|
On March 02 2011 00:44 TT1 wrote: excellent map pool apart from scrap station, one of the most horrible maps for toss
They have to put it in there so you won't waste your veto on a good map ^^
|
On March 02 2011 04:46 Raiznhell wrote: What I don't like is how there is NO close positions at all. Like if ramps cannot be blocked anymore then why not keep close positions in it adds an entertaining element to the game I mean i get that Zerg players whine a whole bunch about it but it's not like their win-rate in close positions is less than 40%. It's like people are trying to eliminate cheese altogether and also trying to make the game favor 1 race. People forget cheese is still done SO often in BW and also there are maps where close positions is a factor like Python for example.
Otherwise I do love the maps but rigging them has me feeling uncomfortable.
I'd actually be surprised if it was even 40% close positions.
Either way it's not close entirely that's the problem, it's close on metal/LT/ST that's the issue. On those maps Zerg is pretty much forced into 2 base play given the layout of the map. There's no accessible 3rd when you are in close positions and any 2 base T/P player generally demands a 3rd. With the layout as it is it's very difficult to properly defend a remote 3rd on those maps, especially with drops, hellions, creep, and warp-in mechanics. Likewise the timings on those maps get pretty thrown off close positions just due to how close the maps actually are. You could definitely design maps that work with close positions. Shakuras, if it was longer vertically, could work close positions because it'd still be viable for Zerg to get 3-4 bases even when they spawn close positions. If you look at python you'll see that even spawning close positions doesn't prevent multiple expansions. Players are free to expand along the sides of the maps away from the other players in such a way that doesn't expose a huge vulnerability or a completely new attack route. Basically in Python there's still some general common areas you can position your army to defend your main, natural, and 3rd. In close metal there's no such thing. Your army is either defending the main/nat or defending the 3rd. Metal/LT are also too small/cramped in the middle to be able to hold middle ground to deny attack routes towards a 3rd (though ST is better about this). Zerg can't really hold a mid-map position on these maps to deny attacks on their 3rds.
So EVEN if the winrates are balanced it's still bad because it causes games to be 1-2 base all-ins and busts with little to no chance of progressing beyond that.
|
Very, very awesome as well as eliminating problematic spawn positions and ramp shenanigans. They kept in crap station though...
And Testbug looks really awesome! I like how more mapmakers are taking advantage of the way texturing works and having each side of the map have a different theme.
There was a map in the map forum where it was volcanic at the top, forrest/grass in the middle, and then beach at the bottom. So it was like this Hawaiian island theme overall.
|
I think this is a massive step in the right direction by MLG. Hopefully with tournaments like MLG, GSL and ESL using better maps, more macro orientated, more balanced etc it might put a little bit more pressure on Blizzard to fix maps in the pool. Hopefully.
|
I absolutely love that they listened are being one of the first big tournaments to finally implement good maps (anything better than the current ladder map pool).
What I really don't like, like drewbie succinctly said (lol), is that cross positions may be more favorable for Zerg in ZvT. I agree that some maps were coinflips, but...you gotta remember there were two sides of the coin. Close positions it was ez mode for TvZ, far positions it was ez mode for ZvT...
-_-
|
On March 02 2011 10:25 avilo wrote: I absolutely love that they listened are being one of the first big tournaments to finally implement good maps (anything better than the current ladder map pool).
What I really don't like, like drewbie succinctly said (lol), is that cross positions may be more favorable for Zerg in ZvT. I agree that some maps were coinflips, but...you gotta remember there were two sides of the coin. Close positions it was ez mode for TvZ, far positions it was ez mode for ZvT...
-_-
While you have a point, I'd say that the favorable spots for Terran gave a much larger advantage than a favorable spot for Zerg. Close positions would give T a MAJOR advantage, while cross gave Zerg a slight/moderate.
|
don't like scrap, but glad they kept shakuras despite the fact blizzard ditched it from the pool
|
good map selection, the changes are also great. I like balancing with maps its already proven to provide better games in gsl.
|
It's going to be interesting to see how some of the cheesier players adapt to the inability to wall off ramps in vZ.
|
On March 02 2011 14:57 JerKy wrote: It's going to be interesting to see how some of the cheesier players adapt to the inability to wall off ramps in vZ.
I agree.
More notably, I think its weird MLG went with building blockers. Instead, why not use a lowered supply depo? Maybe its too big but... the building blocker makes it impossible to ever wall off, while the lowered supply depo would only prevent it as early game cheese.
|
I'm just worried that the building blockers might mess with the simcity of something like a forge FE, force different building placement than is practiced on ladder.
|
Here are screenshots of how the building blockers work on some of the MLG maps. They don't seem to screw any simcity I'm aware of except for ramp blocking.
Metalopolis: + Show Spoiler +
Shattered temple: + Show Spoiler +
Shakuras Plateau: + Show Spoiler +
|
So i just played Meta from the mlg pool. The fact that u can't spawn close ground positions is retarded. By doing this your taking out certain elements from the game allowing zerg to be as greedy as they want. They don't have any pressure to worry about now. Also, not being able to wall at the bottom of your ramp is also silly. I can understand you guys want to prevent the whole bunker rush/pylon shenanigans but it also takes away from non rush tactics. I would love to know who thought if this idea. --
|
Now that the 3 gsl maps are going to be in ladder, I wonder if they will change the pool straight away or wait...probably the latter.
|
On March 02 2011 14:43 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 10:25 avilo wrote: I absolutely love that they listened are being one of the first big tournaments to finally implement good maps (anything better than the current ladder map pool).
What I really don't like, like drewbie succinctly said (lol), is that cross positions may be more favorable for Zerg in ZvT. I agree that some maps were coinflips, but...you gotta remember there were two sides of the coin. Close positions it was ez mode for TvZ, far positions it was ez mode for ZvT...
-_- While you have a point, I'd say that the favorable spots for Terran gave a much larger advantage than a favorable spot for Zerg. Close positions would give T a MAJOR advantage, while cross gave Zerg a slight/moderate.
Actually cross map meta is huge favored for zerg. They can drone up to 45 drones without having to make more than 6 lings rofl. Talk about being economically ahead. Its silly. Even if terran goes 1 rax f/e you are still way behind data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt=""
|
On March 09 2011 13:13 ReachTheSky wrote: So i just played Meta from the mlg pool. The fact that u can't spawn close ground positions is retarded. By doing this your taking out certain elements from the game allowing zerg to be as greedy as they want. They don't have any pressure to worry about now. Also, not being able to wall at the bottom of your ramp is also silly. I can understand you guys want to prevent the whole bunker rush/pylon shenanigans but it also takes away from non rush tactics. I would love to know who thought if this idea. --
Terran's and Protoss' can still be as aggressive as they want. They just won't have a 100% win with a timing push that Z's can't stop (or if they stop it, they have to sacrifice a huge amount of economy that will be a detriment later on).
There is no way you can say that Zergs don't have to worry about pressure any more. This is the least accurate statement ever. Two base 5-6 gate Protoss pushes and 2 Rax Terran openings still apply a lot of pressure to the Zerg without automatically killing him.
|
On March 02 2011 14:43 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 10:25 avilo wrote: I absolutely love that they listened are being one of the first big tournaments to finally implement good maps (anything better than the current ladder map pool).
What I really don't like, like drewbie succinctly said (lol), is that cross positions may be more favorable for Zerg in ZvT. I agree that some maps were coinflips, but...you gotta remember there were two sides of the coin. Close positions it was ez mode for TvZ, far positions it was ez mode for ZvT...
-_- While you have a point, I'd say that the favorable spots for Terran gave a much larger advantage than a favorable spot for Zerg. Close positions would give T a MAJOR advantage, while cross gave Zerg a slight/moderate.
Also, terran advantageous positions make for shitty short games that everybody is sick of.
|
On March 09 2011 13:13 ReachTheSky wrote: So i just played Meta from the mlg pool. The fact that u can't spawn close ground positions is retarded. By doing this your taking out certain elements from the game allowing zerg to be as greedy as they want. They don't have any pressure to worry about now. Also, not being able to wall at the bottom of your ramp is also silly. I can understand you guys want to prevent the whole bunker rush/pylon shenanigans but it also takes away from non rush tactics. I would love to know who thought if this idea. --
Also I think the wall in on the bottom of the ramp was something mlg was trying to "fix". With it zergs would have to send a drone at 7 or 8 to be able to have a chance to scout, which would just be too early and too taxing on the zergs early game economy. And if zergs are gonna be greedy why don't you be greedy back? i expect to see some CC first builds to keep zergs' economies from getting out of hand.
|
On March 01 2011 08:50 Brutus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 08:46 Asha` wrote:http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/mlg/mlg-starcraft-2-map-pool/MLG Metalopolis* MLG Scrap Station MLG Shakuras Plateau* MLG Shattered Temple* MLG Xel'Naga Caverns* MLG ICCup Testbug* MLG GSL Crossfire SE Key notes are the decisions to prevent close spawns on Meta and Shattered Temple, as well as forcing Shakuras to be cross pos only.
All maps marked with a * will have building blockers at the ramp to prevent the standard bunker/pylon walling in kind of bullshit. === A great selection imo, really glad to see them taking steps to rule out some of the more unfavourable spawn locations, and absolutely thrilled to see Testbug in there. (hope this warranted an actual thread) This is a huge change which makes the maps exactly 684% more awesome. I have been thinking about that since shakuras plateau, great change imo.
im sure every zerg player agrees. kinda ridiculous to make a map ONLY zerg favored.
|
This is a very nice move by MLG. Prevents a lot of crappy games. Though the only concern I have is that Blizzard still has a really crappy map pool out there for everyone to ladder. CHANGE IT BLIZZARD!
|
|
|
|