|
On March 01 2011 00:59 gnutz wrote:
I actually think the people who DON'T complain are the people who HAVEN'T played the maps until now.
You can see this on the votes. Have you realized that the last map is ridicolously Terran favored if you spawn closed positions with only these Rocks between you?
Let me guess, you don't play Terran.
There may be strategies that you haven't considered yet that would make the map more fun for you.
|
On March 01 2011 00:11 zmogas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 00:07 drcatellino wrote:
Should the maps be adapting to the players or should the players be adapting to the maps ?
TL general opinion seems to favor the first option, but I think people should be more open-minded about it and accept changes to their playstyle to fit some maps.
It seems people here are more interested in getting maps that are played the exact same way as in BW, rather than maps that are trying things and innovating.
Are Blizzard maps perfect ? No, for sure, but it's sad that they all get dismissed without proper testing and experimentations. So innovating for you is a game of 10 minutes where everyone 1base?
Do you really want to play a 30-60 minute macro fest every time you search for a 1v1 on the ladder? While I agree that people doing 2 racks marine SCV all ins and 4 gates that last 5-10 minutes are pretty boring, I also don't want to play a super long macro game every time. One every now and again is certainly entertaining, but I don't want to play one every single game. Personally the 2 base window for blizzard that lasts in the 10-20 minute range is perfect game time in my opinion. Some games will obviously be shorter/longer and that's good variety.
Just start playing customs maps and do nr20 if you want to play hour long macro games every time.
|
On March 01 2011 01:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 00:11 zmogas wrote:On March 01 2011 00:07 drcatellino wrote:
Should the maps be adapting to the players or should the players be adapting to the maps ?
TL general opinion seems to favor the first option, but I think people should be more open-minded about it and accept changes to their playstyle to fit some maps.
It seems people here are more interested in getting maps that are played the exact same way as in BW, rather than maps that are trying things and innovating.
Are Blizzard maps perfect ? No, for sure, but it's sad that they all get dismissed without proper testing and experimentations. So innovating for you is a game of 10 minutes where everyone 1base? Do you really want to play a 30-60 minute macro fest every time you search for a 1v1 on the ladder? While I agree that people doing 2 racks marine SCV all ins and 4 gates that last 5-10 minutes are pretty boring, I also don't want to play a super long macro game every time. One every now and again is certainly entertaining, but I don't want to play one every single game. Personally the 2 base window for blizzard that lasts in the 10-20 minute range is perfect game time in my opinion. Some games will obviously be shorter/longer and that's good variety. Just start playing customs maps and do nr20 if you want to play hour long macro games every time.
Ignorance is bliss.
|
On March 01 2011 01:05 joshboy42 wrote:
you know, people wouldn't complain so much if blizz actually listened to the community and made half decent maps.
People are going to complain regardless of what Blizzard does. That's what people do.
|
One of the new maps is a horror PvZ. Who had the idea to make the nat expo a full screens length away from the ramp so that you can't expand at all vs speedlings... :S
|
On March 01 2011 01:07 Deadlift. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 00:59 gnutz wrote:
I actually think the people who DON'T complain are the people who HAVEN'T played the maps until now.
You can see this on the votes. Have you realized that the last map is ridicolously Terran favored if you spawn closed positions with only these Rocks between you? Let me guess, you don't play Terran. There may be strategies that you haven't considered yet that would make the map more fun for you.
I am Protoss and i just have realized that i just can't expand versus Zerg period.
So there may be some more 1 Base All-Ins i don't have considered yet, but ... i think you get what i mean.
|
On March 01 2011 01:13 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 01:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 01 2011 00:11 zmogas wrote:On March 01 2011 00:07 drcatellino wrote:
Should the maps be adapting to the players or should the players be adapting to the maps ?
TL general opinion seems to favor the first option, but I think people should be more open-minded about it and accept changes to their playstyle to fit some maps.
It seems people here are more interested in getting maps that are played the exact same way as in BW, rather than maps that are trying things and innovating.
Are Blizzard maps perfect ? No, for sure, but it's sad that they all get dismissed without proper testing and experimentations. So innovating for you is a game of 10 minutes where everyone 1base? Do you really want to play a 30-60 minute macro fest every time you search for a 1v1 on the ladder? While I agree that people doing 2 racks marine SCV all ins and 4 gates that last 5-10 minutes are pretty boring, I also don't want to play a super long macro game every time. One every now and again is certainly entertaining, but I don't want to play one every single game. Personally the 2 base window for blizzard that lasts in the 10-20 minute range is perfect game time in my opinion. Some games will obviously be shorter/longer and that's good variety. Just start playing customs maps and do nr20 if you want to play hour long macro games every time. Ignorance is bliss.
You're more than welcome to explain the fallacy of my logic.
|
On March 01 2011 01:20 gnutz wrote:
I am Protoss and i just have realized that i just can't expand versus Zerg period.
So there may be some more 1 Base All-Ins i don't have considered yet, but ... i think you get what i mean.
It's possible that the map ends up being broken in PvZ but it's more likely that someone will eventually find a strategy that isn't a 1 base all in that works just fine for Protoss.
|
On March 01 2011 01:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 01:13 uSnAmplified wrote:On March 01 2011 01:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 01 2011 00:11 zmogas wrote:On March 01 2011 00:07 drcatellino wrote:
Should the maps be adapting to the players or should the players be adapting to the maps ?
TL general opinion seems to favor the first option, but I think people should be more open-minded about it and accept changes to their playstyle to fit some maps.
It seems people here are more interested in getting maps that are played the exact same way as in BW, rather than maps that are trying things and innovating.
Are Blizzard maps perfect ? No, for sure, but it's sad that they all get dismissed without proper testing and experimentations. So innovating for you is a game of 10 minutes where everyone 1base? Do you really want to play a 30-60 minute macro fest every time you search for a 1v1 on the ladder? While I agree that people doing 2 racks marine SCV all ins and 4 gates that last 5-10 minutes are pretty boring, I also don't want to play a super long macro game every time. One every now and again is certainly entertaining, but I don't want to play one every single game. Personally the 2 base window for blizzard that lasts in the 10-20 minute range is perfect game time in my opinion. Some games will obviously be shorter/longer and that's good variety. Just start playing customs maps and do nr20 if you want to play hour long macro games every time. Ignorance is bliss. You're more than welcome to explain the fallacy of my logic. Feel free to read the 59 page thread about how terrible blizzard maps are.
|
On March 01 2011 01:24 Deadlift. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 01:20 gnutz wrote:
I am Protoss and i just have realized that i just can't expand versus Zerg period.
So there may be some more 1 Base All-Ins i don't have considered yet, but ... i think you get what i mean. It's possible that the map ends up being broken in PvZ but it's more likely that someone will eventually find a strategy that isn't a 1 base all in that works just fine for Protoss.
Do you even know how you must expand versus Zerg? There is nothing "new strategy" what you could do.
If you can't wall off, you can't expand. It's simple as that.
|
On March 01 2011 01:26 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 01:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 01 2011 01:13 uSnAmplified wrote:On March 01 2011 01:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 01 2011 00:11 zmogas wrote:On March 01 2011 00:07 drcatellino wrote:
Should the maps be adapting to the players or should the players be adapting to the maps ?
TL general opinion seems to favor the first option, but I think people should be more open-minded about it and accept changes to their playstyle to fit some maps.
It seems people here are more interested in getting maps that are played the exact same way as in BW, rather than maps that are trying things and innovating.
Are Blizzard maps perfect ? No, for sure, but it's sad that they all get dismissed without proper testing and experimentations. So innovating for you is a game of 10 minutes where everyone 1base? Do you really want to play a 30-60 minute macro fest every time you search for a 1v1 on the ladder? While I agree that people doing 2 racks marine SCV all ins and 4 gates that last 5-10 minutes are pretty boring, I also don't want to play a super long macro game every time. One every now and again is certainly entertaining, but I don't want to play one every single game. Personally the 2 base window for blizzard that lasts in the 10-20 minute range is perfect game time in my opinion. Some games will obviously be shorter/longer and that's good variety. Just start playing customs maps and do nr20 if you want to play hour long macro games every time. Ignorance is bliss. You're more than welcome to explain the fallacy of my logic. Feel free to read the 59 page thread about how terrible blizzard maps are.
You are right. Nobody disagrees.
|
Lol just a few wannabe gsl maps with even more gimmicky bushes and rocks NOW EVEN CUTTING TROUGH YOUR BASE, which they already made tiny enough. Is that blizzards opinion of a macro heavy map? Faith is gone.
|
On March 01 2011 01:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 01:13 uSnAmplified wrote:On March 01 2011 01:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 01 2011 00:11 zmogas wrote:On March 01 2011 00:07 drcatellino wrote:
Should the maps be adapting to the players or should the players be adapting to the maps ?
TL general opinion seems to favor the first option, but I think people should be more open-minded about it and accept changes to their playstyle to fit some maps.
It seems people here are more interested in getting maps that are played the exact same way as in BW, rather than maps that are trying things and innovating.
Are Blizzard maps perfect ? No, for sure, but it's sad that they all get dismissed without proper testing and experimentations. So innovating for you is a game of 10 minutes where everyone 1base? Do you really want to play a 30-60 minute macro fest every time you search for a 1v1 on the ladder? While I agree that people doing 2 racks marine SCV all ins and 4 gates that last 5-10 minutes are pretty boring, I also don't want to play a super long macro game every time. One every now and again is certainly entertaining, but I don't want to play one every single game. Personally the 2 base window for blizzard that lasts in the 10-20 minute range is perfect game time in my opinion. Some games will obviously be shorter/longer and that's good variety. Just start playing customs maps and do nr20 if you want to play hour long macro games every time. Ignorance is bliss. You're more than welcome to explain the fallacy of my logic.
The fault in your logic is that you're saying that it's either a 10 minute one base game or a 60 minute macro game. And you're saying "60 minute macro game" as if nothing will happen but macro. A good macro game has a lot of battles, a lot of harassment going on, it's not just a race to 200/200 and then one huge battle.
You said yourself that you like the 2 base play that lasts between 10-20 minutes. Right there you've already kind of agreed with uSnAmplified that 1 base play is boring, which is all he implied with his comment.
It's not always black or white, sometimes it's gray.
Put some more thought into what you write and you might come off as an intelligent guy,
|
On March 01 2011 01:28 gnutz wrote:
Do you even know how you must expand versus Zerg? There is nothing "new strategy" what you could do.
If you can't wall off, you can't expand. It's simple as that.
1. You don't HAVE to expand.
2. You can wall off, you just can't wall off the same way you can on other maps.
3. You can expand without walling off.
4. Do you really think you've properly analyzed every possible new PvZ strategy this map offers in the few days that it has been in the map pool?
|
On March 01 2011 01:16 Deadlift. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 01:05 joshboy42 wrote:
you know, people wouldn't complain so much if blizz actually listened to the community and made half decent maps. People are going to complain regardless of what Blizzard does. That's what people do.
That is not true at all, not in the slightest.
If Blizzard had announced that they were removing Steppes, Delta, Blistering Sands and Jungle Basin and replacing them with the GSL maps do you really think this thread would look anything the way it does now? Do you really think the community would be unhappy with that?
Of course there will always be some people complaining but the fact is that Blizzard have recently been making bad decision after bad decision and the community are just getting fed up with it. We have been stuck with a terrible map pool since beta and now almost a year later the situation is barely any better.
At this point I'm losing faith that we will ever see a decent ladder map pool. They just don't seem to understand what the issues are. They left in Delta and took out Shakuras for fuck sake, what are they thinking? How more obvious can it be that they are completely out of touch with what the community wants?
|
I played the maps and it's actually very refreshing. Blackwater is very nice in ZvT, slag pit is nice if not close position but the main base is too open to blink/tank. The others are good enough.
Iccup maps are not that good, and GSL maps neither, most of you just haven't played them. Crevasse for exemple is pure shit, in close position it has a very very little rush distance by air (very very little, phenix are in your base in a second) and by feet, at some point you can put down a pylone in your side of the map that makes it possible to warp unit directly in the second natural of your opponent (juste before his choke...).
|
I feel like the issues brought on by slag/backwater/and ST could easily be fixed by implementing a shakuras style spawn system. And no... it's not Imba for zerg if they do that.
Do you realize that zerg fucking straight up auto-loses on these three maps if they spawn close positions? And T and P don't even come close to auto-losing on cross or vertical positions?
ST close position spawns are even way worse than LT close pos spawns.
Also thanks for being a champ and chiming in Jinro. You're a terran player, and terran players (as usual) will do fantastically on these maps, so props to you speaking out on these atrocious maps.
|
It just really makes me want to tear my hair out. I work full time and still dedicate a lot of my free time to improving my SC2 play because I care so much about it. And the only place I can really do that is the ladder. This pile of garbage Blizzard dumps on us feels like a slap in the face...
|
Lol just a few wannabe gsl maps with even more gimmicky bushes and rocks NOW EVEN CUTTING TROUGH YOUR BASE, which they already made tiny enough. Is that blizzards opinion of a macro heavy map? Faith is gone.
|
On March 01 2011 01:31 Deadlift. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 01:28 gnutz wrote:
Do you even know how you must expand versus Zerg? There is nothing "new strategy" what you could do.
If you can't wall off, you can't expand. It's simple as that. 1. You don't HAVE to expand. 2. You can wall off, you just can't wall off the same way you can on other maps. 3. You can expand without walling off. 4. Do you really think you've properly analyzed every possible new PvZ strategy this map offers in the few days that it has been in the map pool?
I'm stopping to discuss. It's just stupid.
I just don't get how can think you could expand versus Zerg without walling off and then not die?
I'm not a fan of league-flames, but really, what league are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
