EPThmmm maybe Blizzard should force feed us pumpkin pie, so we realise that chicken is actually better...
New Maps in 1v1 Pool - Page 54
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
hmmm maybe Blizzard should force feed us pumpkin pie, so we realise that chicken is actually better... | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12808 Posts
But come to think of it, the hard to defend 3rd shouldn't hurt zerg too much since a 3rd is never easy to defend anyways, and given creep it hardly matters. I think it actually hurts terran and protoss more, which I feel comfortable. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12808 Posts
On February 28 2011 08:07 akaname wrote: really dont think the GSL maps would be good at lower levels. . why? | ||
|
DasHawk
Denmark362 Posts
I agreed with his statement, i think many lower level players would feel akward on alot of the bigger maps. At least thats what i hear from some of my more SC2 newbie friends. They like the smaller simpler maps more... | ||
|
AssuredVacancy
United States1167 Posts
On February 28 2011 08:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: you know in the best case SC2 will die off, some Korean company buys the ownership of SC1, and we all go back to bw. But come to think of it, the hard to defend 3rd shouldn't hurt zerg too much since a 3rd is never easy to defend anyways, and given creep it hardly matters. I think it actually hurts terran and protoss more, which I feel comfortable. iunno about that theory, since jungle basin had undefendable thirds and protoss/terran pretty much autowin vs zerg in that map. | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
Apart from Crossfire, they're just too big. Hell, even at higher levels they strike me as a wee bit large. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12808 Posts
On February 28 2011 08:12 AssuredVacancy wrote: iunno about that theory, since jungle basin had undefendable thirds and protoss/terran pretty much autowin vs zerg in that map. Ah but that's more to do with the linear attack path and in fact, a 3rd is rediculously easy to hold as Terran, just get the highground right? You are saying the 3rd is hard to defend for zerg, not for terran/toss who push straight. The newer maps have a circular feel to them, that's what I like the most. Sure the attack path is closer, but there's a lot more flanking possibilities. Remember Rush Hour? It was a great map because of its circular dynamics. | ||
|
NexUmbra
Scotland3776 Posts
On February 28 2011 08:13 branflakes14 wrote: Apart from Crossfire, they're just too big. Hell, even at higher levels they strike me as a wee bit large. I don't exactly see why a lower level player wouldn't like GSL maps, they may not know why they are *better* I think it would help lower levels as cheese can be easier to hold off on the bigger maps :/ | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12808 Posts
On February 28 2011 08:13 branflakes14 wrote: Apart from Crossfire, they're just too big. Hell, even at higher levels they strike me as a wee bit large. I guess. But my newb friends all they do is 7 roach rush hahHAha, maybe they'll stay nub, that's okay i guess... | ||
|
archwaykitten
90 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  Excellent post Ribbon. We don't know what makes for an excellent map in SC2 yet. That being the case, I think map variety should be Blizzard's primary focus. I think it's good for the game to have some maps with close spawn distances and some maps with a lot of easily defended expansion potential. For now, anyway. | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
on the basis that i'm lower level and i've played them and they're too much. being caught miles away from your base and losing, after 10 minutes of nothing... not for me, thanks. oh, and i was winning my games, not satisfying compared to small skirmishes and rush possibilities. NOTE: this is my own experience, that's why i said 'i think'. i got a bit flamed for saying this in another thread. but i do believe a lot of lower levels saying 'bring in GSL maps' don't really know what they're talking about - would be cool to have them in grandmaster league though  | ||
|
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
On February 28 2011 08:27 akaname wrote: I am also a lower level player but I think that that is less of a map imbalance than it is a fault of the player. The maps force you to play fundamentally correct and better give the win to the more deserving player than those winning off of a fluke. That situation with proper play should not happen and if it does, is the fault of the player, not the map or a fluke. on the basis that i'm lower level and i've played them and they're too much. being caught miles away from your base and losing, after 10 minutes of nothing... not for me, thanks. oh, and i was winning my games, not satisfying compared to small skirmishes and rush possibilities. NOTE: this is my own experience, that's why i said 'i think'. i got a bit flamed for saying this in another thread. but i do believe a lot of lower levels saying 'bring in GSL maps' don't really know what they're talking about - would be cool to have them in grandmaster league though | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
On February 28 2011 08:31 TheRPGAddict wrote: I am also a lower level player but I think that that is less of a map imbalance than it is a fault of the player. The maps force you to play fundamentally correct and better give the win to the more deserving player than those winning off of a fluke. That situation with proper play should not happen and if it does, is the fault of the player, not the map or a fluke. actually, this sounds like an argument against me, but i kind of agree. i played on them against someone who i know i'm better than, and it really accentuated our difference in skill. he could take the odd game off me, but not on these maps. i guess i'm a glutton for punishment. seriously though, i guess i enjoy the small skirmishes and early clashes, rather than long gaps and then 200/200 battles (and possibility of base trades). Popularity of maps like Big Game Hunters proves that my choice isn't necessarily the most popular. final edit to mention that if every game was a huge macro game i'd get bored of the novelty. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12808 Posts
On February 28 2011 08:36 akaname wrote: actually, this sounds like an argument against me, but i kind of agree. i played on them against someone who i know i'm better than, and it really accentuated our difference in skill. he could take the odd game off me, but not on these maps. i guess i'm a glutton for punishment. seriously though, i guess i enjoy the small skirmishes and early clashes, rather than long gaps and then 200/200 battles (and possibility of base trades). Popularity of maps like Big Game Hunters proves that my choice isn't necessarily the most popular. final edit to mention that if every game was a huge macro game i'd get bored of the novelty. I think the bigger the map the longer the game the more "accumilated" factor of game skill kicks in. Dun worry. I understand why big map can be challenging to new players. I actually hate when I play some map the first time it is so big and confusing I dunno where to go hahaa | ||
|
skrzmark
United States1528 Posts
| ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
Shakuras was removed because it wasnt "interesting" enough?! That is probably the worst reason ever. I think by "interesting" i think blizzard mean it did not have enough destructible rocks. I just dont understand stand them anymore. These map will be pretty good for casual play but i dont see them being any much better than the previous one in higher lvl play. | ||
|
BoxedLunch
United States387 Posts
| ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
Something interesting to note about Slag Pits, while the open natural makes hellions and zerglings better, there is no open air space behind the main and everything is very compact. This makes mutas, banshees, drops, etc much less effective which probably goes further in encouraging 2 base pushes over spreading out for macro games. It's really nothing like Metalopolis... | ||
|
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
On February 28 2011 08:36 akaname wrote: No I honestly meant the player in general not just you as there are probably more people that think this or have this idea. Also with a longer game, more small skirmishes can and should happen.actually, this sounds like an argument against me, but i kind of agree. i played on them against someone who i know i'm better than, and it really accentuated our difference in skill. he could take the odd game off me, but not on these maps. i guess i'm a glutton for punishment. seriously though, i guess i enjoy the small skirmishes and early clashes, rather than long gaps and then 200/200 battles (and possibility of base trades). Popularity of maps like Big Game Hunters proves that my choice isn't necessarily the most popular. final edit to mention that if every game was a huge macro game i'd get bored of the novelty. | ||
|
Kammalleri
Canada613 Posts
| ||
| ||
