|
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... ![[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. ... 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.
you harp on others for providing nothing to this thread, yet all you are supplying is condescension, attitude, and theory craft.
making 5 bunkers isn't an issue? they may be salvageable, but sc2 based on TIME. not having 2/3 more rax and more scv at 10 minutes is a big deal.
having hard to defend naturals has nothing to do with "effort"
these maps feel like a knee-jerk response from blizzard because people were giving them much shit about their map-pool. they don't feel well thought out when i play on them, and you are one of the few to disagree with this (call me group-think and yourself minority if you'd like, but sometimes many people think the same thing simply because they all share the same outlook. has nothing to do with joining the herd.)
|
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..........
I hope you don't mind a nooby question, but why can't you have a static defense (say, couple sieged tanks) in the little area between the hole and the cliff (between the first ramp and the nat gas) and have mobile units ready to go where they need to go? On /any/ map you have to have mobile units ready for potential drops, and the area where a person can drop on many maps is pretty wide (think about the distance from one end of the main on metalopolis to the other end of the nat).
I'm not trying to say that my favorite terran player of all time (unless you count TLO, but I count him as random) is wrong, I just want to understand better =) (and replays would be supa awesome!!!)
peace
|
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
You should re-read what I had to say. I believe I said you have the option of expanding later rather than earlier. I'm not sure what you mean by one-base play. But staying on one-base for a longer period than a fast expansion does not mean you are going one-base all in. It just means that you didn't expand yet.
In a situation where you are threatened, it probably means your opponent's economy isn't that strong either. So therefore you can afford to expand later instead of earlier. This is by no means encouraging you to pull your entire SCV line toward his base.
Also, building a sufficient standing army is not a risk if your opponent already did the same thing. It just means you broke even. Now you have the options of expanding or going allin. A situation I'd say is pretty sweet since you have both options. Whereas you are suggesting you only have one option.
|
On March 01 2011 06:40 rS.Sinatra wrote: 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.
I'm thinking about solutions but i'm not going to troll everyone until i find it 
|
On March 01 2011 06:44 Skaya 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. you harp on others for providing nothing to this thread, yet all you are supplying is condescension, attitude, and theory craft. making 5 bunkers isn't an issue? they may be salvageable, but sc2 based on TIME. not having 2/3 more rax and more scv at 10 minutes is a big deal. having hard to defend naturals has nothing to do with "effort" these maps feel like a knee-jerk response from blizzard because people were giving them much shit about their map-pool. they don't feel well thought out when i play on them, and you are one of the few to disagree with this (call me group-think and yourself minority if you'd like, but sometimes many people think the same thing simply because they all share the same outlook. has nothing to do with joining the herd.)
While I agree that many may share your outlook, I think the people who share your outlook and haven't played on the maps yet as group-thinkers. I believe I've already addressed someone in this thread about not having even played on the maps before, yet participating in these discussions. Would you not say that he is simply participating in group-think? Or would you say that his opinions are authentic and a genuine attempt at solving his problems was given?
I don't think anybody has attempted to solve the problems of one-base play yet. Not to the extent that should be allowed anyways. I'm just saying that maybe there are some weird options out there that are really innovative and may become mainstream. Maybe it'll be a macro solution. Who knows. At least we'll find out if Blizzard doesn't cave to this pathetic thread.
|
Does the Sinatra vs the world argument need to continue? I think it's pretty well established that the maps suck for macro play. We aren't going to convince him otherwise.
Provide some reps of your crap ideas about how to expand on these maps, then we can talk.
|
On March 01 2011 06:46 Hane wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 06:40 rS.Sinatra wrote: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. I'm thinking about solutions but i'm not going to troll everyone until i find it
Oh, haha, I get it now. So you are actually trolling me by calling me a troll when in fact I am posting alternatives to the problems outlined. Haha, good joke yo. I just want you to know that I am genuinely intrigued by your joke and it did make me smile 
|
On March 01 2011 06:49 Offhand wrote:
Does the Sinatra vs the world argument need to continue? I think it's pretty well established that the maps suck for macro play. We aren't going to convince him otherwise.
Please, call me Scott Pilgrim.
|
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.
Are you seriously trying to tell Jinro how to expand? Are you seriously trying to explain to Jinro what a fast expansion is?
Wow. LOL
|
Well it is pretty hard to offer much more comment than off of what we see in front of us. And it'll probably be different once we get to play on it for a few days. However based on what I see and my experience in playing this game, the layout of the main and nat are so separate that I don't think you can say that this map has a natural expansion.
Also I feel that Jinro was speaking in general terms and not race specific. A protoss would not be able to build effective static defense to cover both the expansion and the ramp to the main.
Lastly, the layout seems assist the attacker in splitting the defender's army by forcing a part of the army to defend the "natural" while another must protect the ramp to the main.
|
On March 01 2011 06:57 SkyCrawler wrote:
Well it is pretty hard to offer much more comment than off of what we see in front of us. And it'll probably be different once we get to play on it for a few days. However based on what I see and my experience in playing this game, the layout of the main and nat are so separate that I don't think you can say that this map has a natural expansion.
Also I feel that Jinro was speaking in general terms and not race specific. A protoss would not be able to build effective static defense to cover both the expansion and the ramp to the main.
Lastly, the layout seems assist the attacker in splitting the defender's army by forcing a part of the army to defend the "natural" while another must protect the ramp to the main.
Interesting. So this map has an additional decision making process built into it. "How to allocate forces between natural and main" or maybe "Whether or not I should split my army" if you expand. I think this map is pretty dynamic and I like that part about it already. I think this just increases the skill ceiling, not lower it.
|
^ And the run distance from nat to main is huge. Which is a giant disadvantage when you're trying to defend against air/drops.
On March 01 2011 06:59 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 06:57 SkyCrawler wrote:
Well it is pretty hard to offer much more comment than off of what we see in front of us. And it'll probably be different once we get to play on it for a few days. However based on what I see and my experience in playing this game, the layout of the main and nat are so separate that I don't think you can say that this map has a natural expansion.
Also I feel that Jinro was speaking in general terms and not race specific. A protoss would not be able to build effective static defense to cover both the expansion and the ramp to the main.
Lastly, the layout seems assist the attacker in splitting the defender's army by forcing a part of the army to defend the "natural" while another must protect the ramp to the main. Interesting. So this map has an additional decision making process built into it. "How to allocate forces between natural and main" or maybe "Whether or not I should split my army" if you expand. I think this map is pretty dynamic and I like that part about it already. I think this just increases the skill ceiling, not lower it.
Or you could simply be the one attacking, which gives you the immediate advantage.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 01 2011 06:44 TheRealPaciFist 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.......... I hope you don't mind a nooby question, but why can't you have a static defense (say, couple sieged tanks) in the little area between the hole and the cliff (between the first ramp and the nat gas) and have mobile units ready to go where they need to go? On /any/ map you have to have mobile units ready for potential drops, and the area where a person can drop on many maps is pretty wide (think about the distance from one end of the main on metalopolis to the other end of the nat). I'm not trying to say that my favorite terran player of all time (unless you count TLO, but I count him as random) is wrong, I just want to understand better =) (and replays would be supa awesome!!!) peace
1) Siege tank expand is really bad in every matchup, its just too slow (vs zerg, protoss), too vulnerable to air (every race), and too defensive (every matchup).
2) Even on map with a somewhat hard to defend natural, like say - metal, you still have only one area to defend. Here the ramp and the nat are completely separate, meaning you need two sets of static D... its just not feasible.
Drops etc are a midgame concern, defending your first expansion is early game.
Id say the map looks like its worth trying before commenting on it further, if it werent for the natural being so obviously bad.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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.
Its a pretty big map, terran wont be able to pressure either of the other races if they expand, ergo you need to expand yourself (or do something thats a lot more allin than simple pressure into expo).
So, no, I simply wont play this map and hopefully tournament organizers will decide not to use it when every single pro-player they talk to tells them the same thing; that its a bad map and a bad idea.
Btw its not like Im talking about a 1 rax no gas CC here, OK? Even if you 2 rax CC, which is the most standard build in existance, there is just no way you are going to hold an allin with this layout.
Even if you were right, you are basically saying that yes, you are hugely limited (protoss is gonna be fairly limited vs zerg too I would imagine, I dont see how they would ever expo without being able to cannon+sim city) to 1 base plays.
How is this a good thing? If the map actually had a natural that did not suck terribly, we would have a map with variation where you can both allin and expand. Its not like FE builds auto-defend pressure on maps like Taldarim or terminus or whatever, they still die some% of the time, just not ALL the time.
|
On March 01 2011 06:59 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 06:57 SkyCrawler wrote:
Well it is pretty hard to offer much more comment than off of what we see in front of us. And it'll probably be different once we get to play on it for a few days. However based on what I see and my experience in playing this game, the layout of the main and nat are so separate that I don't think you can say that this map has a natural expansion.
Also I feel that Jinro was speaking in general terms and not race specific. A protoss would not be able to build effective static defense to cover both the expansion and the ramp to the main.
Lastly, the layout seems assist the attacker in splitting the defender's army by forcing a part of the army to defend the "natural" while another must protect the ramp to the main. Interesting. So this map has an additional decision making process built into it. "How to allocate forces between natural and main" or maybe "Whether or not I should split my army" if you expand. I think this map is pretty dynamic and I like that part about it already. I think this just increases the skill ceiling, not lower it.
If you can build up the forces to safely expand like that, you might as well use those forces to inflict damage on the other player so you can be sure you don't sink 400 minerals and give up all offensive advantage to someone that has that same idea.
|
Russian Federation484 Posts
On March 01 2011 06:19 Rakanishu2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:33 chuDr3t4 wrote: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.
Excuse me, absolutely wrong where? Well duuuuh, Shakuras favours macro-based play instead of rushing, I know that and never implied neither opposite nor that Shakuras is 'ideal map'.
So, where am I wrong again?
|
While I agree that the naturals are waaayyy to wide and Zerg can have an easy win. I still think we should give it more than a week for new strats to come
|
Granted I haven't really played the new maps against good players yet, I have messed around on them with some training partners, and I gotta say, the gulch map's natural confuses me to no end. The removal of shak plat. is kinda silly, although the map was a tad stale in that there was 1.5 ways to attack your opponent. I really don't understand why they though having an unwallable natural in lost temple would improve the map, and I also don't understand why they elected to make naturals that are just really difficult to defend. It's almost like blizzard wants people to one base, with a second as their end game plan, or something. Only being able to defend your nat with a seige tank? Being forced to build two sets of static defense to defend an expo?
It's almost like they're trying to move away from BW's play style.
|
On March 01 2011 07:07 Liquid`Jinro 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. Its a pretty big map, terran wont be able to pressure either of the other races if they expand, ergo you need to expand yourself (or do something thats a lot more allin than simple pressure into expo). So, no, I simply wont play this map and hopefully tournament organizers will decide not to use it when every single pro-player they talk to tells them the same thing; that its a bad map and a bad idea. Btw its not like Im talking about a 1 rax no gas CC here, OK? Even if you 2 rax CC, which is the most standard build in existance, there is just no way you are going to hold an allin with this layout.
If the other race expanded and macro, is it safe to say that you can possibly defend against aggression? Therefore, if you scout macro go macro scout aggression go one-base? This is what I'm getting at. You can't ever expect to FE and hold an all-in vs anybody that is at your own level. Why expect you can get away with it on this map? Sure, Protoss 1-gate FE is sometimes possible to stop 4 rax all-in. However, most of the time 4 rax all-in actually rapes 1 gate FE, no matter how many sentries you have.
|
I love how LT as not really thrown out, only slightly modified and renamed. I actually like more the new LT. I think we can all agree DQ should have gone out and Shakuras should have been kept.
I have mixed feelings for the new maps in 1v1. I really do not know what to think of them. Lets just give them time and see what they grow up to be like.
On the 2v2 maps, they seem really cool. There will be interesting matches played in them for sure.
On the new 4v4, simply hate it. Did they really have to include that natural in up top and at the bottom in the center of the shared mains? I already see people in the same team fighting for it. Besides, that is the only easy to protect natural there is in that new map.
I am sure games in that map will mostly be short and boring... :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
