
No wonder Blizzad felt this way they provided few strategic positions for Terran and Protoss to really defend their bases after exapnding past the natural. Some of the maps just REALLY eancourage 1 or 2 base all ins.
I just wish Blizzard would have made some of the chokes a touch smaller. Example Typhon peaks has four large entrances that can be used by the enemy to access your base. Specifically, Zerg will be able to run in and atack your bases easily. If one of the entrances was smaller to the side it could be locked down more easily. However its easy to hold natural while at the natural the third becomes an issue ZvT or ZvP.
The Open middle in shattered temple is also problematic since there arent really any options to avoid the middle. Its not bad to have an open area easy for flanking BUT it should be possible to avoid it for a short while at a disadvantage. Cross positions to avoid the middle would require a lot of walk distance which can easily provide zerg time to defend and set up a flank in the few areas that become open. however limiting the middle to being completely open is problematic. Also,no watchtowers along the sides will provide a hard time in scouting attack paths.
Any good Zerg on Shattered Temple will control the middle and hold it through fast creep spread and expanding behind the gold minerals on the old island.
|
I'm so fking disappointed. Every time it rolled shak it was almost certain to be a fair game. I've been laddering today and every single game on the new maps i've been cheesed.
Is Bliz blind? Can't they see the awesome games from GSL on shak? Most of the great games from GSL on the Bliz maps have been on shak.
Bliz refusal to add good maps is starting to feel like New Coke to me. When are they gonna stop and say: "what the hell are we doing? let's just give them good maps."
|
I tried to find the answer, but 40 pages is a lot of posts to read, so forgive me if this has been answered or asked already:
How come we didn't just get GSL maps?
|
On February 27 2011 09:51 cnas wrote:
I'm so fking disappointed. Every time it rolled shak it was almost certain to be a fair game. I've been laddering today and every single game on the new maps i've been cheesed.
Is Bliz blind? Can't they see the awesome games from GSL on shak? Most of the great games from GSL on the Bliz maps have been on shak.
Bliz refusal to add good maps is starting to feel like New Coke to me. When are they gonna stop and say: "what the hell are we doing? let's just give them good maps."
I think the high cheese rate is due to the low amount of understanding of the maps. People aren't comfortable playing macro games on them.
I just really wish they had a bigger map pool with ICcup and GSL maps. They would make ladder so much fun instead of work.
|
i read that they were going to put 1 GSL map into the ladder
|
On February 27 2011 10:01 whoopadeedoo wrote:
I tried to find the answer, but 40 pages is a lot of posts to read, so forgive me if this has been answered or asked already:
How come we didn't just get GSL maps?
I dont think they really gave an answer, they sort of just threw these maps at us despite the outcry for GSL maps.
|
On February 27 2011 10:02 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
i read that they were going to put 1 GSL map into the ladder
yeah they do plan on it but that 1 gsl map they are going to put in I bet is crossfire. If its an actual GSL map like altar (I'll pray for it ) I would be shocked.
|
It's REALLY hard to defend a 2rax allin or 4gate on backwater gulch and slag pits close positions
|
United States16 Posts
I like the new maps. I think they are a bit of a concession to the players who want the larger maps, like those used in the GSL. Though I don't think this will completely satisfy all, I think, if given time, the maps will prove themselves to all.
|
On February 27 2011 10:14 Valette1565 wrote:
I like the new maps. I think they are a bit of a concession to the players who want the larger maps, like those used in the GSL. Though I don't think this will completely satisfy all, I think, if given time, the maps will prove themselves to all. They are completely half assed maps full of destructible rocks and akward design, still troubled by being spawn depended and having hard to defend naturals and thirds onwards. In time they will only prove to be just bad or worse then people think.
|
On February 27 2011 10:01 whoopadeedoo wrote:
I tried to find the answer, but 40 pages is a lot of posts to read, so forgive me if this has been answered or asked already:
How come we didn't just get GSL maps?
no one really knows but perhaps it's because blizzard wants to do things for themselves.
|
On February 27 2011 10:02 DeltruS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 09:51 cnas wrote:
I'm so fking disappointed. Every time it rolled shak it was almost certain to be a fair game. I've been laddering today and every single game on the new maps i've been cheesed.
Is Bliz blind? Can't they see the awesome games from GSL on shak? Most of the great games from GSL on the Bliz maps have been on shak.
Bliz refusal to add good maps is starting to feel like New Coke to me. When are they gonna stop and say: "what the hell are we doing? let's just give them good maps." I think the high cheese rate is due to the low amount of understanding of the maps. People aren't comfortable playing macro games on them. I just really wish they had a bigger map pool with ICcup and GSL maps. They would make ladder so much fun instead of work.
Yeah, that's prolly a big part of it tbh. But the naturals on backwater is annoying for two reasons. First of all, i spawned so i had to hatch towards my enemy, while his natural was faced in the other way (like lost temple in wc3). Also the ramp leading down to the hatch is so far away.
Also got a game with close pos on slag pit and i haven't done the maths but it felt like half the rush distance of steppes. Sigh...
On February 27 2011 10:06 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 10:02 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
i read that they were going to put 1 GSL map into the ladder yeah they do plan on it but that 1 gsl map they are going to put in I bet is crossfire. If its an actual GSL map like altar (I'll pray for it ) I would be shocked.
I might have missed something obvious here but is Crossfire considered a good or bad map? haven't got the chance to try it.
|
Wow, I didn't realize they removed Shak. What the fuck? That's an incredibly idiotic decision.
|
On February 27 2011 10:20 cnas wrote:
I might have missed something obvious here but is Crossfire considered a good or bad map? haven't got the chance to try it. Its not to bad but i think it is a really narrow map in general, it just feels cramped to me and thats not to good with all the AOE in this game.
EDIT: i don't know if this has been posted but this article covers why they added/removed each of the maps: http://www.shacknews.com/article/67645/starcraft-2-adds-and-removes
Their reasoning for removing shakuras and adding maps like slag pits are absolutely ridiculous 
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 27 2011 10:20 cnas wrote:
I might have missed something obvious here but is Crossfire considered a good or bad map? haven't got the chance to try it.
Its not to bad but i think it is a really narrow map in general, it just feels cramped to me and thats not to good with all the AOE in this game.
That is race dependent I'd say. for example PvT the Terran has a hard time fighting behind the mains on shakuras while they can easily fight outside the naturals.
|
(4)Shakuras Plateau
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.
okay...so they are saying this map isn't interesting because it was easy to take your natural?...oh no! god forbid we have a damn macro map once in a while...and when a zerg has a hard to defend natural that puts them at a disadvantage because when you first start playing zerg you hear one thing over and over "stay one base up as much as possible" so a hard to defend nat means zerg is at an auto disadvantage from the get go and that just doesn't seem like a good idea for the life of the game to me where one race is automatically required to play better just to survive...and a hard to defend nat means more 1 base all ins which break the routine and can be fun to do and fun to hold off but when they are encouraged by the game that is about strategy...that is a bit off...(and by off i mean BS)
i mean look at bw (I know, I know everyone talks about bw when criticizing sc2 but hear me out) on some maps your nat was partially protected by the terrain and while I know people are going to say that sc2 is still new and bw had sooo long for people to learn what worked and what didn't and while that is true I also want to say that sc2 now has a PERFECT example to build off of and blizz seems to forget that..much like disney has tried to rid the world of the memories of the original Tron (was on youtube for a LONG time then suddenly disappeared) blizz seems to be ignoring the lessons learned from bw and trying to start from scratch for no reason
and last point it was hard to harass?!?! wtf blizz okay so now it is obvious they hate macro oriented play
TL:DR (read quote) I wouldn't have minded if it was for like a bug fix but the reason they gave just bugged the hell out of me
|
I still don't understand Backwater Gulch—it may be the worst map I've ever seen. Disregarding the other problems, who thought rotational symmetry was a good idea? How can a map be balanced when I can have a much easier or harder to take 3rd base than my opponent because of the layout?
lol @ Slag Pits being like a "more macro-oriented Metalopolis" when it has less expansions (10), no third base, and the shortest rush distance on close positions.
The annoying part about Backwater/Slag is that I can't think of a strategy that'd be better than a 1 or 2-base timing push to win, and I don't want to do that. I can't judge Typhon yet cause I haven't played enough games on it, but it doesn't look like there's an obvious "win" tactic like Backwater/Slag, and Shattered Temple is an all around good map. I still hate the decision to remove Shakuras (if horizontal positions were so bad why didn't they just make it a 2-player diagonal map?) but hopefully it's reimplemented, and hopefully we get a GSL map like Tal'Darim Altar or something to balance out these bad maps.
Definitely downvoting DQ/Backwater/Slag. It's a shame that they even exist.
|
So....anyone want to figure out how to make an equivalent iCCup ladder for sc2 yet?
|
On February 27 2011 10:51 [Avarice] wrote:
I still don't understand Backwater Gulch—it may be the worst map I've ever seen. Disregarding the other problems, who thought rotational symmetry was a good idea? How can a map be balanced when I can have a much easier or harder to take 3rd base than my opponent because of the layout?
lol @ Slag Pits being like a "more macro-oriented Metalopolis" when it has less expansions (10), no third base, and the shortest rush distance on close positions.
The annoying part about Backwater/Slag is that I can't think of a strategy that'd be better than a 1 or 2-base timing push to win, and I don't want to do that. I can't judge Typhon yet cause I haven't played enough games on it, but it doesn't look like there's an obvious "win" tactic like Backwater/Slag, and Shattered Temple is an all around good map. I still hate the decision to remove Shakuras (if horizontal positions were so bad why didn't they just make it a 2-player diagonal map?) but hopefully it's reimplemented, and hopefully we get a GSL map like Tal'Darim Altar or something to balance out these bad maps.
Definitely downvoting DQ/Backwater/Slag. It's a shame that they even exist. My main problem with typhon is the addition of destructible rocks as a 2nd entrance to natural, on top of the map itselfs architecture just feeling kind of akward leaves it on the fence as good or bad for me, but its playable for now.
The new temple is still to spawn dependent, the cliff is gone but close positions still feel like an auto loss.
Selling off slags pits as a new macro oriented metal is ridiculous, and the fact that they removed shakuras because they thought it was boring is just horrible.
|
Disregarding the other problems, who thought rotational symmetry was a good idea? How can a map be balanced when I can have a much easier or harder to take 3rd base than my opponent because of the layout?
To inform you, rotational symmetry is fine. It was used very often in Brood War (I'd say 80%), and will likely be continued in SC2. It can be balanced, and makes games very fun; additionally, the MU's don't change as much as reflection symmetry maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
