| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
On February 28 2011 06:43 TheRPGAddict wrote: Typhoon is a failed attempt at creating a decent macro map like the new GSL ones, and I don't see anything particularly "fail" with the Typhoon. Aside from the attack paths closed by rocks, I think this map is ok. | ||
|
ShindyK2
Korea (South)19 Posts
| ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On February 28 2011 07:06 Bleak wrote: I don't see anything particularly "fail" with the Typhoon. Aside from the attack paths closed by rocks, I think this map is ok. the natural is VERY open , the backdoor just makes it worse. also alot of the closer expansions (like the lowground ones) are highly abuseable. maybe not horrible but i really dislike it. | ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
On February 28 2011 07:10 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: the natural is VERY open , the backdoor just makes it worse. also alot of the closer expansions (like the lowground ones) are highly abuseable. maybe not horrible but i really dislike it. I love expanding all over the map too, but asking for unattackable expos is a little bit too much imo. | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On February 28 2011 04:43 Exstasy wrote: 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? i feel like this is really the case, esp. in shakuras, where they were basically like, "we didn't have enough waterfalls and other cool and neat affects" but i'm at least open to the new maps, and am trying them out....i don't like the ramp design on a few of them, but i haven't written them off completely yet | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On February 28 2011 07:16 Bleak wrote: I love expanding all over the map too, but asking for unattackable expos is a little bit too much imo. I don't think players want unattackable expansions. I do think that players don't want undefendable expansions. | ||
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
On February 28 2011 07:06 Bleak wrote: Well it is failed compared to what could be in its place. I don't see anything particularly "fail" with the Typhoon. Aside from the attack paths closed by rocks, I think this map is ok. | ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
On February 28 2011 07:17 Nightfall.589 wrote: I don't think players want unattackable expansions. I do think that players don't want undefendable expansions. Why do you feel they are undefendable? On February 28 2011 07:18 TheRPGAddict wrote: Well it is failed compared to what could be in its place. True. But I feel it's the best that can come out of Blizzard. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On February 28 2011 07:16 Bleak wrote: I love expanding all over the map too, but asking for unattackable expos is a little bit too much imo. have you checked the expo layout? have fun holding any kind of early expansion on that. xelnaga is a dream to expand on compared to that. and taking a 3rd isnt much better since you then have to hold like 3 totally seperate paths that all are big enough for a huge balls to move through. also positions HUGELY affect the game. maybe im judging too fast after only a few games but from the first look and games it really looks grim. | ||
|
chuigo
Australia93 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
A lot of the Blizzard maps are full of ideas. Enough are bad that the maps as a whole aren't great, but people tend to focus exclusively on that and overlook the good ones. Whatever you think of Scrap Station as a whole, it proved that having the mains close by air but far by ground was a.) Conducive to a macro game, and b.) Balanced. That wasn't true in BW (See: Dreamliner), and it may have been a while before any one at ICCUP or GOM thought to try something that failed in BW, if they ever did. We learned something there, that we wouldn't have learned from a "good" map. Pretty much every map Blizzard's made has had an idea that worked (with the exception of Blistering, which at least taught us some really interesting things about TvZ because the balance swung around). These ideas can later be added to better maps. Slag pits has an idea that could work: Zerg needs more expos than the opponent. Making a lot of easy bases lets P and T turtle up a deathball too easily. Blizzard made a map where Zerg could deny bases easily. Does that work? Dunno. Catz seems to think so on his stream. It certainly not something I've seen GOM or ICCUP try. If it works, it heralds a lot of new info on balance and making good maps. If it doesn't....ah well. We tried. A bad map with a gimmick is a lot better than a bad map that's forgettable. It's kind of annoying that Blizzard is using the ladder as a beta test of map ideas like that, but the game will be a lot better in 2012 than it would be if Blizzard copycatted GSL maps. Chill on the hate a little, guys  | ||
|
Ludwigvan
Germany2373 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5843/gulchwall.jpg) You can wall of one path with a forge and a gateway. I only added the second pylon for the cannon, but it is not necessary. With this a you can kinda do a sentry expo. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On February 28 2011 07:44 Ludwigvan wrote: what do you think of this wall of for PvZ on Backwater Gulch? + Show Spoiler + You can wall of one path with a forge and a gateway. I only added the second pylon for the cannon, but it is not necessary. With this a you can kinda do a sentry expo. That seems pretty sensible, and I recommend you try it. | ||
|
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
On February 28 2011 05:34 parn wrote: 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): ![[image loading]](http://img.jeuxvideopc.com/images/downloads/13563/grandformat/1.jpg) .... The problem wasn't that thor or tank drops were too hard to defend. It was that it was impossible to defend against early all ins, tank marine pushes, 2port banshee, cliff drops, or play effectively against standard economical play. Zerg was forced to almost ignore one of terrans options or lose to the other things. Was very luck based. | ||
|
Ezekyle
Australia607 Posts
Artosis walks into Bob's Pie Shop and asks for a slice of pumpkin pie. He hands over his money and Bob gives him the pie. As Artosis walks out of the shop, he notices that this isn't pumpkin pie - it's a chicken pie! He walks back to Bob and says "I asked for a slice of pumpkin pie, not chicken." Bob apologises and gets him a different slice. Artosis begins to leave the shop again, then notices that this one is a slice of chicken pie as well! He walks back over and explains that he really would like pumpkin pie, and doesn't like chicken. Bob then shoves an entire chicken pie in Artosis' hands and yells "WELL I THINK CHICKEN IS A LOT MORE INTERESTING THAN PUMPKIN, SO FUCK YOU ARTOSIS! GET OUT OF MY SHOP!" That's basically what's happening here. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6566 Posts
| ||
|
Vintlocke
Netherlands18 Posts
On February 28 2011 07:42 Ribbon wrote: I feel like Blizzard maps are good for the game, even if they're not good as maps. A lot of the Blizzard maps are full of ideas. Enough are bad that the maps as a whole aren't great, but people tend to focus exclusively on that and overlook the good ones. Whatever you think of Scrap Station as a whole, it proved that having the mains close by air but far by ground was a.) Conducive to a macro game, and b.) Balanced. That wasn't true in BW (See: Dreamliner), and it may have been a while before any one at ICCUP or GOM thought to try something that failed in BW, if they ever did. We learned something there, that we wouldn't have learned from a "good" map. Pretty much every map Blizzard's made has had an idea that worked (with the exception of Blistering, which at least taught us some really interesting things about TvZ because the balance swung around). These ideas can later be added to better maps. Slag pits has an idea that could work: Zerg needs more expos than the opponent. Making a lot of easy bases lets P and T turtle up a deathball too easily. Blizzard made a map where Zerg could deny bases easily. Does that work? Dunno. Catz seems to think so on his stream. It certainly not something I've seen GOM or ICCUP try. If it works, it heralds a lot of new info on balance and making good maps. If it doesn't....ah well. We tried. A bad map with a gimmick is a lot better than a bad map that's forgettable. It's kind of annoying that Blizzard is using the ladder as a beta test of map ideas like that, but the game will be a lot better in 2012 than it would be if Blizzard copycatted GSL maps. Chill on the hate a little, guys Wow, I really like the way you are looking at these new maps. Kudos to you sir! It made me think differently about the new maps and gave me somewhat of a positve feeling about them! | ||
|
SilverJohnny
United States885 Posts
(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. This really got me fired up. Seriously Blizzard? Does every map need a huge wide open natural and 8 backdoors? /rant I think Blizzard is looking to force creativity in the wrong way. I haven't had a chance to play on these new maps yet, so i'll reserve judgment. But just looking at them they all have a trend of larger ramps and open naturals that will stifle macro and force lots of 1basing. Hopefully I'm dead wrong, but judging from a lot of the comments, I'll be sad come next ladder session. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12813 Posts
On February 28 2011 06:05 Lobotomist wrote: I know as a zerg player that I'm supposed to like Shakuras Plateau because of the rush distance, but ZvP is difficult on that map, as the bases are difficult to assault due to the ramps, and protoss has an easy time going air due to the voidray charging station backdoor rocks. ZvT is pretty ugly half the time too, if you spawn close. Pushes through the rock path are very hard to stop. I'm totally ok with Shakuras getting removed. I kind of agree. The back rock push is so hard to stop, you absolutely cannot flank when he go through the back rock. All he needs to do is wall off his natural up front and make a huge army and roll my main. I was getting into the habits of placing tech structures on my 3rd base since I'm afraid of the back push so much .__. oh well, it's gone. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On February 28 2011 07:55 Alejandrisha wrote: Typhon peaks is actually amazing.. really allows for great games because of the size and abundance of expansions. The only thing I don't like about it is the rocks that block your 3rd. Why are they there blizzard?? WHY Yeah I actually think Typhon Peaks might become somewhat popular, along with the new LT. The other two have to go or be changed though. I feel like backwater gulch could be fixed with some adjustment to the ramps, but slag pits is just plain and bad. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs Soulkey
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
