|
On February 28 2011 04:13 Ftrunkz wrote:
to be fair, backwater gulch is better than blistering,
steppes and jungle were both far worse than typhon and slag pits
and the temple revamp actually isn't too horrible....
Yeah the maps aren't fantastic by any means (especially the nat design on literally every single one of them...), but atleast its a small small improvement.
However taking out shakurus over delta and not just using GSL maps is seriously bizzare to me, absolutely unfathomable how they came up with those choices :\.
You could actually 1 rax (Or 2 rax) expand on Steppes in TvP... Bunkers on the ramp meant that you could defend a FE.
Good luck doing it on Slag Pit.
|
Anybody else feel like the new 2v2 maps encourage super early rush builds even more than the previous maps? Why are the teammates so far from one another? Every game is just speedling/zealot or speedling/hellion. The best 2v2 games also happened on Twilight Fortress, War Zone, or High Orbit. With these new maps, the average game time is less than 6 minutes.
|
Are the Maps Perfect........No
Is the Map pool better then before.......Yes
Will people learn to live with the maps.......Most Likely
Did people complain about Xelnaga and Shakuras when it first came out.......Yes
Are the maps Fun..... Gameplay is better then before
Best maps: Shattered Temple and Typhoon
Worst Maps: Slag(Because imba against Zerg) Backwater(Becuse someone can get a redicoulsy early advantage by controlling the center.Wins on these maps are gonna be one sided)
|
slag pits, siege tanks can hit the main from low ground (which, btw, is halfway between you and your opponents base if you spawn close air). Sooo imbalanced.
|
I am a bit surprised with the average game times on the new maps.
|
On February 28 2011 04:27 Onewisesith wrote:
I am a bit surprised with the average game times on the new maps.
Matches are averaging around 20mins(For me) which i feel is pretty good.
|
Anyone else feel like blizzard's priorities lie more in making sure that they use all of the tilesets, as opposed to focusing on the actual playability of the maps?
|
On February 28 2011 04:23 GinDo wrote:
Did people complain about Xelnaga and Shakuras when it first came out.......Yes
Your points are pretty subjective but that's cool, I can't stand however when people say that statement though. Nobody ever hated Xel Naga Caverns, it was not seen as the crowning balance map or anything like Metalopolis (until the day of 2rax bunker in close spots), but it was never complained hugely about (yes there are multiple paths to your natural but again - not an uproar like Delta or Steppes).
and again, Shak wasn't complained about AFTER people figured the no-vertical spawn positions.
|
On February 28 2011 03:12 parn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 02:55 confusedcrib wrote:On February 28 2011 02:53 Hawkins wrote:
LOL at ppl wondering what Blizzard are thinking. Blizzard WANT the maps to be 1base gimmicky "all ins". Why you ask? Well if a mouthbreather can beat a master a decent percentange of the time becuase of map+race imbalance the mouthbreather will be happy and buy the new epansions. And ppl who can't play and consider macro to be having 25 workers and queing 5 siege tanks in order to stay at 0 mins and gas are a lot more than the ppl who want to play a skilfull game. This so absolutely true you should get a quality poster star next to your name! That's now weeks and weeks i keep repeating the same obvious economic rule: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7444674Blizzard don't give a shit about TL Community, can you understand that? They care about the "most", and not the "best". Quantity > quality is the rule #1 in every aspect of this new century. You really think Blizzard staff is like: "Hi honey, was a hard day today, we spent so much energy making the game balance so Idra and his fans are happy, but we did it! How are the kids?".
I strongly disagree, if there were one gaming company that favored quality over quantity more than any other it would be Blizzard. If that weren't true we would be playing Starcraft 4 or 5 by now. The new maps prove that even more. Blizzard is trying to take out gimmicky strategies and map imbalances and is making changes that honestly don't affect the more casual gamers, so they are not appealing to the masses nearly as much as they could. And yes, blizzard actually has people that only work on balance, so I would say there are some similar conversations when the staff members come home.
|
On February 28 2011 04:29 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 04:27 Onewisesith wrote:
I am a bit surprised with the average game times on the new maps. Matches are averaging around 20mins(For me) which i feel is pretty good.
Please send me 5 replays with matches lasting longer than >20 min on slag pits with highlevel play ..
close position or close air.
|
On February 28 2011 04:54 Skez wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 03:12 parn wrote:On February 28 2011 02:55 confusedcrib wrote:On February 28 2011 02:53 Hawkins wrote:
LOL at ppl wondering what Blizzard are thinking. Blizzard WANT the maps to be 1base gimmicky "all ins". Why you ask? Well if a mouthbreather can beat a master a decent percentange of the time becuase of map+race imbalance the mouthbreather will be happy and buy the new epansions. And ppl who can't play and consider macro to be having 25 workers and queing 5 siege tanks in order to stay at 0 mins and gas are a lot more than the ppl who want to play a skilfull game. This so absolutely true you should get a quality poster star next to your name! That's now weeks and weeks i keep repeating the same obvious economic rule: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7444674Blizzard don't give a shit about TL Community, can you understand that? They care about the "most", and not the "best". Quantity > quality is the rule #1 in every aspect of this new century. You really think Blizzard staff is like: "Hi honey, was a hard day today, we spent so much energy making the game balance so Idra and his fans are happy, but we did it! How are the kids?". I strongly disagree, if there were one gaming company that favored quality over quantity more than any other it would be Blizzard. If that weren't true we would be playing Starcraft 4 or 5 by now. The new maps prove that even more. Blizzard is trying to take out gimmicky strategies and map imbalances and is making changes that honestly don't affect the more casual gamers, so they are not appealing to the masses nearly as much as they could. And yes, blizzard actually has people that only work on balance, so I would say there are some similar conversations when the staff members come home. You cant be serious ffs, the new maps are nothing but gimmicks and terrible design they prove that blizzard couldn't give a shit about high level balance. They did the same shit with WoW, completely removed any challenge from the game so the masses could all play at the highest level, so they would keep the majority of their playerbase which was inherently terrible at the game.
|
On February 28 2011 04:54 Skez wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 03:12 parn wrote:On February 28 2011 02:55 confusedcrib wrote:On February 28 2011 02:53 Hawkins wrote:
LOL at ppl wondering what Blizzard are thinking. Blizzard WANT the maps to be 1base gimmicky "all ins". Why you ask? Well if a mouthbreather can beat a master a decent percentange of the time becuase of map+race imbalance the mouthbreather will be happy and buy the new epansions. And ppl who can't play and consider macro to be having 25 workers and queing 5 siege tanks in order to stay at 0 mins and gas are a lot more than the ppl who want to play a skilfull game. This so absolutely true you should get a quality poster star next to your name! That's now weeks and weeks i keep repeating the same obvious economic rule: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7444674Blizzard don't give a shit about TL Community, can you understand that? They care about the "most", and not the "best". Quantity > quality is the rule #1 in every aspect of this new century. You really think Blizzard staff is like: "Hi honey, was a hard day today, we spent so much energy making the game balance so Idra and his fans are happy, but we did it! How are the kids?". I strongly disagree, if there were one gaming company that favored quality over quantity more than any other it would be Blizzard. If that weren't true we would be playing Starcraft 4 or 5 by now. The new maps prove that even more. Blizzard is trying to take out gimmicky strategies and map imbalances and is making changes that honestly don't affect the more casual gamers, so they are not appealing to the masses nearly as much as they could. And yes, blizzard actually has people that only work on balance, so I would say there are some similar conversations when the staff members come home.
Backwater and slag are both unplayable. everyone is just going to veto them along with DQ, which also was kept in over shakuras plateau despite DQ being loathed and Shakuras giving us some of the best games we had seen off of blizzard maps.
Just look at the natural in both maps, you cannot expand to them in any MU. No wall-offs, no way to defend with spinecrawlers, and ridiculous rush distances. They are laughable at best. Typhon and the re-tooled LT are the only playable maps added.
This is not quantity because we never get as many map updates as we want, and it is not quality because they are unplayable.
|
Typhon could be decent if it were reworked a bit, the natural in particular, but also the extra paths with destructible rocks.
|
It's quite obvious that Blizzard wants short games, or that they just don't want to bother with lategame balance (take your pick). Maps like Slag Pits and Backwater Gulch are proof of that. They're "bigger maps" but it's still impossible to hold a third, and the naturals are wide open.
|
Anyone else think regular old LT was just fine?
|
On February 28 2011 05:27 sAfuRos wrote:
Anyone else think regular old LT was just fine?
I think the paths to the "islands" are a good change, the changes to the middle of the map and the way the natural was reworked (namely making the choke so much wider) are bad changes.
|
On February 28 2011 05:27 sAfuRos wrote:
Anyone else think regular old LT was just fine?
Yup, but it required skills for Zerg to handle the fast thor drop, so they just made the map even more flat: no more islands, no more natural cliffs, no more middle stuff, now it's almost football-field like.
"Blizzard has a huge RTS knowledge to promote", here's the last new map idea they're working on (they're still not sure where to put the XT, need some test on PTR):
|
My theory is SC2 is imbalanced atm. However, Blizzard knows this and notice that it becomes more balanced on smaller maps because all the races have all-ins that are effective at close spots. As they put in more balance changes, they will eventually increase the map size.
Basically, Balance is more of a priority to them than long/macro/fun games. This is kind of understandable though since SC2 is going to last at least 3 years, so why not sacrifice the first year for a greater good of better games in the future. Blizzard put fun before balance in WoW's pvp initially, and look at what happened, 6 years later 95% of threads on their official forums are balance QQ. Blizzard might think putting in maps with a 30-70 win ratios for a matchup, might be the spark that turns the community to hell.
|
On February 28 2011 05:34 parn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 05:27 sAfuRos wrote:
Anyone else think regular old LT was just fine? Yup, but it required skills for Zerg to handle the fast thor drop, so they just made the map even more flat: no more islands, no more natural cliffs, no more middle stuff, now it's almost football-field like. "Blizzard has a huge RTS knowledge to promote", here's the last new map idea they're working on (they're still not sure where to put the XT, need some test on PTR):
Where are the destructible rocks going to be?
|
On February 28 2011 05:41 Gecko wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 05:34 parn wrote:On February 28 2011 05:27 sAfuRos wrote:
Anyone else think regular old LT was just fine? Yup, but it required skills for Zerg to handle the fast thor drop, so they just made the map even more flat: no more islands, no more natural cliffs, no more middle stuff, now it's almost football-field like. "Blizzard has a huge RTS knowledge to promote", here's the last new map idea they're working on (they're still not sure where to put the XT, need some test on PTR): Where are the destructible rocks going to be?
Destructible rocks cover 4 of your 8 mineral patches so that it's not too tempting to build workers early on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.jeuxvideopc.com/images/downloads/13563/grandformat/1.jpg)
