|
On March 01 2011 17:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 14:13 rS.Sinatra wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I'm still not convinced. Having a short-rock path may be an extra threat, but the corridor that runs through is basically a pit waiting to be stopped by well placed static/forcefields. Aside from that, not many people really take the time to use that path anyways since it does take time to break down rocks in the early game.
Backwater Gultch isn't your favourite map, still doesn't make it a piece of shit. I've been playing and watching others practice on it for a few hours today and aside from the cheese defence, there were some pretty interesting openings. Yeah, its pretty hard to defend your natural at first. The rocks do present a mid-game threat if you don't wall it off / sim-city it properly. However, once you get passed that stage it really isn't that bad. Also, I found that reaper harass is pretty strong on the map with all the cliffs involved.
Still not really favoured for any reason. If zerg gets greedy a P will just 4-gate and a Terran can do their scv all-in. If zerg actually plays standard, Terran can macro with harassment options still available while Toss decides between the 5 gate expo push or the 2-base void collo ball.
Reaper open is pretty annoying for a 1gate FE protoss too since the cliffs are there and the natural is farther away in walking distance. However, its not like its impossible to defend.
|
I know this thread is big, but now having played a few games on this map I'd like to post my thoughts:
Blackwater G: The awkward natural is really making it unnecessary hard to expand. Once a player is in the defensive it's safe to say you get constantly abused by the fact that you have a huge space to control. I think it cant be counted as a natural, because there is nothing natural about it. I do like the concept of having a third behind rocks, but why we do have rocks at your natural on top of everything is beyond me. I'm quite surprised that we once again have to deal with positional imbalance when it comes to the gold expansion. The space top-left or bottom-right starting-positions have to control thanks to the gold almost seems like a freeride in comparison to the others. Things like that really surprise me...
Slag Pits: Haven't played that many games on it but the natural is so brutally open and playing close position on this map feels like steppes of war, with two direct paths thanks to the rocks. Why this is not adressed by Blizzard while designing the map, I don't know.
Typhon Peaks: I only played a PvP on this map. Blinkstalkers are awesome on it. We have 3 different ways into your natural and with the rocks a possible 4th. I do like the center of the map and the lowground third, if you couldn't walk all around it Blizzard! If the lowground expansion was to be directly "docked" to your mainbase (but leave the "double" height similar to shakuras) I think this would have been a pretty awesome map. But as of right now, not bad, not good.
Shattered Temple: The most solid out of the 4 of course. I like it. The center feels a bit underdesigned, once you stand in there it feels like you're all alone :D
Just for the sake of mentioning it:
My absolute favorite map right now is Terminus RE. Loss or win, playing on it is great and is in my eyes the future of Starcraft 2.
|
Only, one 4v4 map and, it's shared bases?
|
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.
Delta Quadrant is supposed to be MEDIUM??? Because of all that airspace or something?
|
Anyone here who has pull with Blizzard, please ask why they are not including official GSL maps!?
This map change can be a good way to freshen up the ladder. Blizzard has created a lot of nice looking tilesets and it'd be great to see more of them. To me it makes the game more fun and I like the maps for that, but from a competitive perspective, a lot of tournaments are running on the old map pool rigtht now, so its going to make ladder less effective for preparing for that.
Also, I agree with most of what Sinatra/DeathDealer is saying.
|
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.
Well, you obviously can... and people DO. Just look at Nestea vs. Choya from last season's GSL, where his magical single ling turned out to be enough to defend a 4gate rush. Or for that matter, Nestea vs. Boxer this season if you don't like Choya or think a 4gate isn't an all-in.
On decent maps, you can defend your FE as Zerg. While Terran cannot do quite as fast an expand, if they can't at least defend a 2rax-expo from something reasonable, but aggressive (such as a 4gate, 4rax or some type of roach or baneling aggression build), then the map design is bad.
B. Gulch has all the signs of any terran expansion dying quickly... and while toss can at least FF and zerg has mobility, it doesn't really look much better for these races. Any map with a backdoor INTO your mineral line is going to be problematic to defend, especially if the distance between defending your natural and your main is so extremely far. Xel'naga has a backdoor into the mineral line of the nat, but at least the distance between nat and main is short.
|
Both the new maps for 1v1 made me facedesk a little bit, one has 3 entrances to the natural plus a destructo rocks ramp for an optional fourth. The other one has 3 entrances but features a rear expo with rocks on it. Neither ones are safe to fast expand on plus narrow entrances into the middle of the map central watch towers... tank heaven. I already hate zvt on those two maps and I havent played it yet.
http://www.teamliquid.net/userpoll/draw.php?poll_id=13099
http://www.teamliquid.net/userpoll/draw.php?poll_id=12041
Xel Naga Caverns : small map, natural hard to defend, choke far from the natural, B3 hard to defend (cliffs abuse).
Xel'Naga Caverns: I really don't know how to stop all-in pushes on this map. It is impossible to set up Spine Crawlers to cover your natural. They can just come in from the side and pick off one Crawler at a time until you're backed on one base. Maybe I need to set up 5 Crawlers at key points? 2 to guard the ramp, 2 to guard the far side of the natural, and one in between those two? After that early game nonsense, harass isn't a problem. And since Zerg normally has map control at the mid game, you can take the gold as your 3rd.
jungle basin is fine, shakuras sucks...
i dont understand where the problem is, to work with the iccup mapper... their maps are so much better.....
Few random quotes from "decent" people, some of them posting here.
The polls are quite hilarious as well.
|
On March 01 2011 22:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 07:13 rS.Sinatra wrote: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. 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. Well, you obviously can... and people DO. Just look at Nestea vs. Choya from last season's GSL, where his magical single ling turned out to be enough to defend a 4gate rush. Or for that matter, Nestea vs. Boxer this season if you don't like Choya or think a 4gate isn't an all-in. On decent maps, you can defend your FE as Zerg. While Terran cannot do quite as fast an expand, if they can't at least defend a 2rax-expo from something reasonable, but aggressive (such as a 4gate, 4rax or some type of roach or baneling aggression build), then the map design is bad. B. Gulch has all the signs of any terran expansion dying quickly... and while toss can at least FF and zerg has mobility, it doesn't really look much better for these races. Any map with a backdoor INTO your mineral line is going to be problematic to defend, especially if the distance between defending your natural and your main is so extremely far. Xel'naga has a backdoor into the mineral line of the nat, but at least the distance between nat and main is short.
Protoss really CAN'T FF the natural on Backwater. the ramp is about as big as the one on scrap. like Jinro said, the natural on that map is a piece of shit. you can't hope to defend an FE on that map, meaning you basically have to one base for a long time to be able to survive. this is problematic for all races, as a map that dictates how you need to play is a sign that it's a piece of crap. The idea of being able to take down rock to get to your third, and whichever rocks you take out changes based on where your opponent spawns is cool. however, that is not worth making the first expand ridiculously hard to defend. Yes people want harassable expansions. defendable ones are also nice though. I particularly like how they claim there are no exploitable formations on that map. it sounds like they never tested it to me
|
I just played a full day of laddering, and let me tell you...
Play zerg and drew close positions 12 times (read: 12, I'm not kidding) against P and T on Slag, Backwater, and ST. It was fun! And by fun, I mean auto lose.
|
Slag is actually really awesome if you don't draw close positions, only reason why it's not vetoed along with ST (shame really, I didn't want to, but when the close pos rush distance is even shorter than LT... sry, not interested in auto-losing 33% of the time...). I don't know why they don't introduce shakruas style spawns on this map. Oh, and Backwater is a joke.
|
What I can't believe is that on all 3 new maps they added double rocks with very short path to naturals. I mean everyone hates this crap but they still needs to add that on every single map. No words..
|
On March 01 2011 21:48 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 11:08 Honeybadger wrote: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. Delta Quadrant is supposed to be MEDIUM??? Because of all that airspace or something?
Probably. There's a ton of wasted space on DQ. If it was built to near the edges of the tileset it would be a much larger map.
|
slag pit close position needs help. wonder why blizzard doesn't just stretch the map out so there are no maps with close spawns
|
On March 01 2011 07:32 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 07:13 rS.Sinatra wrote: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. 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.
Hey Jinro, can you give us your thoughts on some of the other maps? I just made a post saying that Slag Pits is actually a lot of fun if you don't draw close positions. Do you agree with this?
Also I think it's really cool to see a tip-top pro actively engaging with average level players, even if you are my mortal terran enemy  . Keep it up man, some people are dumb, but all players appreciate your input.
EDIT: nevermind, saw an earlier post of yours saying you don't like any of the new maps but the new LT, lol. I suppose you dislike slag because it is so spawn dependent? But couldn't you make a similar argument for shattered temple?
|
On March 01 2011 12:12 raf3776 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 11:08 Honeybadger wrote: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
Fun to play with an absolutely minimal risk of losing to some kind of all-in?
I've just played some 2v2 with a friend, and I was shocked at how terribly they were designed. One of them had my teammate start with a large ramp and a backdoor into his main, while I hadn't. Guess who died first.
|
Backwater gulch is really an awfull map, and so is slag pits.
The nat is impossible to defend on backwater, and the destructible rocks are even worse because if you're lucky (or not), you have an 3rd area to defend ? and can't counter attack ? wtf. That's like the most imbalanced map ever.
Slag pits is crap. Where is my 3rd ?
The new LT is very good.
And the last map... I don't know !
|
On March 01 2011 17:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 14:13 rS.Sinatra wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 11:19 Honeybadger wrote: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.
Jinro, I'm not sure you understand how much we <3 you. I assume your time is very valuable and here you are providing your insight on a very dramatic change to our laddering experience. And you are so mannered! Even to the people that are pretty rude to you. I do understand where Sinatra is coming from, there is a bad tendency in the community to jump to conclusions, even when they don't know what they're talking about, and it can be frustrating, especially for a high level player. I do find it pretty clear that if Blizzard wanted macro games out of these maps they didn't accomplish that very well, and the positional imbalance is pretty damn incredible on all the maps. I don't think they wanted games decided by the die roll before the game even starts.
Jinro, I'm curious what you're working on these days. Are you just practicing the GSL maps and ignoring ladder entirely? That seems completely reasonable, but I was wondering what kinds of strategies and openings you're using on these maps if you are laddering. It's interesting that you say you can't be passive against Zerg, yet your macro style appears deceptively passive. I think it's because you aren't constantly pushing the front but you do apply pressure in the right places. Part of that is pretty fast medivacs rather than tanks, a choice that feels risky at first glance but gives you much more early harrassment potential. That style seems good for some of the new maps since controlling space with a couple tanks can be hard with the design of the naturals. I've actually been opening with hellions to take advantage of that design and get my natural up and running while I have that map control, but it still feels a little fragile to fast roaches. On Slag Pits and Typhon Peaks for example, spinecrawlers don't cover enough to stop drone and ling losses, but at the same time there's really no good place to bunker up against roaches. I hate to think I'm not allowed to fast expand against Zerg anymore.
A bright spot is that new builds and strategies might become viable, but I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard removes or makes changes to the new maps after the massive public and professional outcry against them. It wouldn't take too much effort to bring them into acceptable territory, except the design of Backwater Gulch might just be too screwed up. I think all the major tournaments still have Shakuras Plateau in their pools so I expect that it will be back on ladder before too long. Perhaps i'm too optimistic
|
On March 01 2011 21:48 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 11:08 Honeybadger wrote: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. Delta Quadrant is supposed to be MEDIUM??? Because of all that airspace or something?
The middle is actually pretty big and all your natural always goes towards your enemy.
|
why is it not possible to make real 2 player maps with just 2 spots like xc and scrap?honestly the changes for lost temple are useless if you get close position
i took a look on the non-used 1v1 maps in the overall map pool and a few are really good imo and would deserve a chance
|
TBH they should have - Delta Quad instead of Shakuras. I loved Shakuras for allowing me to practice my macro and whatnot
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
