EPTNew Maps in 1v1 Pool - Page 56
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
GP
United States1056 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On February 28 2011 09:36 Deadlift. wrote: As always, if these new maps were called iCCup Shattered Temple, iCCup Backwater Gulch, iCCup Slag Pits and iCCup Typhon Peaks everyone would be saying how great they are. You really showed your ignorance with this post. If you look at GSL/Iccup maps then look at blizzard ones and you can honestly tell me you think they look good then I don't think you know what a good map is nor know about the competitive scene very much at all. | ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
I can't help but feel that the Blizzard map designers fail to appreciate one of the simplest concepts of map design: backdoor expansions are more beneficial to terran and protoss than they are to zerg, for the simple reason that an expansion out the front actually aids zerg's defense. Creating maps with natural expansions that are no more use in defense than a backdoor expansion and are vulnerable to boot is a recipe for imbalance. | ||
|
KaBoom300
United States225 Posts
 It was one of the better maps for having a nice macro game. Delta Quadrant is actually starting to look good. | ||
|
N3rV[Green]
United States1935 Posts
About slag pits, they bring up metalopolis being a favorite of players, and said that slag pits was meant to be a similar layout to metal but "more macro based". Metal has MORE expansions than slag pits and LONGER rush (not by much its still pretty nasty on metal) in close positions. What you call a "more macro based map" than metal is not. You are straight up not giving the truth. Slag pits a "macro heavy" map my ass blizzard, there is no 3rd base for people to take. Is 2 base vs 2 base a macro game blizzard? And if that is your definition of macro play please go talk to some actual pro gamers about their feelings on what a macro map really is. Slag pits is NOT a macro based map. I'm sorry blizzard. And for the record, just stop throwing rocks on anything that might be nice as a 3rd base, it's not something ANYbody likes. There was a response from blizzard on their decision making process for the ladder map changes. All it does is further show the complete lack of understanding that blizzard has for what good maps are. You have really screwed up here blizzard, please take action for your failure. (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 is what you said. First problem. "Interesting features" WTF are these and how do they make games on shakuras worse? There is no justification. And for your notes blizzard, most people HATE rocks all over the map. We really, really hate them. Second problem. " The natural expansion is easy to take and defend" How could this possibly be a bad thing when many people are complaining and you acknowledge that people complain about 1 base allins and close distances. This "map feature" makes for MUCH more interesting games. Third problem. " there are only two possible attack paths only one of which is generally used" Where is this data taken from? Are all the games you look at 2 base vs 2 base? Do NONE of the games go to full on half map vs half map? Off the top of my head, in a late game situation on that map there are the top and bottom hallways, the middle path, and the top and bottom debris blocked paths in the middle. That looks to me like 5 different paths of attack, not to mention drop routes. Ok nevermind I'll add the drop routes to make around 9 different attack paths possible in a late game situation. This statement from your map team is false, do you stand behind false information? Fourth problem. " main bases aren't easy to harass" Again a false statement from you blizzard, where do these come from? There is a backdoor into your main base, the main is relatively large with many pockets for dropping unnoticed, at least three paths different paths for reapers to enter any of the mains, and a mineral line with space behind it to hide a banshee out of range from the edge from hydras or stalkers. There is nothing about this map that shows the mains to be "difficult to harass" Lastly you call it a "Plain map" the day after one of the greatest games of the GSL in entirety took place ON shakuras plateau. These are two posts I made on the battle.net forums, I encourage other's to go and post on their sticky about the new maps. Pretty sure it has a better chance of being read there than here. But I thought there were some good points in here to bring over to TL xD | ||
|
drcatellino
Canada346 Posts
Maps that are supposed to be bad (based on TL standards) always seems to create crazy games. Remember all that funk on Desert Oasis. I tend to think whatever maps Blizzard will release, no one here is gonna be happy. | ||
|
Nayl
Canada413 Posts
Metalopolis wasn't the favourite because it was a good map. It's a decent map, but it is no way a good competitive map due to dicey nature of spawn positions. It's been a player favourite for a long time because it was the only decent map for macro games for a long time, provided you spawn cross position. How can they see all the positive reception to GSL for using new maps and add maps like these? They are ignoring the large progress the community has made thus far and taking baby step improvement over their own bad map pool. | ||
|
eeniebear
United States197 Posts
Seriously, Shakuras was a really good, really fun map. I did DT drops all the time, it's the PERFECT map for drop harass. The space between the nat and 3rd bases makes it so much fun to punish the fact that there are no scourge in sc2. And seriously, destructible rocks are one of the biggest problems with this game. | ||
|
GeneralSnoop
United States142 Posts
do not like. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On February 28 2011 15:23 N3rV[Green] wrote: One of the worst things I have seen out of this whole thing is the explanation that blizzard gave on their reasoning behind their new 1v1 maps. About slag pits, they bring up metalopolis being a favorite of players, and said that slag pits was meant to be a similar layout to metal but "more macro based". Metal has MORE expansions than slag pits and LONGER rush (not by much its still pretty nasty on metal) in close positions. What you call a "more macro based map" than metal is not. You are straight up not giving the truth. Slag pits a "macro heavy" map my ass blizzard, there is no 3rd base for people to take. Is 2 base vs 2 base a macro game blizzard? And if that is your definition of macro play please go talk to some actual pro gamers about their feelings on what a macro map really is. Slag pits is NOT a macro based map. I'm sorry blizzard. And for the record, just stop throwing rocks on anything that might be nice as a 3rd base, it's not something ANYbody likes. There was a response from blizzard on their decision making process for the ladder map changes. All it does is further show the complete lack of understanding that blizzard has for what good maps are. You have really screwed up here blizzard, please take action for your failure. (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 is what you said. First problem. "Interesting features" WTF are these and how do they make games on shakuras worse? There is no justification. And for your notes blizzard, most people HATE rocks all over the map. We really, really hate them. Second problem. " The natural expansion is easy to take and defend" How could this possibly be a bad thing when many people are complaining and you acknowledge that people complain about 1 base allins and close distances. This "map feature" makes for MUCH more interesting games. Third problem. " there are only two possible attack paths only one of which is generally used" Where is this data taken from? Are all the games you look at 2 base vs 2 base? Do NONE of the games go to full on half map vs half map? Off the top of my head, in a late game situation on that map there are the top and bottom hallways, the middle path, and the top and bottom debris blocked paths in the middle. That looks to me like 5 different paths of attack, not to mention drop routes. Ok nevermind I'll add the drop routes to make around 9 different attack paths possible in a late game situation. This statement from your map team is false, do you stand behind false information? Fourth problem. " main bases aren't easy to harass" Again a false statement from you blizzard, where do these come from? There is a backdoor into your main base, the main is relatively large with many pockets for dropping unnoticed, at least three paths different paths for reapers to enter any of the mains, and a mineral line with space behind it to hide a banshee out of range from the edge from hydras or stalkers. There is nothing about this map that shows the mains to be "difficult to harass" Lastly you call it a "Plain map" the day after one of the greatest games of the GSL in entirety took place ON shakuras plateau. These are two posts I made on the battle.net forums, I encourage other's to go and post on their sticky about the new maps. Pretty sure it has a better chance of being read there than here. But I thought there were some good points in here to bring over to TL xD Wow, this is a very good post. I know TL gets flooded with too many posts to read, but this is worth paying attention to. | ||
|
bLzBadman
New Zealand36 Posts
| ||
|
Tofugrinder
Austria899 Posts
On February 28 2011 15:30 drcatellino wrote: I tend to think whatever maps Blizzard will release, no one here is gonna be happy. exactly. You know why? Because we need the tournament map pool not some blizzard maps nobody cares about. That means: Only iCCup & GSL maps in the Ladder pool. That's only way I would be satisfied. | ||
|
MagmaRam
United States395 Posts
I do like Typhon (except the blind spot in your main, but that's just personal preference). It looks like if the path with the rocks were removed, it'd be a good macro map. BTW, how close exactly is Slag Pits close spawns? It looks like a friggin 2v2 map. | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
| ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
Glad they removed shakuras. As terran it was a horrible map to play. Either tank push through rocks and win, or spawn cross and lose most of the time. + the texture was horrible :D | ||
|
Aequos
Canada606 Posts
Backwater Gulch is meh, and Typhon Peaks looks like they took Shakuras and removed the backdoor-to-backdoor shortcut that kept smashing Zerg if Terran went for a tank push. I'd say that overall, the maps are an attempt for Blizzard to address the problems, so I'd give them a chance before immediately shooting them down. | ||
|
SdNGama
Italy29 Posts
| ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
|
ICA
498 Posts
Have not played on any of the new maps though and won't judge them by simply looking at them. | ||
|
Nayl
Canada413 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. That's exactly the problem, since its so hard for T/P to secure a 3rd, they are encourage to make a 1base/2base play. Zerg has no choice but to respond to this kind of play, resulting in games like in GSL2/GSL3. 2 base death ball pushes. | ||
| ||
