|
On March 01 2011 05:47 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:39 uSnAmplified wrote:On March 01 2011 05:35 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:28 blade55555 wrote:On March 01 2011 05:22 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:18 blade55555 wrote:On March 01 2011 05:10 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:06 Sm3agol wrote:On March 01 2011 04:59 whatthefat 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. One of these things is not like the other... ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YRExh.jpg) On Xel'naga, you can easily build static defense which covers both your expo and your ramp. Fast expanding is viable for protoss because you can simcity the ramp and expo easily. Same goes for Metalopolis. Similarly, zerg can connect creep, and actually use the expo's creep to defend the main ramp. On Backwater Gulch, you are effectively running and defending two completely independent bases. Good luck dealing with hellions as zerg, or roaches (or speedlings) as protoss. Rofl, I'm not going to lie, I didn't even notice that. But that's different from an "undefendable nat". That's not even a nat, lol. But also another awesome feature is the fact that you can siege up below the "nat" as well, and hit the expo. I seriously think cliffs need to go, period, but Blizzard seems to think they are an amazing gameplay feature, despite the fact that T is the only race that can really abuse it. I guess people just expect 2nd expansion bases to be spoon fed directly up their asses. Look at xel'naga.. the ramp directly points toward the natural... Oh God forbid, the 2nd map isn't as easy to defend. You mean you have to put effort into playing this game? Wow... Hard to expand does not mean automatic all-in. It means automatic all-in for noobs that don't know how to defend something thats harder to defend. I mean, people didn't really find a solution to 4-gate for the longest time, but Blizzard didn't really nerf it that much (or at all). I'm sure if you can find a solution to 4-gate, you'll get passed this some how. rofl might be fine for protoss but for zerg thats bad. that gulch map is a pain to play vs toss especially if they 4 gate due to the ramp being so far away from your natural and zerg needs to have that they can't stay one base that just does not work. Its a terrible map and I know you play protoss so that map does favor you so maybe thats why you don't understand but its terrible for zerg and dunno bout terran and no matter how hard to defend that its true you can deny it all you want but deep down you know its true. I accidentally smurfed my friend's account into masters league playing Zerg. I consistantly beat 3k Protoss players on both new and old maps. For Gultch I decided that maybe bulidling my 2nd hatcher at the big ramp and then a 3rd hatch at the natural was a safe macro opening. This allowed me to build spine crawlers at the ramp to defend against a 4 gate. The big ramp also gave me a big advantage vs 4-gate since forcefields were less effective. Just a thought. Zerg is pretty fun race btw... don't know why Idra much frustration. Well the 3k toss players you played supposedly must have been pretty terrible because if your third hatch isn't even going to your natural and waiting for your third already puts you super far behind lol If you played actual good toss players who knew how to play pvz you would know why its so frusterating. Luckily on the NA server most don't have a clue how to play toss in pvz so that might be why you could also beat 3k masters which doesn't even mean your "good" anymore due to everyone being at 3500+. You are right.. .most people on the NA server don't have a clue how to play toss in pvz. That might also be why this thread is as long as it is since I don't see that many Korean's QQing on this page. Oh and I know Korean's do visit this page now and then. I also know that Korean's haven't really given that much feedback on the maps. Maybe we will find some feedback from them when the APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME HAS PASSED... you know.. when the dust settles and NA whiners stop QQing. Koreans not posting on an English speaking forum, shocking revelation that means maps are fine. Here is a shocking revelation to you my American friend. Many people outside the United States speak English. Including a few Koreans who visit these forums. Also, there are many articles that are translated into English by our Korean friends. (Mainly the important articles). I'm sure we'll find one eventually. Who said maps were fine? I just said its too early to tell.
Yes because fomos immediately interviews top SC2 players every time theirs new maps so we can translate it.
Your posts are nothing but biased condescending bullshit, of course people outside the US speak English, taking potshots at me by taking my point of context is pretty laughable. Show me the last time a "korean" pro made a comment on this forum about SC2 balance, you will be hard pressed to find one because they have you know, korean forums?
Also to humor you
On February 27 2011 01:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Dont like any of the new maps except the fixed Temple. They all have ridiculous chokes and stupid positional imbalances - its like, if you want to encourage straight up terran play, 1 rax CC absolutely HAS to be viable for the map to have a healthy variety in openings... Xelnaga is the only map defying this rule I can think of.
And 1 rax CC is only viable if you can 3 rax wall your nat or baneling bust gets you every time.
Removing Shakuras might be the single most mindboggling decision ever made in this games history.
Jinros not korean but as close as you will find on this forum.
|
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.
My issue with the maps isn't purely that some nats are harder to defend then others. It's certainly a factor, but the fact that ALL of the new maps have wide open nats and/or multiple entrances is a problem. Macro games can happen on Xel'Naga because the position of the ramps, the watchtowers catch any direct push, and some sim city makes a nat with 3 openings much more doable. The new maps don't have this option, at least not as I'm able to determine.
Games are macro games just because someone FEs either. Take a third on Slag Pits, Backwater Gulch, or Typhon Peaks. Where do you go? Do you wrap around all the terrain to reach the expo closest to you by air? Do you take the expo that's in the direct center of the damn map but actually reachable by run distance? Take an unoccupied main and hope they don't scout it?
These are all shitty options. The thirds are infinitely harassable as are the nats. Games aren't going to go beyond two-basing on any of the new maps with any kind of frequency.
Put Terminus RE in the map pool. That's how you'll see macro games.
|
On March 01 2011 05:59 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:47 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:39 uSnAmplified wrote:On March 01 2011 05:35 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:28 blade55555 wrote:On March 01 2011 05:22 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:18 blade55555 wrote:On March 01 2011 05:10 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:06 Sm3agol wrote:On March 01 2011 04:59 whatthefat wrote:[quote] One of these things is not like the other... On Xel'naga, you can easily build static defense which covers both your expo and your ramp. Fast expanding is viable for protoss because you can simcity the ramp and expo easily. Same goes for Metalopolis. Similarly, zerg can connect creep, and actually use the expo's creep to defend the main ramp. On Backwater Gulch, you are effectively running and defending two completely independent bases. Good luck dealing with hellions as zerg, or roaches (or speedlings) as protoss. Rofl, I'm not going to lie, I didn't even notice that. But that's different from an "undefendable nat". That's not even a nat, lol. But also another awesome feature is the fact that you can siege up below the "nat" as well, and hit the expo. I seriously think cliffs need to go, period, but Blizzard seems to think they are an amazing gameplay feature, despite the fact that T is the only race that can really abuse it. I guess people just expect 2nd expansion bases to be spoon fed directly up their asses. Look at xel'naga.. the ramp directly points toward the natural... Oh God forbid, the 2nd map isn't as easy to defend. You mean you have to put effort into playing this game? Wow... Hard to expand does not mean automatic all-in. It means automatic all-in for noobs that don't know how to defend something thats harder to defend. I mean, people didn't really find a solution to 4-gate for the longest time, but Blizzard didn't really nerf it that much (or at all). I'm sure if you can find a solution to 4-gate, you'll get passed this some how. rofl might be fine for protoss but for zerg thats bad. that gulch map is a pain to play vs toss especially if they 4 gate due to the ramp being so far away from your natural and zerg needs to have that they can't stay one base that just does not work. Its a terrible map and I know you play protoss so that map does favor you so maybe thats why you don't understand but its terrible for zerg and dunno bout terran and no matter how hard to defend that its true you can deny it all you want but deep down you know its true. I accidentally smurfed my friend's account into masters league playing Zerg. I consistantly beat 3k Protoss players on both new and old maps. For Gultch I decided that maybe bulidling my 2nd hatcher at the big ramp and then a 3rd hatch at the natural was a safe macro opening. This allowed me to build spine crawlers at the ramp to defend against a 4 gate. The big ramp also gave me a big advantage vs 4-gate since forcefields were less effective. Just a thought. Zerg is pretty fun race btw... don't know why Idra much frustration. Well the 3k toss players you played supposedly must have been pretty terrible because if your third hatch isn't even going to your natural and waiting for your third already puts you super far behind lol If you played actual good toss players who knew how to play pvz you would know why its so frusterating. Luckily on the NA server most don't have a clue how to play toss in pvz so that might be why you could also beat 3k masters which doesn't even mean your "good" anymore due to everyone being at 3500+. You are right.. .most people on the NA server don't have a clue how to play toss in pvz. That might also be why this thread is as long as it is since I don't see that many Korean's QQing on this page. Oh and I know Korean's do visit this page now and then. I also know that Korean's haven't really given that much feedback on the maps. Maybe we will find some feedback from them when the APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME HAS PASSED... you know.. when the dust settles and NA whiners stop QQing. Koreans not posting on an English speaking forum, shocking revelation that means maps are fine. Here is a shocking revelation to you my American friend. Many people outside the United States speak English. Including a few Koreans who visit these forums. Also, there are many articles that are translated into English by our Korean friends. (Mainly the important articles). I'm sure we'll find one eventually. Who said maps were fine? I just said its too early to tell. Yes because fomos immediately interviews top SC2 players every time theirs new maps so we can translate it. Your posts are nothing but biased condescending bullshit, of course people outside the US speak English, taking potshots at me by taking my point of context is pretty laughable. Show me the last time a "korean" pro made a comment on this forum about SC2 balance, you will be hard pressed to find one because they have you know, korean forums? Also to humor you Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 01:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Dont like any of the new maps except the fixed Temple. They all have ridiculous chokes and stupid positional imbalances - its like, if you want to encourage straight up terran play, 1 rax CC absolutely HAS to be viable for the map to have a healthy variety in openings... Xelnaga is the only map defying this rule I can think of.
And 1 rax CC is only viable if you can 3 rax wall your nat or baneling bust gets you every time.
Removing Shakuras might be the single most mindboggling decision ever made in this games history. Jinros not korean but as close as you will find on this forum.
I didn't say good players would actually take time to come to these forums to convince you (ie a pro Korean player posting here). I said if they did say something, it'd be translated. Like when Fruitdealer won GSL and had comments... etc...
How is my post biased and condescending? Pot shots? How are you supporting this discussion at all? Have you provided any evidence about your experience in difficulty defending against zerg/toss/terran on these maps?
Good job, you quoted Jinro. One player's opinion. You should quote my opinion too, particularly the post where I talked about why Shakuras was removed. Since his post was already posted in this thread, you pretty much posted fuck all.
|
On March 01 2011 05:59 Offhand 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. My issue with the maps isn't purely that some nats are harder to defend then others. It's certainly a factor, but the fact that ALL of the new maps have wide open nats and/or multiple entrances is a problem. Macro games can happen on Xel'Naga because the position of the ramps, the watchtowers catch any direct push, and some sim city makes a nat with 3 openings much more doable. The new maps don't have this option, at least not as I'm able to determine. Games are macro games just because someone FEs either. Take a third on Slag Pits, Backwater Gulch, or Typhon Peaks. Where do you go? Do you wrap around all the terrain to reach the expo closest to you by air? Do you take the expo that's in the direct center of the damn map but actually reachable by run distance? Take an unoccupied main and hope they don't scout it? These are all shitty options. The thirds are infinitely harassable as are the nats. Games aren't going to go beyond two-basing on any of the new maps with any kind of frequency. Put Terminus RE in the map pool. That's how you'll see macro games.
Sometimes taking a shitty option is better than not taking the shitty option. Are you saying you've never been forced into a difficult decision? True, sometimes it might be more viable to just push with 2 base and try to end the game out-right instead of taking a shitty 3rd. I guarantee you that won't always be the best option. Sometimes expanding at the shitty 3rd place might just save you the game. Sometimes you might lose b/c you expanded there, but it won't be b/c of the map. It'll be b/c you missed something or your opponent tricked you.
Map or no map, you can't just expect SC2 to be an RPG where you take your natural and 3rd base like a Final Fantasy carrot-on-a-stick game. Sometimes the picture ain't so clear. Thats why its SC2.
|
On March 01 2011 05:53 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:49 gray-fox wrote:On March 01 2011 04:32 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 04:28 gray-fox wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Umm.. no. If the map encourages to go all-in, most of the zergs in the ladder will do that. And that is what most players do not want. What they want is a long macro game instead. However, if an all-in seems very valid way to win the game, most players do that, even if they like longer games more. I think you are just missing the point all the time here, and don't know what you are arguing against. I dunno if these maps are really as bad pvz macro maps as people are saying though. Haven't tried them out myself yet. Haha... so you haven't even tried the maps out, but you are here saying that the maps encourage allins? good job, you just proved my point.
I knew you would reply like this.
No. I never said that I think so myself.
|
On March 01 2011 06:05 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:59 uSnAmplified wrote:On March 01 2011 05:47 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:39 uSnAmplified wrote:On March 01 2011 05:35 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:28 blade55555 wrote:On March 01 2011 05:22 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:18 blade55555 wrote:On March 01 2011 05:10 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:06 Sm3agol wrote:
[quote]
Rofl, I'm not going to lie, I didn't even notice that. But that's different from an "undefendable nat". That's not even a nat, lol. But also another awesome feature is the fact that you can siege up below the "nat" as well, and hit the expo. I seriously think cliffs need to go, period, but Blizzard seems to think they are an amazing gameplay feature, despite the fact that T is the only race that can really abuse it. I guess people just expect 2nd expansion bases to be spoon fed directly up their asses. Look at xel'naga.. the ramp directly points toward the natural... Oh God forbid, the 2nd map isn't as easy to defend. You mean you have to put effort into playing this game? Wow... Hard to expand does not mean automatic all-in. It means automatic all-in for noobs that don't know how to defend something thats harder to defend. I mean, people didn't really find a solution to 4-gate for the longest time, but Blizzard didn't really nerf it that much (or at all). I'm sure if you can find a solution to 4-gate, you'll get passed this some how. rofl might be fine for protoss but for zerg thats bad. that gulch map is a pain to play vs toss especially if they 4 gate due to the ramp being so far away from your natural and zerg needs to have that they can't stay one base that just does not work. Its a terrible map and I know you play protoss so that map does favor you so maybe thats why you don't understand but its terrible for zerg and dunno bout terran and no matter how hard to defend that its true you can deny it all you want but deep down you know its true. I accidentally smurfed my friend's account into masters league playing Zerg. I consistantly beat 3k Protoss players on both new and old maps. For Gultch I decided that maybe bulidling my 2nd hatcher at the big ramp and then a 3rd hatch at the natural was a safe macro opening. This allowed me to build spine crawlers at the ramp to defend against a 4 gate. The big ramp also gave me a big advantage vs 4-gate since forcefields were less effective. Just a thought. Zerg is pretty fun race btw... don't know why Idra much frustration. Well the 3k toss players you played supposedly must have been pretty terrible because if your third hatch isn't even going to your natural and waiting for your third already puts you super far behind lol If you played actual good toss players who knew how to play pvz you would know why its so frusterating. Luckily on the NA server most don't have a clue how to play toss in pvz so that might be why you could also beat 3k masters which doesn't even mean your "good" anymore due to everyone being at 3500+. You are right.. .most people on the NA server don't have a clue how to play toss in pvz. That might also be why this thread is as long as it is since I don't see that many Korean's QQing on this page. Oh and I know Korean's do visit this page now and then. I also know that Korean's haven't really given that much feedback on the maps. Maybe we will find some feedback from them when the APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME HAS PASSED... you know.. when the dust settles and NA whiners stop QQing. Koreans not posting on an English speaking forum, shocking revelation that means maps are fine. Here is a shocking revelation to you my American friend. Many people outside the United States speak English. Including a few Koreans who visit these forums. Also, there are many articles that are translated into English by our Korean friends. (Mainly the important articles). I'm sure we'll find one eventually. Who said maps were fine? I just said its too early to tell. Yes because fomos immediately interviews top SC2 players every time theirs new maps so we can translate it. Your posts are nothing but biased condescending bullshit, of course people outside the US speak English, taking potshots at me by taking my point of context is pretty laughable. Show me the last time a "korean" pro made a comment on this forum about SC2 balance, you will be hard pressed to find one because they have you know, korean forums? Also to humor you On February 27 2011 01:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Dont like any of the new maps except the fixed Temple. They all have ridiculous chokes and stupid positional imbalances - its like, if you want to encourage straight up terran play, 1 rax CC absolutely HAS to be viable for the map to have a healthy variety in openings... Xelnaga is the only map defying this rule I can think of.
And 1 rax CC is only viable if you can 3 rax wall your nat or baneling bust gets you every time.
Removing Shakuras might be the single most mindboggling decision ever made in this games history. Jinros not korean but as close as you will find on this forum. I didn't say good players would actually take time to come to these forums to convince you (ie a pro Korean player posting here). I said if they did say something, it'd be translated. Like when Fruitdealer won GSL and had comments... etc... How is my post biased and condescending? Pot shots? How are you supporting this discussion at all? Have you provided any evidence about your experience in difficulty defending against zerg/toss/terran on these maps? Good job, you quoted Jinro. One player's opinion. You should quote my opinion too, particularly the post where I talked about why Shakuras was removed. Since his post was already posted in this thread, you pretty much posted fuck all. Overly defensive with zero evidence to back up your claims.Read your own posts, their nothing but well these maps favor me so derp they are fine unless pros says so. Low blows like lol american other people speak english, how is that not condescending and completely making an argument off my country of origins, how is that not a pot shot to discredit me besides actual proof to the contrary?
I posted a pro opinion, you have nothing to say other then it is irrelevant.
You are obviously to full of yourself and your own ridiculous opinions, i dont know why i bother arguing it.
|
On March 01 2011 06:12 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 06:05 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:59 uSnAmplified wrote:On March 01 2011 05:47 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:39 uSnAmplified wrote:On March 01 2011 05:35 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:28 blade55555 wrote:On March 01 2011 05:22 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:18 blade55555 wrote:On March 01 2011 05:10 rS.Sinatra wrote:
[quote]
I guess people just expect 2nd expansion bases to be spoon fed directly up their asses. Look at xel'naga.. the ramp directly points toward the natural... Oh God forbid, the 2nd map isn't as easy to defend. You mean you have to put effort into playing this game? Wow...
Hard to expand does not mean automatic all-in. It means automatic all-in for noobs that don't know how to defend something thats harder to defend. I mean, people didn't really find a solution to 4-gate for the longest time, but Blizzard didn't really nerf it that much (or at all). I'm sure if you can find a solution to 4-gate, you'll get passed this some how. rofl might be fine for protoss but for zerg thats bad. that gulch map is a pain to play vs toss especially if they 4 gate due to the ramp being so far away from your natural and zerg needs to have that they can't stay one base that just does not work. Its a terrible map and I know you play protoss so that map does favor you so maybe thats why you don't understand but its terrible for zerg and dunno bout terran and no matter how hard to defend that its true you can deny it all you want but deep down you know its true. I accidentally smurfed my friend's account into masters league playing Zerg. I consistantly beat 3k Protoss players on both new and old maps. For Gultch I decided that maybe bulidling my 2nd hatcher at the big ramp and then a 3rd hatch at the natural was a safe macro opening. This allowed me to build spine crawlers at the ramp to defend against a 4 gate. The big ramp also gave me a big advantage vs 4-gate since forcefields were less effective. Just a thought. Zerg is pretty fun race btw... don't know why Idra much frustration. Well the 3k toss players you played supposedly must have been pretty terrible because if your third hatch isn't even going to your natural and waiting for your third already puts you super far behind lol If you played actual good toss players who knew how to play pvz you would know why its so frusterating. Luckily on the NA server most don't have a clue how to play toss in pvz so that might be why you could also beat 3k masters which doesn't even mean your "good" anymore due to everyone being at 3500+. You are right.. .most people on the NA server don't have a clue how to play toss in pvz. That might also be why this thread is as long as it is since I don't see that many Korean's QQing on this page. Oh and I know Korean's do visit this page now and then. I also know that Korean's haven't really given that much feedback on the maps. Maybe we will find some feedback from them when the APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME HAS PASSED... you know.. when the dust settles and NA whiners stop QQing. Koreans not posting on an English speaking forum, shocking revelation that means maps are fine. Here is a shocking revelation to you my American friend. Many people outside the United States speak English. Including a few Koreans who visit these forums. Also, there are many articles that are translated into English by our Korean friends. (Mainly the important articles). I'm sure we'll find one eventually. Who said maps were fine? I just said its too early to tell. Yes because fomos immediately interviews top SC2 players every time theirs new maps so we can translate it. Your posts are nothing but biased condescending bullshit, of course people outside the US speak English, taking potshots at me by taking my point of context is pretty laughable. Show me the last time a "korean" pro made a comment on this forum about SC2 balance, you will be hard pressed to find one because they have you know, korean forums? Also to humor you On February 27 2011 01:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Dont like any of the new maps except the fixed Temple. They all have ridiculous chokes and stupid positional imbalances - its like, if you want to encourage straight up terran play, 1 rax CC absolutely HAS to be viable for the map to have a healthy variety in openings... Xelnaga is the only map defying this rule I can think of.
And 1 rax CC is only viable if you can 3 rax wall your nat or baneling bust gets you every time.
Removing Shakuras might be the single most mindboggling decision ever made in this games history. Jinros not korean but as close as you will find on this forum. I didn't say good players would actually take time to come to these forums to convince you (ie a pro Korean player posting here). I said if they did say something, it'd be translated. Like when Fruitdealer won GSL and had comments... etc... How is my post biased and condescending? Pot shots? How are you supporting this discussion at all? Have you provided any evidence about your experience in difficulty defending against zerg/toss/terran on these maps? Good job, you quoted Jinro. One player's opinion. You should quote my opinion too, particularly the post where I talked about why Shakuras was removed. Since his post was already posted in this thread, you pretty much posted fuck all. Overly defensive with zero evidence to back up your claims.Read your own posts, their nothing but well these maps favor me so derp they are fine unless pros says so. Low blows like lol american other people speak english, how is that not condescending and completely making an argument off my country of origins, how is that not a pot shot to discredit me besides actual proof to the contrary? I posted a pro opinion, you have nothing to say other then it is irrelevant. You are obviously to full of yourself and your own ridiculous opinions, i dont know why i bother arguing it.
You clearly didn't even read my posts. W/e.. don't bother arguing then. I could care less what you think. You haven't added anything of value. Only posts targeted toward me and not the issue. If you have something to say about how the new maps suck then please, state them, otherwise, you don't have to post about your disgust at the way I post. There is a PM system for that. I'll gladly tell you to fuck off if you PM me so be my guest.
|
On March 01 2011 03:00 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 02:52 PJA wrote:On March 01 2011 01:28 gnutz wrote:On March 01 2011 01:24 Deadlift. wrote: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. Go watch white-ra play PvZ. He often omits a wall off, even on maps like Xel'Naga. Nope. Xel Naga has the ramp close to the natural so you can still sim city using the Nexus as part of your wall. If you don't make a wall you can't FE, its too easy to just do a speedling run by with out any units. There may be some examples where this doesn't happen, but I'd rather not bet my game on coinflips. These new maps you can't do that because the natural is so far away. Please do some research.
I cited a player who is definitely top 50 in the world who omits making any sort of wall at his expo on Xel'Naga and you just go "nope." then ask for me to do research? What kind of bs is this?
Also, it's impossible to do speedling runbys against 9 sentries assuming the toss has decent force fields and reaction time, so I really don't know wtf you're talking about.
|
On March 01 2011 03:43 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:39 Barca 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. Um, yeah I'm pretty sure Xel'naga is a bad map for walling off too, and comparing it to Backwater Gulch the third gold is less dependable and has destructible rocks. And thank you for the advice to watch Day9 and learn to wall off, I'm sure that you are correct in your assumption that I actually suck and have no idea how to play this game rather than taking my opinion seriously. Please contribute positively to the thread next time and stop trolling. Actually, I provided numerous helpful solutions to you. I'm not going to name every strategic play that would prevent you from expanding if walling off your entire ramp is not an option. P-sure you are just offended and are calling me a troll to defend yourself. I'm just saying that your argument about non-wall off ramp = map bad is false. Supporting my argument with facts, etc. One might say that you are the troll since you actually haven't provided any positive contribution since your "contribution" is basically : can't wall off.. QQ.. map sucks... map sucks because can't wall off... more QQ.. he's a troll etc Think about other strategies, since walling off is not your only option. PS: you came to the conclusion that you were a bad player that didn't know what you were talking about yourself. i didn't say any such thing.
Sir, you seem to be trolling everyone on this thread.
And you did actually imply I was a bad player, you said "The problem is you". You must have a very bad memory, I will not hold it against you.
Moving on, I feel like GSL maps are x10 better than these new ones. Blizzard took out the only true macro map on the ladder and added a couple more super small maps that discourage Protoss to expand. Heavy dislike.
|
On March 01 2011 06:08 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:59 Offhand 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. My issue with the maps isn't purely that some nats are harder to defend then others. It's certainly a factor, but the fact that ALL of the new maps have wide open nats and/or multiple entrances is a problem. Macro games can happen on Xel'Naga because the position of the ramps, the watchtowers catch any direct push, and some sim city makes a nat with 3 openings much more doable. The new maps don't have this option, at least not as I'm able to determine. Games are macro games just because someone FEs either. Take a third on Slag Pits, Backwater Gulch, or Typhon Peaks. Where do you go? Do you wrap around all the terrain to reach the expo closest to you by air? Do you take the expo that's in the direct center of the damn map but actually reachable by run distance? Take an unoccupied main and hope they don't scout it? These are all shitty options. The thirds are infinitely harassable as are the nats. Games aren't going to go beyond two-basing on any of the new maps with any kind of frequency. Put Terminus RE in the map pool. That's how you'll see macro games. Sometimes taking a shitty option is better than not taking the shitty option. Are you saying you've never been forced into a difficult decision? True, sometimes it might be more viable to just push with 2 base and try to end the game out-right instead of taking a shitty 3rd. I guarantee you that won't always be the best option. Sometimes expanding at the shitty 3rd place might just save you the game. Sometimes you might lose b/c you expanded there, but it won't be b/c of the map. It'll be b/c you missed something or your opponent tricked you. Map or no map, you can't just expect SC2 to be an RPG where you take your natural and 3rd base like a Final Fantasy carrot-on-a-stick game. Sometimes the picture ain't so clear. Thats why its SC2.
So thirds should always be wide open and harassable? My point is that all the options are shit, there's no such thing as a good third option on all three of those maps. It's always better to two base all-in.
|
On March 01 2011 03:33 chuDr3t4 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:11 rS.Sinatra wrote:Actually, balanced or not is the only issue. Resulting game play is decided upon each player's approach to the particular match. You can't expect macro games coming from Terrans doing some sort of 1-base all-ins vs zergs. No matter what the map is, it will most likely end short. If you want a more macro oriented game, nerf the one-base allin across the board This. Fucking this. It boiled my blood to read Blizzard using term 'rushmap' in their article about wtf are they doing. If both players decide to macro up and split the map they probably would have a nice long game on Blood Bath. I played BW TvZ with  9 Pool (vs Terran) on every map and my games were of 7 minutes long on Fighting Spirit, Heartbreak Ridge, Luna and Chupung-Ryeong. All games were same. But if I want to play macro game and map favours rushing by design and punishes expanding, and that is fucking 80% of this damned ladder pool, this simply pisses me off and effectively this stopped me from laddering. Ideal map should be neutral to both macroing and rushing, players need to make decisions about what kind of game they should play.
Not that I think you'll read the entire post to find this one response to your post, but you're absolutely wrong.
Cross positions on Shakuras you don't see all-ins or even early pressure work, or even be attempted as much as you did on steppes. The distance is 5-6 seconds longer, which is so much more time to have out another queen, 2-4 more zerglings, and a finished spine crawler.
Maps matter, sorry.
|
On March 01 2011 06:18 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:00 sluggaslamoo wrote:On March 01 2011 02:52 PJA wrote:On March 01 2011 01:28 gnutz wrote:On March 01 2011 01:24 Deadlift. wrote: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. Go watch white-ra play PvZ. He often omits a wall off, even on maps like Xel'Naga. Nope. Xel Naga has the ramp close to the natural so you can still sim city using the Nexus as part of your wall. If you don't make a wall you can't FE, its too easy to just do a speedling run by with out any units. There may be some examples where this doesn't happen, but I'd rather not bet my game on coinflips. These new maps you can't do that because the natural is so far away. Please do some research. I cited a player who is definitely top 50 in the world who omits making any sort of wall at his expo on Xel'Naga and you just go "nope." then ask for me to do research? What kind of bs is this?
I pretty much had to laugh at this. "NOPE" etc etc etc "I'm right" classic TL attitude lately. WTF is he even responding to in his post? It has nothing to do with white-ra either. Just talks about his own failing experience.
Maybe people should read T_T
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 01 2011 05:10 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:06 Sm3agol wrote:On March 01 2011 04:59 whatthefat 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. One of these things is not like the other... On Xel'naga, you can easily build static defense which covers both your expo and your ramp. Fast expanding is viable for protoss because you can simcity the ramp and expo easily. Same goes for Metalopolis. Similarly, zerg can connect creep, and actually use the expo's creep to defend the main ramp. On Backwater Gulch, you are effectively running and defending two completely independent bases. Good luck dealing with hellions as zerg, or roaches (or speedlings) as protoss. Rofl, I'm not going to lie, I didn't even notice that. But that's different from an "undefendable nat". That's not even a nat, lol. But also another awesome feature is the fact that you can siege up below the "nat" as well, and hit the expo. I seriously think cliffs need to go, period, but Blizzard seems to think they are an amazing gameplay feature, despite the fact that T is the only race that can really abuse it. I guess people just expect 2nd expansion bases to be spoon fed directly up their asses. Look at xel'naga.. the ramp directly points toward the natural... Oh God forbid, the 2nd map isn't as easy to defend. You mean you have to put effort into playing this game? Wow... Hard to expand does not mean automatic all-in. It means automatic all-in for noobs that don't know how to defend something thats harder to defend. I mean, people didn't really find a solution to 4-gate for the longest time, but Blizzard didn't really nerf it that much (or at all). I'm sure if you can find a solution to 4-gate, you'll get passed this some how.
... The Gulch natural is not classifiable as "hard to defend", its more like "impossible to defend".
You would have to have two completely separate static defenses for your ramp and your nat for fucks sake! That means you cant expo unless your army is superior to your opponents, which it wont be if you sink 400 minerals into an expo..........
|
On March 01 2011 06:19 Rakanishu2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:33 chuDr3t4 wrote:On March 01 2011 03:11 rS.Sinatra wrote:Actually, balanced or not is the only issue. Resulting game play is decided upon each player's approach to the particular match. You can't expect macro games coming from Terrans doing some sort of 1-base all-ins vs zergs. No matter what the map is, it will most likely end short. If you want a more macro oriented game, nerf the one-base allin across the board This. Fucking this. It boiled my blood to read Blizzard using term 'rushmap' in their article about wtf are they doing. If both players decide to macro up and split the map they probably would have a nice long game on Blood Bath. I played BW TvZ with 9 Pool (vs Terran) on every map and my games were of 7 minutes long on Fighting Spirit, Heartbreak Ridge, Luna and Chupung-Ryeong. All games were same. But if I want to play macro game and map favours rushing by design and punishes expanding, and that is fucking 80% of this damned ladder pool, this simply pisses me off and effectively this stopped me from laddering. Ideal map should be neutral to both macroing and rushing, players need to make decisions about what kind of game they should play. Not that I think you'll read the entire post to find this one response to your post, but you're absolutely wrong. Cross positions on Shakuras you don't see all-ins or even early pressure work, or even be attempted as much as you did on steppes. The distance is 5-6 seconds longer, which is so much more time to have out another queen, 2-4 more zerglings, and a finished spine crawler. Maps matter, sorry.
I actually agree with this. I'll cede that in a situation where a map makes rushing more viable you would naturally choose that option.
However, I disagree that we have spent enough time to determine whether the new maps create such a situation.
|
On March 01 2011 06:28 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:10 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:06 Sm3agol wrote:On March 01 2011 04:59 whatthefat 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. One of these things is not like the other... On Xel'naga, you can easily build static defense which covers both your expo and your ramp. Fast expanding is viable for protoss because you can simcity the ramp and expo easily. Same goes for Metalopolis. Similarly, zerg can connect creep, and actually use the expo's creep to defend the main ramp. On Backwater Gulch, you are effectively running and defending two completely independent bases. Good luck dealing with hellions as zerg, or roaches (or speedlings) as protoss. Rofl, I'm not going to lie, I didn't even notice that. But that's different from an "undefendable nat". That's not even a nat, lol. But also another awesome feature is the fact that you can siege up below the "nat" as well, and hit the expo. I seriously think cliffs need to go, period, but Blizzard seems to think they are an amazing gameplay feature, despite the fact that T is the only race that can really abuse it. I guess people just expect 2nd expansion bases to be spoon fed directly up their asses. Look at xel'naga.. the ramp directly points toward the natural... Oh God forbid, the 2nd map isn't as easy to defend. You mean you have to put effort into playing this game? Wow... Hard to expand does not mean automatic all-in. It means automatic all-in for noobs that don't know how to defend something thats harder to defend. I mean, people didn't really find a solution to 4-gate for the longest time, but Blizzard didn't really nerf it that much (or at all). I'm sure if you can find a solution to 4-gate, you'll get passed this some how. ... The Gulch natural is not classifiable as "hard to defend", its more like "impossible to defend". You would have to have two completely separate static defenses for your ramp and your nat for fucks sake! That means you cant expo unless your army is superior to your opponents, which it wont be if you sink 400 minerals into an expo..........
Maybe you should expand a little later then. There are such things as normal expanding. You know? They call it a FE for a reason, because it is unusually fast. Maybe if you take the time to build an army that can defend and harass at the same time, or maybe just defend? Or maybe the threat of an army will force the other player to play defensive...
Since you have bunkers and they are salvagable, I don't see your static defense as that much of an issue. I think your main issue is that you can't expand as fast as you'd like to. Perhaps expanding later will allow you to transition into a macro game easier, especially against other aggressive players. You can always decide not to expand later and just rape him if he is too greedy.
|
rofl@teaching sc2 to Jinro --'
I always 4gate in pvz on these maps, i almost never lose 
Open naturals nullify so much defender's advantage that 4gates will stomp any zergs with same skill.
|
On March 01 2011 06:38 Hane wrote:
rofl@teaching sc2 to Jinro --'
rolf@ being too afraid to ask questions and suggest solutions so instead i'll just laugh at anybody who questions or tries to think around the problem.
|
On March 01 2011 06:33 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 06:28 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 01 2011 05:10 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:06 Sm3agol wrote:On March 01 2011 04:59 whatthefat 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. One of these things is not like the other... On Xel'naga, you can easily build static defense which covers both your expo and your ramp. Fast expanding is viable for protoss because you can simcity the ramp and expo easily. Same goes for Metalopolis. Similarly, zerg can connect creep, and actually use the expo's creep to defend the main ramp. On Backwater Gulch, you are effectively running and defending two completely independent bases. Good luck dealing with hellions as zerg, or roaches (or speedlings) as protoss. Rofl, I'm not going to lie, I didn't even notice that. But that's different from an "undefendable nat". That's not even a nat, lol. But also another awesome feature is the fact that you can siege up below the "nat" as well, and hit the expo. I seriously think cliffs need to go, period, but Blizzard seems to think they are an amazing gameplay feature, despite the fact that T is the only race that can really abuse it. I guess people just expect 2nd expansion bases to be spoon fed directly up their asses. Look at xel'naga.. the ramp directly points toward the natural... Oh God forbid, the 2nd map isn't as easy to defend. You mean you have to put effort into playing this game? Wow... Hard to expand does not mean automatic all-in. It means automatic all-in for noobs that don't know how to defend something thats harder to defend. I mean, people didn't really find a solution to 4-gate for the longest time, but Blizzard didn't really nerf it that much (or at all). I'm sure if you can find a solution to 4-gate, you'll get passed this some how. ... The Gulch natural is not classifiable as "hard to defend", its more like "impossible to defend". You would have to have two completely separate static defenses for your ramp and your nat for fucks sake! That means you cant expo unless your army is superior to your opponents, which it wont be if you sink 400 minerals into an expo.......... Maybe you should expand a little later then. There are such things as normal expanding. You know? They call it a FE for a reason, because it is unusually fast. Maybe if you take the time to build an army that can defend and harass at the same time, or maybe just defend? Or maybe the threat of an army will force the other player to play defensive... Since you have bunkers and they are salvagable, I don't see your static defense as that much of an issue. I think your main issue is that you can't expand as fast as you'd like to. Perhaps expanding later will allow you to transition into a macro game easier, especially against other aggressive players. You can always decide not to expand later and just rape him if he is too greedy.
so you admit that the map encourages one base play then, which i would say a majority find a distaste for. just as i stated a while back, there is no way to take an expo without either taking an unnecessarily colossal risk, turtling on one base for an extended period until you have a comfortable army size to prevent any early aggression with army alone, or investing a huge amount of money into static defense and sim city just so that you can secure your natural. this all leads to more one base play, which is not where sc2 should be gearing towards
|
On March 01 2011 06:41 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 06:33 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 06:28 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On March 01 2011 05:10 rS.Sinatra wrote:On March 01 2011 05:06 Sm3agol wrote:On March 01 2011 04:59 whatthefat 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. One of these things is not like the other... On Xel'naga, you can easily build static defense which covers both your expo and your ramp. Fast expanding is viable for protoss because you can simcity the ramp and expo easily. Same goes for Metalopolis. Similarly, zerg can connect creep, and actually use the expo's creep to defend the main ramp. On Backwater Gulch, you are effectively running and defending two completely independent bases. Good luck dealing with hellions as zerg, or roaches (or speedlings) as protoss. Rofl, I'm not going to lie, I didn't even notice that. But that's different from an "undefendable nat". That's not even a nat, lol. But also another awesome feature is the fact that you can siege up below the "nat" as well, and hit the expo. I seriously think cliffs need to go, period, but Blizzard seems to think they are an amazing gameplay feature, despite the fact that T is the only race that can really abuse it. I guess people just expect 2nd expansion bases to be spoon fed directly up their asses. Look at xel'naga.. the ramp directly points toward the natural... Oh God forbid, the 2nd map isn't as easy to defend. You mean you have to put effort into playing this game? Wow... Hard to expand does not mean automatic all-in. It means automatic all-in for noobs that don't know how to defend something thats harder to defend. I mean, people didn't really find a solution to 4-gate for the longest time, but Blizzard didn't really nerf it that much (or at all). I'm sure if you can find a solution to 4-gate, you'll get passed this some how. ... The Gulch natural is not classifiable as "hard to defend", its more like "impossible to defend". You would have to have two completely separate static defenses for your ramp and your nat for fucks sake! That means you cant expo unless your army is superior to your opponents, which it wont be if you sink 400 minerals into an expo.......... Maybe you should expand a little later then. There are such things as normal expanding. You know? They call it a FE for a reason, because it is unusually fast. Maybe if you take the time to build an army that can defend and harass at the same time, or maybe just defend? Or maybe the threat of an army will force the other player to play defensive... Since you have bunkers and they are salvagable, I don't see your static defense as that much of an issue. I think your main issue is that you can't expand as fast as you'd like to. Perhaps expanding later will allow you to transition into a macro game easier, especially against other aggressive players. You can always decide not to expand later and just rape him if he is too greedy. so you admit that the map encourages one base play then, which i would say a majority find a distaste for. just as i stated a while back, there is no way to take an expo without either taking an unnecessarily colossal risk, turtling on one base for an extended period until you have a comfortable army size to prevent any early aggression with army alone, or investing a huge amount of money into static defense and sim city just so that you can secure your natural. this all leads to more one base play, which is not where sc2 should be gearing towards
There are also problems with the fact that your turtling to wait for an expansion. As Jinro stated you would have to have a army lead in order to be able to defend your natural; however, if your expanding your down 400 minerals as compared to your opponent. So your opponent just rolls you with his superior army because you have no defenders advantage. Thats the problem, basically everyone waits till 200/200 then expands because noone is willing to take the risk before 400 minerals of units becomes insignificant.
|
I won't get to test until later tonight but is there any reasonable way to wall off the ramp > near opening of Backwater Gulch? And, more importantly, does that even help?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
