|
On March 01 2011 07:13 carloselcoco wrote:
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.
To be fair, they fixed some problems with LT.
I do like that they removed the cliffs at the naturals. That makes it alot harder for drops to end a game against someone who expanded. That was needed. It's also nice that they made the middle alot more open, and made a third that's not terribly difficult to defend (after you tear down the rocks), unless, of course, you spawn close to your opponent.
I do agree that DQ should have been removed instead of shak. I don't like shak that much, but DQ is a pretty terrible map.
edit; on the topic of LT, they probably didn't want to take too long to make all the maps, since they were probably rushing to get these out, so they chose a template that people didn't mind too much (it's a pretty popular map, regardless of general sillyness). Lt got picked.
Thank god it wasn't DQ!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 01 2011 07:13 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 07:07 Liquid`Jinro wrote: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... ![[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. 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.
Actually, 1 gate nex might be pretty safe vs 4 rax allin (not a 4 rax scv marine allin but thats a retarded allin, and its fine if a build dies to a retarded allin that almost nobody is gonna use). It easily defends 3 rax stim+shield timing attack, because by the time those two upgrades are done the 6 gate has kicked in.
Also, due to force fields you can so easily keep the terran out as soon as he stims, and with no medivacs, well, it sucks to stim again. In addition, the map is big meaning slow reinforcements (not so for Z or P due to speedlings and warpin).
And again, lets say you cant 1 gate nex (its pretty likely afterall), is it really a good thing that everyone is forced into playing scared? The game is not fun or deep at 1 base vs 1 base, its basically PvP which everyone hates.
Scouting is not nearly as easy as you make it seem, especially vs zerg. What unit are you gonna scout with exactly? Speedlings stop all scouting that isnt a scan, and scanning means no mules and a 50% chance of seeing what hes teching to, if anything.
Scouting a protoss, yeah ok - how? He can build his tech and gateways anywhere he wants and 1 gate nexus and 4 gate allin look the same to an scv scout, which means you have to rely on a reaper scout, or doing some kind of factory build which is far from ideal on a map thats kinda big, where you want to expand because you cant hurt them if they expand anyway.
Doing overly safe builds is fine when you play worse players, not fine when you play good players.
And above all else: forcing players into this kind of super safe mould, limits you to just a couple of openings. This is bad for any ladder map.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
You can't ever expect to FE and hold an all-in vs anybody that is at your own level.
I guess this is the premise of your argument, that allowing this to happen would be bad (I'll be charitable and discount your attempt to teach Jinro how to time his expos...). Please justify that.
I mean, this happens in BW quite often (FEs holding against all-ins) and I don't see why SC2 would be necessarily worse off should this become the case.
|
Time to actually start vetoing maps.
|
On March 01 2011 07:13 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 07:07 Liquid`Jinro wrote: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.
Yeah, so both players are just waiting the other player to make a move. In other words, both are one basing, because expanding is too risky if the other player attacks. Is this what you are saying? Then you are suddenly agreeing with everyone else here.
|
On March 01 2011 06:43 RifleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 06:41 FrankWalls wrote: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.
And that really is due to map size. In BW, the map sizes were forgiving. You could take the expo and not get immediately destroyed by an army that's 10 food up on yours. That's what's making SC2 such a crapshoot sometimes, the tiny map sizes.
|
I enjoyed playing on some of these maps, but your natural can be really exposed since there is like 3 different routes to it.
|
The tears of IdrA and Artosis have swayed Blizzard
|
On March 01 2011 09:53 eeniebear wrote:
And that really is due to map size. In BW, the map sizes were forgiving. You could take the expo and not get immediately destroyed by an army that's 10 food up on yours. That's what's making SC2 such a crapshoot sometimes, the tiny map sizes.
To quote you map tileset sizes.
Scrap Station - Medium
Xel'Naga Caverns - Small
Backwater Gulch - Small
Delta Quadrant - Medium
Metalopolis - Small
Slag Pits - Small
Shattered Temple - Small
Typhon Peaks - Medium.
.... yep.
|
On March 01 2011 09:53 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 06:43 RifleCow wrote:On March 01 2011 06:41 FrankWalls wrote: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. And that really is due to map size. In BW, the map sizes were forgiving. You could take the expo and not get immediately destroyed by an army that's 10 food up on yours. That's what's making SC2 such a crapshoot sometimes, the tiny map sizes.
This point is a good one and I'd venture the best example of how it's true is PvP. SC2 PvP seems to be the worst matchup to watch and play, maybe even worse than BW ZvZ. Warp gate tech, while extremely interesting and fun, shrinks maps. You can see this effect by something like one stalker swaying a battle when the defender's advantage is completely negated.
|
On March 01 2011 07:32 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Actually, 1 gate nex might be pretty safe vs 4 rax allin (not a 4 rax scv marine allin but thats a retarded allin, and its fine if a build dies to a retarded allin that almost nobody is gonna use). It easily defends 3 rax stim+shield timing attack, because by the time those two upgrades are done the 6 gate has kicked in.
Also, due to force fields you can so easily keep the terran out as soon as he stims, and with no medivacs, well, it sucks to stim again. In addition, the map is big meaning slow reinforcements (not so for Z or P due to speedlings and warpin).
And again, lets say you cant 1 gate nex (its pretty likely afterall), is it really a good thing that everyone is forced into playing scared? The game is not fun or deep at 1 base vs 1 base, its basically PvP which everyone hates.
Scouting is not nearly as easy as you make it seem, especially vs zerg. What unit are you gonna scout with exactly? Speedlings stop all scouting that isnt a scan, and scanning means no mules and a 50% chance of seeing what hes teching to, if anything.
Scouting a protoss, yeah ok - how? He can build his tech and gateways anywhere he wants and 1 gate nexus and 4 gate allin look the same to an scv scout, which means you have to rely on a reaper scout, or doing some kind of factory build which is far from ideal on a map thats kinda big, where you want to expand because you cant hurt them if they expand anyway.
Doing overly safe builds is fine when you play worse players, not fine when you play good players.
And above all else: forcing players into this kind of super safe mould, limits you to just a couple of openings. This is bad for any ladder map.
Way to bash my obsessive scanning :<
I hate mutalisks so very much that I 1 rax FE into blueflame/thor rush every single tvz. It's insane that I just don't understand how we're supposed to hold off critical mass mutalisks with just stimmed marines or immediately spending 1k minerals on turrets covering every hole. And that around the ten minute mark he can have 12 mutas. which necessitates your entire marine army to confront them properly without a thor.
But +1 on protoss scouting. I can't wait for the proxy tech to really start coming into the forefront, and unless you have units patrolling EVERYWHERE, a DT rush can end you.
|
On March 01 2011 11:19 Honeybadger wrote:
I hate mutalisks so very much that I 1 rax FE into blueflame/thor rush every single tvz. It's insane that I just don't understand how we're supposed to hold off critical mass mutalisks with just stimmed marines or immediately spending 1k minerals on turrets covering every hole. And that around the ten minute mark he can have 12 mutas. which necessitates your entire marine army to confront them properly without a thor.
Wuh? I imagine 12 marines and stim could quite easily scare away 12 mutalisks. I'm sure 12 mutalisks could kill 12 marines, but zerg does not want to make that trade. It would be like sacrificing your queen for a few pawns...
Sure 12 marines is not even half your marine force at 10 minutes?
|
The sad part about the fixes that make this new LT a decent map is that blizzard doesn't even realize how they fixed it. It had nothing to do with the island being "too defensible" and everything to do with the cliff. But hey, getting lucky with balance was how BW worked out so well, maybe they'll get lucky and break everything so badly that it becomes balanced in sc2.
|
I think we can come to the conclusion that Blizzard has a habit of "listening" to the community and then giving us the changes we asked for, but in a totally weird way. It's like they're a monkey paw that grants us our desires but twists it so we're unsatisfied.
|
On March 01 2011 11:08 Honeybadger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:53 eeniebear wrote:
And that really is due to map size. In BW, the map sizes were forgiving. You could take the expo and not get immediately destroyed by an army that's 10 food up on yours. That's what's making SC2 such a crapshoot sometimes, the tiny map sizes.
To quote you map tileset sizes. Scrap Station - Medium Xel'Naga Caverns - Small Backwater Gulch - Small Delta Quadrant - Medium Metalopolis - Small Slag Pits - Small Shattered Temple - Small Typhon Peaks - Medium. .... yep.
Never understood that. DQ is a medium and backwater is a small. Typhon and Delta are NOT the same size. but maybe they count expansions? idk but im kinda afraid of what a "large" blizzard map would be
|
Tileset sizes don't directly translate to map sizes.
|
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.
Sinatra, can you read english? You seem to keep misinterpreting statements to fuel your blind rage against everyone disagreeing with you. Where in his statement did he say the maps encourage all ins?
|
On March 01 2011 12:54 joshboy42 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:53 rS.Sinatra wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Sinatra, can you read english? You seem to keep misinterpreting statements to fuel your blind rage against everyone disagreeing with you. Where in his statement did he say the maps encourage all ins?
He jumped into the discussion, obviously on the other side of it (not on my side). The other side of the discussion was how new maps encourage one-base allins... maybe get some context.
I don't have blind rage to everyone disagreeing with me, I have pretty much one thought that I keep repeating. Its too early to tell if the new maps are bad.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 01 2011 14:13 rS.Sinatra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 12:54 joshboy42 wrote:On March 01 2011 05:53 rS.Sinatra wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Sinatra, can you read english? You seem to keep misinterpreting statements to fuel your blind rage against everyone disagreeing with you. Where in his statement did he say the maps encourage all ins? He jumped into the discussion, obviously on the other side of it (not on my side). The other side of the discussion was how new maps encourage one-base allins... maybe get some context. I don't have blind rage to everyone disagreeing with me, I have pretty much one thought that I keep repeating. Its too early to tell if the new maps are bad.
It really isnt, because they have features that on other, very similar maps, proved to be very bad. To see that a rock blocked super short push path between two nats is a bad idea, does not take testing - we have seen that on Shakuras, only this time its even shorter and does not even expose you to counter attacks as you literally push through your own front door into their nat....
It takes no testing to know that the natural on Backwater is a piece of shit.
If they fixed things like this, then yeah, we would need to do some testing to determine whether the maps are good.
On March 01 2011 11:19 Honeybadger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 07:32 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Actually, 1 gate nex might be pretty safe vs 4 rax allin (not a 4 rax scv marine allin but thats a retarded allin, and its fine if a build dies to a retarded allin that almost nobody is gonna use). It easily defends 3 rax stim+shield timing attack, because by the time those two upgrades are done the 6 gate has kicked in.
Also, due to force fields you can so easily keep the terran out as soon as he stims, and with no medivacs, well, it sucks to stim again. In addition, the map is big meaning slow reinforcements (not so for Z or P due to speedlings and warpin).
And again, lets say you cant 1 gate nex (its pretty likely afterall), is it really a good thing that everyone is forced into playing scared? The game is not fun or deep at 1 base vs 1 base, its basically PvP which everyone hates.
Scouting is not nearly as easy as you make it seem, especially vs zerg. What unit are you gonna scout with exactly? Speedlings stop all scouting that isnt a scan, and scanning means no mules and a 50% chance of seeing what hes teching to, if anything.
Scouting a protoss, yeah ok - how? He can build his tech and gateways anywhere he wants and 1 gate nexus and 4 gate allin look the same to an scv scout, which means you have to rely on a reaper scout, or doing some kind of factory build which is far from ideal on a map thats kinda big, where you want to expand because you cant hurt them if they expand anyway.
Doing overly safe builds is fine when you play worse players, not fine when you play good players.
And above all else: forcing players into this kind of super safe mould, limits you to just a couple of openings. This is bad for any ladder map. Way to bash my obsessive scanning :< I hate mutalisks so very much that I 1 rax FE into blueflame/thor rush every single tvz. It's insane that I just don't understand how we're supposed to hold off critical mass mutalisks with just stimmed marines or immediately spending 1k minerals on turrets covering every hole. And that around the ten minute mark he can have 12 mutas. which necessitates your entire marine army to confront them properly without a thor. But +1 on protoss scouting. I can't wait for the proxy tech to really start coming into the forefront, and unless you have units patrolling EVERYWHERE, a DT rush can end you.
What you need to do vs mutalisks is keep pressure constantly, with drops and threatening maneuvers. If you expo, sit in your main and wait for mutas, you are gonna end up wasting minerals on turrets way too soon.
Pressure/threaten, then when you have strong economy throwing down a whole bunch of turrrets doesnt really matter. Just cant be passive TvZ.
|
On March 01 2011 05:49 gray-fox wrote:Show nested quote +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:On March 01 2011 02:50 PJA wrote:
[quote]
If you are struggling PvZ on Backwater Gulch you really shouldn't be complaining about balance of maps imo. It's a bad PvZ macro map. For the Protoss, it's hard to wall off, it's hard to expand, and the Zerg gets a gold expo as their third base. I'm sure it's a great map for 1 base PvZ all-ins. Its not bad at all... on a map like Xel Naga, there actually is no ramp... your natural is wide open, save the destructible rocks on the path to the third. Maybe try a different building placement style or a different style of expansion. For example, you can semi-wall with zealot block on your main and then have your main army on/near the ramp / near your expo... doing this will do two things.. 1) it creates essentially a double barrier between speedlings and your base and 2) it protects your expansion by having your army up front. This is weaker if zerg has tons of mutalisks, but ask yourself, would having a closer ramp really help you in that situation? This is also weaker if zerg drops you, but ask yourself, if you were unprepared for a drop in any situation, would having a closer ramp to your NATURAL really have helped you? also, how often to zergs actually doom-drop.... (zergs are pretty uninnovative these days) So before you start complaining about the maps being bad simply b/c they aren't your beloved GSL maps, maybe take the time to find out the real problem (shortcut: the problem is you, you are the problem, refer to numerous threads on walling off/sim city/strategic placement/day9 on how to improve yourself). This thread is complete garbage. I wish it didn't exist. But since there are tons of people spewing their garbage and because blizzard actually listens, I feel it is important to repeat that it is way too early to actually criticize maps. Pretty much most people in this thread became "group-think" sheep that would bitch at ANY MAP no matter how awesome it is, if it isn't a GSL map that we see on TV. Get a grip. Maybe a month or two from now, I'll be like.. "oh hey, this map is fucking imba due to this *insert strategy yet to be seen* that totally favours *x race vs y race*" but even then, I probably overlooked a solution against such a strategy myself. So instead of thumbing the "YES vs NO" hate on the maps, maybe try spending some time to learn the maps before you spew all your BS about map imbalance and non-macro orientation because of not being able to wall off on certain maps. P.S. Blizzard: I hope the 400 or so people that actually voted the YES/NO are not portrayed as an accurate representation of the million+ people that play this game. Aka, poll is useless. There are plenty of explanations in the thread as to why these maps are terrible, especially when you consider the reasoning behind them. The Ramp on Gulch is retarded and the split nat makes it incredibly difficult to stop a 4gate. Slag pits has a retarded rush distance from close positions, the natural is stupidly far from the ramp, and siege tanks can hit the mineral line from a position outside the base. Typhon's natural is retardedly open. Even Jinro posted in this thread and agrees that these maps are awful. It may be very little time since being added, but it's painfully obvious that the maps are imbalanced and encourage one base all ins. Oh I'm sorry, the mighty Chinro posted about this in the thread? I guess we better just shut the shit down and stop the discussion altogether. Since God has spoken, no more shall be said. How about coming up with your own arguments instead of piggy-backing off other people's. Yes, true, the tank thing on Slag is awful, but at the same time I remember someone saying that it was a very zerg favored map. Why the sudden change that it is now Terran favored? Also, how does siege tank hitting main-mineral line equate to encouraging one-base allins? Typhon's natural "retardedly" open you say?! OH NOES, maybe you should put some structures there to minimize the surface area like you do on Metalopolis or Xel Naga or Delta Quadrant or Kulas Ravine or Desert Oasis... You act like I don't already. The problem with it is any form of two basing just gets destroyed from zerg pressure because force fields are completely ineffective with a natural that wide. It's not hard to see why it encourages all in play. Because your naturals are so difficult to defend, or siegeing the mineral line is possible, it encourages you to try to end the game before hand. The angry assumptions that I didn't come to any of these conclusions by myself are completely off base, considering I've played my fair share on these maps, as well as have had long discussions with my friends (all diamond - top 200 players) about these maps. You assume that people don't like the maps because they're blizzard maps as opposed to the features which we have talked about. Btw I'm Protoss, so i have no idea about the balance of ZvT and therefore haven't spoken about it. Oh, you are Protoss. I, am also Protoss. I felt that you knew about some ZvT balance since you brought Jinro (a terran player btw) into the discussion. Since you have just admitted to basically not knowing dick-shit about Terran, at least not TvT or TvZ, maybe don't bring in a professional Terran player in the discussion. So you are Protoss and you are having trouble with zerg pressure. 1) Zerg pressure means less zerg macro. Hold the pressure and you out-macro the zerg 2) Proper building placement and unit selection holds off zerg pressure. Since the map isn't actually as bad as you say it is (ie, its not a completely open map with flank options from every single direction) there are actually places and small nooks in the map where you can gain a small advantage from fighting at. 3) If zerg is using heavy aggression, you are ahead if you win. You lose obviously if you don't hold it. (See 1) That being said, after holding it, you are solidifying a victory by taking a 2nd/3rd after heavy aggression (provided you didn't cripple yourself in an attempt to hold it off). Why not bring Jinro into the discussion. The maps suck from a professional point of view. That alone tells you something. Its totally irrelevant whether the guy is terran or not. "hold the pressure and win the game".. we want long, even matches instead of a sealed victory after a zerg allin. I think the zerg chose to all-in.... are you saying the map has psychic powers making the zerg go allin? 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.
Have you ever considered the amount of mineral gathered by just switching 6 drone from your main to your natural early game ? It's huge man, just look a replay. But I agree that you can stay on 1 base during a certain period of time, still I think 3 hatch is too much in many composition (hydra roach don't need 3 hatch on 2 base obviously).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
