MLG 2011 map pool announced - Page 16

Backpack

United States1776 Posts

March 01 2011 20:35 GMT

#301

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 ^^

Logo

United States7542 Posts

March 01 2011 20:50 GMT

#302

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.

Ownos

United States2147 Posts

March 01 2011 21:02 GMT

#303

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.

Teras

Great Britain103 Posts

March 01 2011 22:56 GMT

#304

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.

avilo

United States4100 Posts

March 02 2011 01:25 GMT

#305

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...

-_-

FabledIntegral

United States9232 Posts

March 02 2011 05:43 GMT

#306

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.

arterian

Canada1157 Posts

March 02 2011 05:50 GMT

#307

don't like scrap, but glad they kept shakuras despite the fact blizzard ditched it from the pool

kvn4444

1510 Posts

March 02 2011 05:54 GMT

#308

good map selection, the changes are also great. I like balancing with maps its already proven to provide better games in gsl.

JerKy

Korea (South)3013 Posts

March 02 2011 05:57 GMT

#309

It's going to be interesting to see how some of the cheesier players adapt to the inability to wall off ramps in vZ.

monitor

United States2404 Posts

March 02 2011 06:05 GMT

#310

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.

phantaxx

United States201 Posts

March 02 2011 06:15 GMT

#311

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.

LagT_T

Argentina535 Posts

March 02 2011 07:50 GMT

#312

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 +

ReachTheSky

United States3294 Posts

March 09 2011 04:13 GMT

#313

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. --

rift

1819 Posts

March 09 2011 04:15 GMT

#314

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.

ReachTheSky

United States3294 Posts

March 09 2011 04:16 GMT

#315

On March 02 2011 14:43 FabledIntegral wrote:

Show nested quote +

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

mprs

Canada2933 Posts

March 09 2011 04:19 GMT

#316

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.

Bosu

United States3247 Posts

March 09 2011 04:20 GMT

#317

On March 02 2011 14:43 FabledIntegral wrote:

Show nested quote +

Also, terran advantageous positions make for shitty short games that everybody is sick of.

BrodiaQ

United States892 Posts

March 09 2011 04:27 GMT

#318

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.

PhiliBiRD

United States2643 Posts

March 09 2011 04:33 GMT

#319

On March 01 2011 08:50 Brutus wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

cHaNg-sTa

United States1058 Posts

March 09 2011 04:34 GMT

#320

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!

Prev 1 14 15 16 All

Please or register to reply.

MLG 2011 map pool announced - Page 16

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming