|
(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.
So basically, "We felt like this map usually produced longer, more interesting macro games, and not enough 1-2 base all-ins, so to fix that we removed it so you can have more 1 base all-ins and none of those silly games that go over 15 minutes"
THIS IS A SPECTATOR SPORT. People don't want to watch 1 basing OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Wide naturals with 3 entrances is IMBALANCED for certain matchups.
They must be trolling or something. It's funny though because that statement explains a lot. It's why all their maps have retardedly large naturals and all the silly nerfs they're trying to implement.
|
On February 27 2011 16:01 ihavetofartosis wrote:Show nested quote +
(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.
So basically, "We felt like this map usually produced longer, more interesting macro games, and not enough 1-2 base all-ins, so to fix that we removed it so you can have more 1 base all-ins and none of those silly games that go over 15 minutes"
This isn't Brood War.
Stop implying things from their official statement. You have no idea what were their exact criteria, other than those listed, so it is unfair, rude and blatantly ignorant to suggest that you can speak for them, when they have already spoken.
This is not a spectator sport. I don't know what you're talking about. It's a game. They're making it so that certain races won't be imbalanced. Keeping maps with a single entrance does not further their efforts at all. How about trying to develop strategies that make up for the perceived imbalances rather than crying about them for once.
|
(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.
I'm done with ladder maps. Exclusively customs now. Hopefully they'll rectify this ridiculous logic in later days but it's clear that the higher echelons of the community are interested in larger, macro oriented maps without stupid fucking gimmicks, yet blizzard removes the best macro map in the pool.
Surely if they want to preserve the current lower level balance they could change the maps for masters and above while keeping the maps for lower tiers the same.
These new maps are a disappointment.
|
LOL even in beta I didn't understand why Blizzard insists that "interesting maps" are those with imbalance and frustrating aspects for atleast 1 race, but not equally distributed.
The key to making good and interesting maps is not the creation of frustrating aspects. Their reason for the removal of Shakuras might as well read "This map was actually decent, it wasn't a complete nightmare for atleast one of the races, so we removed it because it didn't have any annoying features"
Sheesh Interesting != Annoying... Watching Blizzard create these maps is like watching an armless kid finger paint.
|
On February 27 2011 16:18 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 16:01 ihavetofartosis wrote:
(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.
So basically, "We felt like this map usually produced longer, more interesting macro games, and not enough 1-2 base all-ins, so to fix that we removed it so you can have more 1 base all-ins and none of those silly games that go over 15 minutes" This isn't Brood War. Stop implying things from their official statement. You have no idea what were their exact criteria, other than those listed, so it is unfair, rude and blatantly ignorant to suggest that you can speak for them, when they have already spoken. This is not a spectator sport. I don't know what you're talking about. It's a game. They're making it so that certain races won't be imbalanced. Keeping maps with a single entrance does not further their efforts at all. How about trying to develop strategies that make up for the perceived imbalances rather than crying about them for once. Actually they make it pretty clear that they didn't like expansions so easy to defend and that they thought it was a boring map because of it. So they gave us gems like backwater and slagpit, were expanding is a deathwish.
Also no idea how you think this moves towards balance, Hey we wanted to get rid of rush maps, so check out how close the bases are on our new macro maps.
|
On February 27 2011 16:18 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 16:01 ihavetofartosis wrote:
(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.
So basically, "We felt like this map usually produced longer, more interesting macro games, and not enough 1-2 base all-ins, so to fix that we removed it so you can have more 1 base all-ins and none of those silly games that go over 15 minutes" This isn't Brood War. Stop implying things from their official statement. You have no idea what were their exact criteria, other than those listed, so it is unfair, rude and blatantly ignorant to suggest that you can speak for them, when they have already spoken. This is not a spectator sport. I don't know what you're talking about. It's a game. They're making it so that certain races won't be imbalanced. Keeping maps with a single entrance does not further their efforts at all. How about trying to develop strategies that make up for the perceived imbalances rather than crying about them for once.
You tell him not to imply things from their statement, and yet you say "this isn't Brood War" when he never mentioned it. Might want to take your own advice there buddy
Not a spectator sport, LOL. What are you doing on tl, where every other thread is about a tournament that people watch.
|
The reasoning for removing Shakuras Plateau is completely retarded. I'm glad Jungle Basin, Steppes and Blistering are gone at least, but if only they had removed Delta Quadrant and kept Shakuras Plateau in, we'd actually have a somewhat decent map pool.
|
These maps have wide open areas at the nat, so hard to 3 gates expo and wall in lol
|
backwater is terrible, should have kept shakuras instead
|
On February 27 2011 13:00 MeteorMash wrote:
Blizzard = George Lucas
Neither of them understand why their franchise is popular.
Totally agree. I have never been impressed with Blizzard's reasoning posts after a patch change or map change. And this latest explanation post was extremely disappointing - there were so many face palm moments there.
|
Ok, so after a few games on Shattered Temple I have to say that I've actually no idea how I'll ever be able to move out against zerg (I'm toss) before I'm maxed.
The middle area is frickin HUGE, I feel like I can't move out at all. Although many here seem to like the changes made to LT, I really think changing the middle was bad for the flow of the match. Yes zergs, I know, forcefields are strong etc. but with these changes the following will happen:
a) I/most toss-players will go for 3 gate sentry-expo, throw down cannons when zerg goes more aggressively and macro up colossi.
b) If zerg goes for a macro game (I guess 95% of the games) I will take my third expo where previously the island was and close the tiny ramp with ~4-6 cannons. No way zerg will be able to get up there before broodlords are out.
c) Then I macro some more, get my 200/200 and start moving around.
I expect many, many very boring PvZs on this map...but yes, of course only time will be able to tell.
|
this post is too soon, having a poll just makes it worse.
it takes time to discover the balance of a map, ie. thousands of games need to be played to discover what works and what doesnt and how it favours each matchup. to give an opinion based on a few games worth of experience is just dangerously ignorant.
lets just say that everyone thought that scrap station was a zerg favoured map for the longest time. 4-5 months later, we still see it used in ladder and i've actually heard way less protoss/terran players complain about its balance. furthermore, i've seen many zergs fail to dominate on the map, even if they are on the "good" side.
so before we hit the "thumb down" or "no" on the search/poll maybe we should take some time to play on it. afterall, nobody bothered to play PTR to give blizzard any heads up about the balance, better start testing it out now instead of crying imba before you've even tried it.
|
Blizzards logic fails. Just because a map like Shakuras is plain and "boring" in its design doesn't mean you can't have fun games. This is like saying the game (a good macro game) itself isn't worth undertaking, but that we should be playing something gimmicky to enjoy ourselves.
And guess what, rocks are Blizzard's favorite overplayed gimmick! Hooray!
godf***ingdamnit.
|
On February 27 2011 18:30 rS.Sinatra wrote:
this post is too soon, having a poll just makes it worse.
it takes time to discover the balance of a map, ie. thousands of games need to be played to discover what works and what doesnt and how it favours each matchup. to give an opinion based on a few games worth of experience is just dangerously ignorant.
lets just say that everyone thought that scrap station was a zerg favoured map for the longest time. 4-5 months later, we still see it used in ladder and i've actually heard way less protoss/terran players complain about its balance. furthermore, i've seen many zergs fail to dominate on the map, even if they are on the "good" side.
so before we hit the "thumb down" or "no" on the search/poll maybe we should take some time to play on it. afterall, nobody bothered to play PTR to give blizzard any heads up about the balance, better start testing it out now instead of crying imba before you've even tried it.
Whether it is balanced or not is not the issue. Its the gameplay that happens as a result of these maps. You only have to take one glance at maps to realise that games will or won't be won as a result of tanks drops, 2 port banshee, 1 base all ins, or other builds that produces overly one sided skill-less rock-paper-scissor games.
Blizzard complains about the 2 rax all in, yet they make ridiculous maps like these. Well I used to 1 or 2 rax FE every game against Zerg. Now its actually impossible, you just can't do it. So the only alternative is cheesy 1 base play, because as soon as you expand and move out you will get a run by of lings and banelings and lose. It happened twice in a row, and as a result I've given up on laddering. I can't stand having to do 1 base all ins vs 1 base all in every game.
Xel Naga was pretty bad for walling, but its sim city heaven when you compare it to these maps. You can't wall off a natural that has 3 entrances, and wide open front, and the main ramp being kilometers away. Which means against any decent player who has their priorities right, just has to wait for you to move out, then run by with a ton of speedlings and kill all your scvs.
Think of it this way, rock-paper-scissors is perfectly balanced. Does it produce fair games? No. The worst part is the balance may improve between races, and Blizzard will think they have achieved a eureka moment.
|
Just deviating from the current issue of debate
I played Slag Pits 3 times in a row. Each time, I got close position. Wow it sucked.
When I got Zerg, you know what happened. When I got Terran and 2port banshee'd, it was over way too quick. When I got Protoss, the massive opening made my 3gate expo fail
Just a rant, you know that thing...
|
I feel like we are never going to have a good ladder map pool.
New maps are really bad and they didn't even include GSL or iccup maps..
|
Had a guy 6 pool me on slag pit. Not the best introduction to the new maps.
|
yeah slag pit's a shocker really. The others seem ok so far.
The removal of Shakuras is just bizarre though, the one map which pretty much has universal popularity within the community..
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 27 2011 16:18 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 16:01 ihavetofartosis wrote:
(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.
So basically, "We felt like this map usually produced longer, more interesting macro games, and not enough 1-2 base all-ins, so to fix that we removed it so you can have more 1 base all-ins and none of those silly games that go over 15 minutes" This isn't Brood War. Stop implying things from their official statement. You have no idea what were their exact criteria, other than those listed, so it is unfair, rude and blatantly ignorant to suggest that you can speak for them, when they have already spoken. This is not a spectator sport. I don't know what you're talking about. It's a game. They're making it so that certain races won't be imbalanced. Keeping maps with a single entrance does not further their efforts at all. How about trying to develop strategies that make up for the perceived imbalances rather than crying about them for once.
Ok, Im gonna be really rude right now: You do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
The new maps are terrible, and they do not help balance.
People sometimes seem to have this strange impression that Brood War games averaged 30 minutes and mined out the map every game after both sides went for a tripple CC before barracks....
The actual average game time on BW maps, despite all these macro maps, was just around 15 minutes.
|
Wow, blizzard's reasoning behind the changes to the map pool are bizarre. And show that they don't have a fucking clue.
Lost temple: "The choke point by the natural expansions were too small; it was possible to block them off easily using only a few buildings."
and
Shakuras: "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."
Seriously? gtfo blizzard. I want sc2 to be exactly that. STARCRAFT 2. An awesome game where macro games are common, not some bullshit one base, two base game because it's too hard to even hold your nat or main. Disappointing. (pretty much the story of blizzard since BW).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
