|
On March 01 2011 03:47 Sm3agol wrote:
Why do people bash maps saying they have an undefendable nat......when arguably the most popular map is xe'lnaga.....which has the most open nat in existence.
Shakuras is better then Xel'Naga for precisely this reason.
|
On March 01 2011 03:01 BlasiuS wrote:
Excuse me for not reading the entire thread, but I've found that ZvP on Shattered Temple basically gives protoss a free 3rd. the corner expo is so far away it's incredibly hard to stop. Does anyone have any tips on pressuring toss' 3rd on this map?
Get 5 bases like in BW.
|
On March 01 2011 04:18 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:47 Sm3agol wrote:
Why do people bash maps saying they have an undefendable nat......when arguably the most popular map is xe'lnaga.....which has the most open nat in existence. Shakuras is better then Xel'Naga for precisely this reason.
Shakuras also has the most positional variance of any map bar maybe Metalopolis/LT. Z will always, always prefer spawning cross positions. Close positions effectively nerfs Z in that game, which is so so stupid. Terran/Protoss Hallway of Death kinda sucks. Yes, ways were developing around it, but you still had a 50% chance of a fairly large disadvantage. At least on Xel'Naga you don't pray for top over bottom or something. Positional imbalance is the worst part of the map pool to me which is why I'm slightly upset Bliz left DQ in.
|
On March 01 2011 04:18 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:47 Sm3agol wrote:
Why do people bash maps saying they have an undefendable nat......when arguably the most popular map is xe'lnaga.....which has the most open nat in existence. Shakuras is better then Xel'Naga for precisely this reason.
This is one of the reasons they took out Shakuras. On Xel Naga, rushing is a VIABLE strategy. Macro is also a VIABLE strategy. Neither strategy is really more encouraged. In my experience, I have forge FE'd, 4 gated, 2 gate cannon rushed, forge cannon rushed, forge gate cannon rushed, 3 gate macroed, 3 gate mass expanded... 1 gate expanded...
I had alot of options..
On Shakuras, it was an obvious choices to either 1 gate expand or forge FE vs zerg and terran. It was also obvious to 3 gate expand on Shakuras PvP since it was really easy to defend 4 gate mid-game given the 2nd ramp.
Shakuras rush wasn't very viable since it was easy for the opponent to both defend AND macro (expand). Therefore, Shakuras was a bad map because it basically took out alot (I'd say more than half) of VIABLE alternatives to openings that were available on maps (such as xel naga) .
The new maps haven't really told me what to expect yet. It might just be the case that a macro opening isn't viable, but I've yet to really determine that given that I am successful more than half the time with it. Even if I was only successful half the time (assuming I macroed and rushed half and half) macro option would still be viable. I haven't lost "most" my games macroing, therefore it isn't as one-base encouraged as other people say.
|
On March 01 2011 04:14 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:06 Thallis wrote:On March 01 2011 03:55 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 03:50 Thallis wrote:On March 01 2011 03:34 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 03:19 Barca wrote:On March 01 2011 02:50 PJA wrote:On March 01 2011 01:17 trNimitz wrote:
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 If you are struggling PvZ on Backwater Gulch you really shouldn't be complaining about balance of maps imo. It's a bad PvZ macro map. For the Protoss, it's hard to wall off, it's hard to expand, and the Zerg gets a gold expo as their third base. I'm sure it's a great map for 1 base PvZ all-ins. Its not bad at all... on a map like Xel Naga, there actually is no ramp... your natural is wide open, save the destructible rocks on the path to the third. Maybe try a different building placement style or a different style of expansion. For example, you can semi-wall with zealot block on your main and then have your main army on/near the ramp / near your expo... doing this will do two things.. 1) it creates essentially a double barrier between speedlings and your base and 2) it protects your expansion by having your army up front. This is weaker if zerg has tons of mutalisks, but ask yourself, would having a closer ramp really help you in that situation? This is also weaker if zerg drops you, but ask yourself, if you were unprepared for a drop in any situation, would having a closer ramp to your NATURAL really have helped you? also, how often to zergs actually doom-drop.... (zergs are pretty uninnovative these days) So before you start complaining about the maps being bad simply b/c they aren't your beloved GSL maps, maybe take the time to find out the real problem (shortcut: the problem is you, you are the problem, refer to numerous threads on walling off/sim city/strategic placement/day9 on how to improve yourself). This thread is complete garbage. I wish it didn't exist. But since there are tons of people spewing their garbage and because blizzard actually listens, I feel it is important to repeat that it is way too early to actually criticize maps. Pretty much most people in this thread became "group-think" sheep that would bitch at ANY MAP no matter how awesome it is, if it isn't a GSL map that we see on TV. Get a grip. Maybe a month or two from now, I'll be like.. "oh hey, this map is fucking imba due to this *insert strategy yet to be seen* that totally favours *x race vs y race*" but even then, I probably overlooked a solution against such a strategy myself. So instead of thumbing the "YES vs NO" hate on the maps, maybe try spending some time to learn the maps before you spew all your BS about map imbalance and non-macro orientation because of not being able to wall off on certain maps. P.S. Blizzard: I hope the 400 or so people that actually voted the YES/NO are not portrayed as an accurate representation of the million+ people that play this game. Aka, poll is useless. There are plenty of explanations in the thread as to why these maps are terrible, especially when you consider the reasoning behind them. The Ramp on Gulch is retarded and the split nat makes it incredibly difficult to stop a 4gate. Slag pits has a retarded rush distance from close positions, the natural is stupidly far from the ramp, and siege tanks can hit the mineral line from a position outside the base. Typhon's natural is retardedly open. Even Jinro posted in this thread and agrees that these maps are awful. It may be very little time since being added, but it's painfully obvious that the maps are imbalanced and encourage one base all ins. Oh I'm sorry, the mighty Chinro posted about this in the thread? I guess we better just shut the shit down and stop the discussion altogether. Since God has spoken, no more shall be said. How about coming up with your own arguments instead of piggy-backing off other people's. Yes, true, the tank thing on Slag is awful, but at the same time I remember someone saying that it was a very zerg favored map. Why the sudden change that it is now Terran favored? Also, how does siege tank hitting main-mineral line equate to encouraging one-base allins? Typhon's natural "retardedly" open you say?! OH NOES, maybe you should put some structures there to minimize the surface area like you do on Metalopolis or Xel Naga or Delta Quadrant or Kulas Ravine or Desert Oasis... You act like I don't already. The problem with it is any form of two basing just gets destroyed from zerg pressure because force fields are completely ineffective with a natural that wide. It's not hard to see why it encourages all in play. Because your naturals are so difficult to defend, or siegeing the mineral line is possible, it encourages you to try to end the game before hand. The angry assumptions that I didn't come to any of these conclusions by myself are completely off base, considering I've played my fair share on these maps, as well as have had long discussions with my friends (all diamond - top 200 players) about these maps. You assume that people don't like the maps because they're blizzard maps as opposed to the features which we have talked about. Btw I'm Protoss, so i have no idea about the balance of ZvT and therefore haven't spoken about it. Oh, you are Protoss. I, am also Protoss. I felt that you knew about some ZvT balance since you brought Jinro (a terran player btw) into the discussion. Since you have just admitted to basically not knowing dick-shit about Terran, at least not TvT or TvZ, maybe don't bring in a professional Terran player in the discussion. So you are Protoss and you are having trouble with zerg pressure. 1) Zerg pressure means less zerg macro. Hold the pressure and you out-macro the zerg 2) Proper building placement and unit selection holds off zerg pressure. Since the map isn't actually as bad as you say it is (ie, its not a completely open map with flank options from every single direction) there are actually places and small nooks in the map where you can gain a small advantage from fighting at. 3) If zerg is using heavy aggression, you are ahead if you win. You lose obviously if you don't hold it. (See 1) That being said, after holding it, you are solidifying a victory by taking a 2nd/3rd after heavy aggression (provided you didn't cripple yourself in an attempt to hold it off).
Why not bring Jinro into the discussion. The maps suck from a professional point of view. That alone tells you something. Its totally irrelevant whether the guy is terran or not.
"hold the pressure and win the game".. we want long, even matches instead of a sealed victory after a zerg allin.
|
On March 01 2011 03:47 Sm3agol wrote:
Why do people bash maps saying they have an undefendable nat......when arguably the most popular map is xe'lnaga.....which has the most open nat in existence.
part of what determine's a nat's defensibility is how close to the ramp it is.
The nat on Xel'Naga, for example, is fairly close to the ramp, such that the nexus/CC/hatch actually helps wall in the nat area.
As a counterexample, look at Backwater Gulch. The nat is miles from the ramp. This makes the nat much harder to defend, hence it's more 'undefendable'. Slag Pits has the same problem, although it's not as bad as BG.
|
On March 01 2011 04:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:18 Offhand wrote:On March 01 2011 03:47 Sm3agol wrote:
Why do people bash maps saying they have an undefendable nat......when arguably the most popular map is xe'lnaga.....which has the most open nat in existence. Shakuras is better then Xel'Naga for precisely this reason. Shakuras also has the most positional variance of any map bar maybe Metalopolis/LT. Z will always, always prefer spawning cross positions. Close positions effectively nerfs Z in that game, which is so so stupid. Terran/Protoss Hallway of Death kinda sucks. Yes, ways were developing around it, but you still had a 50% chance of a fairly large disadvantage. At least on Xel'Naga you don't pray for top over bottom or something. Positional imbalance is the worst part of the map pool to me which is why I'm slightly upset Bliz left DQ in.
Positional imbalance doesn't exist on levels beyond Code S. For example... some noob once scouted me last on Delta Quad as a Terran player. I went 11 gate zealot open for some reason. I scouted him first (because I felt like scouting clock wise that day) and then got to his ramp and raped the fuck out of his one-marine with my zealot (rallied more on the way) and then he just QQ'ed about positional imbalance and left. If he had walled off.. or went for a reaper first build... or maybe microed his one marine better... or .. etc etc.. then he actually would have been at an advantage given that I used an early zealot build (injuring my economy).
So before you comment on positional imbalance, I think we should comment on ways to alleviate such an "imbalance" aka find a solution to your very solvable problem.
|
On March 01 2011 04:26 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:18 Offhand wrote:On March 01 2011 03:47 Sm3agol wrote:
Why do people bash maps saying they have an undefendable nat......when arguably the most popular map is xe'lnaga.....which has the most open nat in existence. Shakuras is better then Xel'Naga for precisely this reason. This is one of the reasons they took out Shakuras. On Xel Naga, rushing is a VIABLE strategy. Macro is also a VIABLE strategy. Neither strategy is really more encouraged. In my experience, I have forge FE'd, 4 gated, 2 gate cannon rushed, forge cannon rushed, forge gate cannon rushed, 3 gate macroed, 3 gate mass expanded... 1 gate expanded... I had alot of options.. On Shakuras, it was an obvious choices to either 1 gate expand or forge FE vs zerg and terran. It was also obvious to 3 gate expand on Shakuras PvP since it was really easy to defend 4 gate mid-game given the 2nd ramp. Shakuras rush wasn't very viable since it was easy for the opponent to both defend AND macro (expand). Therefore, Shakuras was a bad map because it basically took out alot (I'd say more than half) of VIABLE alternatives to openings that were available on maps (such as xel naga) . The new maps haven't really told me what to expect yet. It might just be the case that a macro opening isn't viable, but I've yet to really determine that given that I am successful more than half the time with it. Even if I was only successful half the time (assuming I macroed and rushed half and half) macro option would still be viable. I haven't lost "most" my games macroing, therefore it isn't as one-base encouraged as other people say.
This may be a bit off-topic, but just how would you 3gate expand on shakuras in PvP without dying to a 4gate?
|
On March 01 2011 04:28 gray-fox wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:14 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 04:06 Thallis wrote:On March 01 2011 03:55 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 03:50 Thallis wrote:On March 01 2011 03:34 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 03:19 Barca wrote:On March 01 2011 02:50 PJA wrote:On March 01 2011 01:17 trNimitz wrote:
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 If you are struggling PvZ on Backwater Gulch you really shouldn't be complaining about balance of maps imo. It's a bad PvZ macro map. For the Protoss, it's hard to wall off, it's hard to expand, and the Zerg gets a gold expo as their third base. I'm sure it's a great map for 1 base PvZ all-ins. Its not bad at all... on a map like Xel Naga, there actually is no ramp... your natural is wide open, save the destructible rocks on the path to the third. Maybe try a different building placement style or a different style of expansion. For example, you can semi-wall with zealot block on your main and then have your main army on/near the ramp / near your expo... doing this will do two things.. 1) it creates essentially a double barrier between speedlings and your base and 2) it protects your expansion by having your army up front. This is weaker if zerg has tons of mutalisks, but ask yourself, would having a closer ramp really help you in that situation? This is also weaker if zerg drops you, but ask yourself, if you were unprepared for a drop in any situation, would having a closer ramp to your NATURAL really have helped you? also, how often to zergs actually doom-drop.... (zergs are pretty uninnovative these days) So before you start complaining about the maps being bad simply b/c they aren't your beloved GSL maps, maybe take the time to find out the real problem (shortcut: the problem is you, you are the problem, refer to numerous threads on walling off/sim city/strategic placement/day9 on how to improve yourself). This thread is complete garbage. I wish it didn't exist. But since there are tons of people spewing their garbage and because blizzard actually listens, I feel it is important to repeat that it is way too early to actually criticize maps. Pretty much most people in this thread became "group-think" sheep that would bitch at ANY MAP no matter how awesome it is, if it isn't a GSL map that we see on TV. Get a grip. Maybe a month or two from now, I'll be like.. "oh hey, this map is fucking imba due to this *insert strategy yet to be seen* that totally favours *x race vs y race*" but even then, I probably overlooked a solution against such a strategy myself. So instead of thumbing the "YES vs NO" hate on the maps, maybe try spending some time to learn the maps before you spew all your BS about map imbalance and non-macro orientation because of not being able to wall off on certain maps. P.S. Blizzard: I hope the 400 or so people that actually voted the YES/NO are not portrayed as an accurate representation of the million+ people that play this game. Aka, poll is useless. There are plenty of explanations in the thread as to why these maps are terrible, especially when you consider the reasoning behind them. The Ramp on Gulch is retarded and the split nat makes it incredibly difficult to stop a 4gate. Slag pits has a retarded rush distance from close positions, the natural is stupidly far from the ramp, and siege tanks can hit the mineral line from a position outside the base. Typhon's natural is retardedly open. Even Jinro posted in this thread and agrees that these maps are awful. It may be very little time since being added, but it's painfully obvious that the maps are imbalanced and encourage one base all ins. Oh I'm sorry, the mighty Chinro posted about this in the thread? I guess we better just shut the shit down and stop the discussion altogether. Since God has spoken, no more shall be said. How about coming up with your own arguments instead of piggy-backing off other people's. Yes, true, the tank thing on Slag is awful, but at the same time I remember someone saying that it was a very zerg favored map. Why the sudden change that it is now Terran favored? Also, how does siege tank hitting main-mineral line equate to encouraging one-base allins? Typhon's natural "retardedly" open you say?! OH NOES, maybe you should put some structures there to minimize the surface area like you do on Metalopolis or Xel Naga or Delta Quadrant or Kulas Ravine or Desert Oasis... You act like I don't already. The problem with it is any form of two basing just gets destroyed from zerg pressure because force fields are completely ineffective with a natural that wide. It's not hard to see why it encourages all in play. Because your naturals are so difficult to defend, or siegeing the mineral line is possible, it encourages you to try to end the game before hand. The angry assumptions that I didn't come to any of these conclusions by myself are completely off base, considering I've played my fair share on these maps, as well as have had long discussions with my friends (all diamond - top 200 players) about these maps. You assume that people don't like the maps because they're blizzard maps as opposed to the features which we have talked about. Btw I'm Protoss, so i have no idea about the balance of ZvT and therefore haven't spoken about it. Oh, you are Protoss. I, am also Protoss. I felt that you knew about some ZvT balance since you brought Jinro (a terran player btw) into the discussion. Since you have just admitted to basically not knowing dick-shit about Terran, at least not TvT or TvZ, maybe don't bring in a professional Terran player in the discussion. So you are Protoss and you are having trouble with zerg pressure. 1) Zerg pressure means less zerg macro. Hold the pressure and you out-macro the zerg 2) Proper building placement and unit selection holds off zerg pressure. Since the map isn't actually as bad as you say it is (ie, its not a completely open map with flank options from every single direction) there are actually places and small nooks in the map where you can gain a small advantage from fighting at. 3) If zerg is using heavy aggression, you are ahead if you win. You lose obviously if you don't hold it. (See 1) That being said, after holding it, you are solidifying a victory by taking a 2nd/3rd after heavy aggression (provided you didn't cripple yourself in an attempt to hold it off). Why not bring Jinro into the discussion. The maps suck from a professional point of view. That alone tells you something. Its totally irrelevant whether the guy is terran or not. "hold the pressure and win the game".. we want long, even matches instead of a sealed victory after a zerg allin.
I think the zerg chose to all-in.... are you saying the map has psychic powers making the zerg go allin?
Don't bring Jinro in the discussion since his name doesn't provide anything useful to the discussion at hand. ie: this particular instance this player was having trouble PvZ. Wtf does Jinro have to do with PvZ?
Bring Jinro's argument into the discussion if it relates to the problem you have about a particular map. Otherwise, saying someone said something about something is basically not saying anything at all.
|
On March 01 2011 04:29 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 01 2011 04:18 Offhand wrote:On March 01 2011 03:47 Sm3agol wrote:
Why do people bash maps saying they have an undefendable nat......when arguably the most popular map is xe'lnaga.....which has the most open nat in existence. Shakuras is better then Xel'Naga for precisely this reason. Shakuras also has the most positional variance of any map bar maybe Metalopolis/LT. Z will always, always prefer spawning cross positions. Close positions effectively nerfs Z in that game, which is so so stupid. Terran/Protoss Hallway of Death kinda sucks. Yes, ways were developing around it, but you still had a 50% chance of a fairly large disadvantage. At least on Xel'Naga you don't pray for top over bottom or something. Positional imbalance is the worst part of the map pool to me which is why I'm slightly upset Bliz left DQ in. Positional imbalance doesn't exist on levels beyond Code S. For example... some noob once scouted me last on Delta Quad as a Terran player. I went 11 gate zealot open for some reason. I scouted him first (because I felt like scouting clock wise that day) and then got to his ramp and raped the fuck out of his one-marine with my zealot (rallied more on the way) and then he just QQ'ed about positional imbalance and left. If he had walled off.. or went for a reaper first build... or maybe microed his one marine better... or .. etc etc.. then he actually would have been at an advantage given that I used an early zealot build (injuring my economy). So before you comment on positional imbalance, I think we should comment on ways to alleviate such an "imbalance" aka find a solution to your very solvable problem.
Huh? That's not an example of positional imbalance. That's him not scouting well and failing to defend early aggression. DQ has imbalance because if you spawn counter-clockwise to your opponent it's much easier to harass their in-base expansion. On some maps, this is countered by some other advantage the opponent gains, but as far as I can tell not on DQ. Rush distances are equally advantageous for T and P (maybe not Z, but that's a whole 'nother debate), it's mostly the in-base natural that bothers me.
|
On March 01 2011 03:55 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:50 Thallis wrote:On March 01 2011 03:34 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 03:19 Barca wrote:On March 01 2011 02:50 PJA wrote:On March 01 2011 01:17 trNimitz wrote:
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 If you are struggling PvZ on Backwater Gulch you really shouldn't be complaining about balance of maps imo. It's a bad PvZ macro map. For the Protoss, it's hard to wall off, it's hard to expand, and the Zerg gets a gold expo as their third base. I'm sure it's a great map for 1 base PvZ all-ins. Its not bad at all... on a map like Xel Naga, there actually is no ramp... your natural is wide open, save the destructible rocks on the path to the third. Maybe try a different building placement style or a different style of expansion. For example, you can semi-wall with zealot block on your main and then have your main army on/near the ramp / near your expo... doing this will do two things.. 1) it creates essentially a double barrier between speedlings and your base and 2) it protects your expansion by having your army up front. This is weaker if zerg has tons of mutalisks, but ask yourself, would having a closer ramp really help you in that situation? This is also weaker if zerg drops you, but ask yourself, if you were unprepared for a drop in any situation, would having a closer ramp to your NATURAL really have helped you? also, how often to zergs actually doom-drop.... (zergs are pretty uninnovative these days) So before you start complaining about the maps being bad simply b/c they aren't your beloved GSL maps, maybe take the time to find out the real problem (shortcut: the problem is you, you are the problem, refer to numerous threads on walling off/sim city/strategic placement/day9 on how to improve yourself). This thread is complete garbage. I wish it didn't exist. But since there are tons of people spewing their garbage and because blizzard actually listens, I feel it is important to repeat that it is way too early to actually criticize maps. Pretty much most people in this thread became "group-think" sheep that would bitch at ANY MAP no matter how awesome it is, if it isn't a GSL map that we see on TV. Get a grip. Maybe a month or two from now, I'll be like.. "oh hey, this map is fucking imba due to this *insert strategy yet to be seen* that totally favours *x race vs y race*" but even then, I probably overlooked a solution against such a strategy myself. So instead of thumbing the "YES vs NO" hate on the maps, maybe try spending some time to learn the maps before you spew all your BS about map imbalance and non-macro orientation because of not being able to wall off on certain maps. P.S. Blizzard: I hope the 400 or so people that actually voted the YES/NO are not portrayed as an accurate representation of the million+ people that play this game. Aka, poll is useless. There are plenty of explanations in the thread as to why these maps are terrible, especially when you consider the reasoning behind them. The Ramp on Gulch is retarded and the split nat makes it incredibly difficult to stop a 4gate. Slag pits has a retarded rush distance from close positions, the natural is stupidly far from the ramp, and siege tanks can hit the mineral line from a position outside the base. Typhon's natural is retardedly open. Even Jinro posted in this thread and agrees that these maps are awful. It may be very little time since being added, but it's painfully obvious that the maps are imbalanced and encourage one base all ins. Metalopolis or Xel Naga or Delta Quadrant or Kulas Ravine or Desert Oasis...
two of those maps are completely out of the map pool altogether, and dq is widely considered a terrible map by well pretty much everyone. metalopolis and xel naga you can wall off with about 3 buildings, it doesnt really compare to consider those "open" when you can make a nice sim city to the ramp with 3-4 buildings. on a map like gulch the ramp points AWAY from the natural, so to defend both the natural and the main you have to construct more buildings, therefore shrinking the amount of units you have and still making the early pressure affective either way. its not just that the natural is wide open, its the combination of that plus it being located so far away and being at an inconvenient location in relativity to the ramp
|
On March 01 2011 04:31 Latedi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:26 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 04:18 Offhand wrote:On March 01 2011 03:47 Sm3agol wrote:
Why do people bash maps saying they have an undefendable nat......when arguably the most popular map is xe'lnaga.....which has the most open nat in existence. Shakuras is better then Xel'Naga for precisely this reason. This is one of the reasons they took out Shakuras. On Xel Naga, rushing is a VIABLE strategy. Macro is also a VIABLE strategy. Neither strategy is really more encouraged. In my experience, I have forge FE'd, 4 gated, 2 gate cannon rushed, forge cannon rushed, forge gate cannon rushed, 3 gate macroed, 3 gate mass expanded... 1 gate expanded... I had alot of options.. On Shakuras, it was an obvious choices to either 1 gate expand or forge FE vs zerg and terran. It was also obvious to 3 gate expand on Shakuras PvP since it was really easy to defend 4 gate mid-game given the 2nd ramp. Shakuras rush wasn't very viable since it was easy for the opponent to both defend AND macro (expand). Therefore, Shakuras was a bad map because it basically took out alot (I'd say more than half) of VIABLE alternatives to openings that were available on maps (such as xel naga) . The new maps haven't really told me what to expect yet. It might just be the case that a macro opening isn't viable, but I've yet to really determine that given that I am successful more than half the time with it. Even if I was only successful half the time (assuming I macroed and rushed half and half) macro option would still be viable. I haven't lost "most" my games macroing, therefore it isn't as one-base encouraged as other people say. This may be a bit off-topic, but just how would you 3gate expand on shakuras in PvP without dying to a 4gate?
Well you open 1 gate... scout his 4 gate chrono-cheese... build 2 more gates.. a stalker.. a sentry.. maybe another sentry.. maybe another stalker .. a zealot maybe? then... maybe you build a robo... or something... (doesn't matter, up to you, i'd go for a robo, either way, you opened 3 gate) and then... now... you scout... if hes on the bottom of your ramp, dont move out. Maybe break your back rocks and expand backdoor if you have to. If he's gone.. take your natural, have enough sentries to cut him in half if he comes up the bigger ramp (2 forcefields needed per volley) and rape him if he comes up. You should have slighly less units, but because you cut his army in half you can defeat half his army and retreat.
Really depends on the situation though. Maybe you get a dt and don't expand. Who knows. I just know that 4-gate is pretty much auto-loss on that map unless you really cheese the shit out of it. You also have to pull it off or your opponent has to fuck up.
|
I actually am loving the new maps so far. Guess I haven't played them enough to realize how bad they are?
|
On March 01 2011 04:34 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:55 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 03:50 Thallis wrote:On March 01 2011 03:34 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 03:19 Barca wrote:On March 01 2011 02:50 PJA wrote:On March 01 2011 01:17 trNimitz wrote:
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 If you are struggling PvZ on Backwater Gulch you really shouldn't be complaining about balance of maps imo. It's a bad PvZ macro map. For the Protoss, it's hard to wall off, it's hard to expand, and the Zerg gets a gold expo as their third base. I'm sure it's a great map for 1 base PvZ all-ins. Its not bad at all... on a map like Xel Naga, there actually is no ramp... your natural is wide open, save the destructible rocks on the path to the third. Maybe try a different building placement style or a different style of expansion. For example, you can semi-wall with zealot block on your main and then have your main army on/near the ramp / near your expo... doing this will do two things.. 1) it creates essentially a double barrier between speedlings and your base and 2) it protects your expansion by having your army up front. This is weaker if zerg has tons of mutalisks, but ask yourself, would having a closer ramp really help you in that situation? This is also weaker if zerg drops you, but ask yourself, if you were unprepared for a drop in any situation, would having a closer ramp to your NATURAL really have helped you? also, how often to zergs actually doom-drop.... (zergs are pretty uninnovative these days) So before you start complaining about the maps being bad simply b/c they aren't your beloved GSL maps, maybe take the time to find out the real problem (shortcut: the problem is you, you are the problem, refer to numerous threads on walling off/sim city/strategic placement/day9 on how to improve yourself). This thread is complete garbage. I wish it didn't exist. But since there are tons of people spewing their garbage and because blizzard actually listens, I feel it is important to repeat that it is way too early to actually criticize maps. Pretty much most people in this thread became "group-think" sheep that would bitch at ANY MAP no matter how awesome it is, if it isn't a GSL map that we see on TV. Get a grip. Maybe a month or two from now, I'll be like.. "oh hey, this map is fucking imba due to this *insert strategy yet to be seen* that totally favours *x race vs y race*" but even then, I probably overlooked a solution against such a strategy myself. So instead of thumbing the "YES vs NO" hate on the maps, maybe try spending some time to learn the maps before you spew all your BS about map imbalance and non-macro orientation because of not being able to wall off on certain maps. P.S. Blizzard: I hope the 400 or so people that actually voted the YES/NO are not portrayed as an accurate representation of the million+ people that play this game. Aka, poll is useless. There are plenty of explanations in the thread as to why these maps are terrible, especially when you consider the reasoning behind them. The Ramp on Gulch is retarded and the split nat makes it incredibly difficult to stop a 4gate. Slag pits has a retarded rush distance from close positions, the natural is stupidly far from the ramp, and siege tanks can hit the mineral line from a position outside the base. Typhon's natural is retardedly open. Even Jinro posted in this thread and agrees that these maps are awful. It may be very little time since being added, but it's painfully obvious that the maps are imbalanced and encourage one base all ins. Metalopolis or Xel Naga or Delta Quadrant or Kulas Ravine or Desert Oasis... two of those maps are completely out of the map pool altogether, and dq is widely considered a terrible map by well pretty much everyone. metalopolis and xel naga you can wall off with about 3 buildings, it doesnt really compare to consider those "open" when you can make a nice sim city to the ramp with 3-4 buildings. on a map like gulch the ramp points AWAY from the natural, so to defend both the natural and the main you have to construct more buildings, therefore shrinking the amount of units you have and still making the early pressure affective either way. its not just that the natural is wide open, its the combination of that plus it being located so far away and being at an inconvenient location in relativity to the ramp
Nobody really complained about Kulas's open base encouraging one-base all-in cheese. Nor did they complain about DO either. They complained about DO because of the close air distances and weird shit that happened on that map. Kulas was about the cliffs and shit. Therefore, same situation about open natural and yet there isn't all that bullshit argument about these maps. Also, these maps stayed on for all of the beta (DO stayed even after beta) before people actually started to notice the disadvantages of them.
Btw, I think that one GSL map, the one where squirtle fought MVP. I thought that the 3rd was kind of vulnerable. Maybe that map (according to this thread's massive amounts of QQ) encourages 2-base all in play, since the 3rd is so open and all. Oh wait, thats not what happened, the map was split despite the 3rd being open to harassment. Maybe the same will happen in some situations... you know, where the 2nd is open to harassment, but the map is still split? Iono, just depends on the mentality of the players. Not the map.
|
On March 01 2011 04:35 flyguy wrote:
I actually am loving the new maps so far. Guess I haven't played them enough to realize how bad they are?
Don't know, just keep playing. Don't listen to the massive thread of smoldering shit that says otherwise. If it works, do it ^_^
|
On March 01 2011 04:35 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:31 Latedi wrote:On March 01 2011 04:26 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 04:18 Offhand wrote:On March 01 2011 03:47 Sm3agol wrote:
Why do people bash maps saying they have an undefendable nat......when arguably the most popular map is xe'lnaga.....which has the most open nat in existence. Shakuras is better then Xel'Naga for precisely this reason. This is one of the reasons they took out Shakuras. On Xel Naga, rushing is a VIABLE strategy. Macro is also a VIABLE strategy. Neither strategy is really more encouraged. In my experience, I have forge FE'd, 4 gated, 2 gate cannon rushed, forge cannon rushed, forge gate cannon rushed, 3 gate macroed, 3 gate mass expanded... 1 gate expanded... I had alot of options.. On Shakuras, it was an obvious choices to either 1 gate expand or forge FE vs zerg and terran. It was also obvious to 3 gate expand on Shakuras PvP since it was really easy to defend 4 gate mid-game given the 2nd ramp. Shakuras rush wasn't very viable since it was easy for the opponent to both defend AND macro (expand). Therefore, Shakuras was a bad map because it basically took out alot (I'd say more than half) of VIABLE alternatives to openings that were available on maps (such as xel naga) . The new maps haven't really told me what to expect yet. It might just be the case that a macro opening isn't viable, but I've yet to really determine that given that I am successful more than half the time with it. Even if I was only successful half the time (assuming I macroed and rushed half and half) macro option would still be viable. I haven't lost "most" my games macroing, therefore it isn't as one-base encouraged as other people say. This may be a bit off-topic, but just how would you 3gate expand on shakuras in PvP without dying to a 4gate? Well you open 1 gate... scout his 4 gate chrono-cheese... build 2 more gates.. a stalker.. a sentry.. maybe another sentry.. maybe another stalker .. a zealot maybe? then... maybe you build a robo... or something... (doesn't matter, up to you, i'd go for a robo, either way, you opened 3 gate) and then... now... you scout... if hes on the bottom of your ramp, dont move out. Maybe break your back rocks and expand backdoor if you have to. If he's gone.. take your natural, have enough sentries to cut him in half if he comes up the bigger ramp (2 forcefields needed per volley) and rape him if he comes up. You should have slighly less units, but because you cut his army in half you can defeat half his army and retreat. Really depends on the situation though. Maybe you get a dt and don't expand. Who knows. I just know that 4-gate is pretty much auto-loss on that map unless you really cheese the shit out of it. You also have to pull it off or your opponent has to fuck up.
Sorry I thought you we're talking about doing some kind of FE with only 3gates -.-'
Some random idea for expanding PvZ: screw the gas all together and spend the minerals on a larger simcity with a canon or two?
|
Oh god. Thank you Sinatra, for being the first voice of reason in this thread.
Amazing that someone would be more concerned with actually proactively trying to find solutions to the idiosyncrasies of the maps rather than whining about them (and, consequently, never improving). It's been a long time since I've seen non-whine posts on TL, so thank you.
|
Sinatra just think about Idra-Jinro on Jungle Basin
It was one of the most important games of Idras lifes and he completly changed his game style from Macroheavy to Coinflip.
The reason: Sometimes maps just FORCE a specific play style. And if a map forces All-Ins for specific Matchups (like Jungle Basin ZvT/Steppes of War ZvP/ZvT) than it just sucks for everyone who wants to play from a professional perspective.
I played a lot the last two days and I think that there will be a couple of Protoss All-Ins on Shattered Island PvT Cross (Protoss will never be able to win a late game fight because of the open space in the middle) and Typhon Peaks PvZ Close (Protoss literally has to go for an early push because it's nearly auto win and zerg would be able to deny any protoss' attempt to take a third otherwise)
I'm only talking about Protoss, I don't know enough about ZvT/TvZ to judge about forced All-Ins without having seen those races played the maps.
|
On March 01 2011 04:42 Latedi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:35 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 04:31 Latedi wrote:On March 01 2011 04:26 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 04:18 Offhand wrote:On March 01 2011 03:47 Sm3agol wrote:
Why do people bash maps saying they have an undefendable nat......when arguably the most popular map is xe'lnaga.....which has the most open nat in existence. Shakuras is better then Xel'Naga for precisely this reason. This is one of the reasons they took out Shakuras. On Xel Naga, rushing is a VIABLE strategy. Macro is also a VIABLE strategy. Neither strategy is really more encouraged. In my experience, I have forge FE'd, 4 gated, 2 gate cannon rushed, forge cannon rushed, forge gate cannon rushed, 3 gate macroed, 3 gate mass expanded... 1 gate expanded... I had alot of options.. On Shakuras, it was an obvious choices to either 1 gate expand or forge FE vs zerg and terran. It was also obvious to 3 gate expand on Shakuras PvP since it was really easy to defend 4 gate mid-game given the 2nd ramp. Shakuras rush wasn't very viable since it was easy for the opponent to both defend AND macro (expand). Therefore, Shakuras was a bad map because it basically took out alot (I'd say more than half) of VIABLE alternatives to openings that were available on maps (such as xel naga) . The new maps haven't really told me what to expect yet. It might just be the case that a macro opening isn't viable, but I've yet to really determine that given that I am successful more than half the time with it. Even if I was only successful half the time (assuming I macroed and rushed half and half) macro option would still be viable. I haven't lost "most" my games macroing, therefore it isn't as one-base encouraged as other people say. This may be a bit off-topic, but just how would you 3gate expand on shakuras in PvP without dying to a 4gate? Well you open 1 gate... scout his 4 gate chrono-cheese... build 2 more gates.. a stalker.. a sentry.. maybe another sentry.. maybe another stalker .. a zealot maybe? then... maybe you build a robo... or something... (doesn't matter, up to you, i'd go for a robo, either way, you opened 3 gate) and then... now... you scout... if hes on the bottom of your ramp, dont move out. Maybe break your back rocks and expand backdoor if you have to. If he's gone.. take your natural, have enough sentries to cut him in half if he comes up the bigger ramp (2 forcefields needed per volley) and rape him if he comes up. You should have slighly less units, but because you cut his army in half you can defeat half his army and retreat. Really depends on the situation though. Maybe you get a dt and don't expand. Who knows. I just know that 4-gate is pretty much auto-loss on that map unless you really cheese the shit out of it. You also have to pull it off or your opponent has to fuck up. Sorry I thought you we're talking about doing some kind of FE with only 3gates -.-' Some random idea for expanding PvZ: screw the gas all together and spend the minerals on a larger simcity with a canon or two?
Yup, totally off topic, but you can pretty much just forge nexus and cannon rush if he's too greedy. Maybe even just build a pylon if he didn't pool first. If he waited for hatch-first and you build a pylon at his expansion (look for hidden expo to cannon the fuck out of) it really injures his economy. Meanwhile, you have expanded and secured your natural with a cannon and proper gate forge pylon placement.
Shakuras was bad for zerg in PvZ. This zerg once stopped my cannon rush (I built like 5 cannons and lost them all) only to lose to my 2-base macro ball. The natural (and backdoor third) were simply too easy to defend vs a very aggressive zerg. It wasn't really about the Voidray collosus ball. It was more about the fact that I could get there without any hardship of defending harassment.
So if all these noob people in this thread get what they want. I'll just turtle 2-base death-ball every time vs zerg and zerg will always QQ/rage at me for having an imba race. Not really my fault that Blizzard made a map that allowed it I guess. But at least I'll have fun laughing at Idra blaming everything on the mechanics of a deathball.
|
On March 01 2011 04:45 Binabik wrote:
Sinatra just think about Idra-Jinro on Jungle Basin
It was one of the most important games of Idras lifes and he completly changed his game style from Macroheavy to Coinflip.
The reason: Sometimes maps just FORCE a specific play style. And if a map forces All-Ins for specific Matchups (like Jungle Basin ZvT/Steppes of War ZvP/ZvT) than it just sucks for everyone who wants to play from a professional perspective.
I played a lot the last two days and I think that there will be a couple of Protoss All-Ins on Shattered Island PvT Cross (Protoss will never be able to win a late game fight because of the open space in the middle) and Typhon Peaks PvZ Close (Protoss literally has to go for an early push because it's nearly auto win and zerg would be able to deny any protoss' attempt to take a third otherwise)
I'm only talking about Protoss, I don't know enough about ZvT/TvZ to judge about forced All-Ins without having seen those races played the maps.
You clearly did not understand this. This was Idra meta-gaming the shit out of Jinro. Idra is known to never cheese. The fact that he used this card proves that he is actually capable of doing something other than a robot-style. Ask anybody, I fucking hate Idra. But his coin-flip move gained at least some respect from me.
People should be innovative sometimes. Not just blame imbalance for your robot-macro not working 95% of the time vs equally skilled players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
51642
2137
16
EPT
