|
United Kingdom38205 Posts
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)
|
looks great. hopefully a tournament standard comes along soon, or maybe NASL adopts these maps?
|
I agree with these changes. We'll definitely see less of that walling in Zerg with Bunker/Pylon bullshit and close spawn abuse. Nothing further to add to my comments :/
|
Just saw this on the MLG forums, I'm officially excited and can't wait to see how testbug works out.
|
Seems like the maps are already up on battlenet if people want to try them out.
|
|
|
Pretty decent map pool IMO, only Scrap Station and Shattered Temple I don't like but that's just my opinion, they're certainly decent enough for a tournament pool. Love the edits they're making to prevent awful spawns and ramp walling.
|
awesome !
Good decisions by MLG all around! Maybe they could've taken another GSL map instead of Scrap Station or Crossfire, but it still looks very good.
|
not bad, but 1-2 more gsl-maps wouldn't hurt... SS is getting boring too....
|
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.
|
I like how they included testbug, love that map
|
It's really cool to see the big tournaments using different maps and making modifications to the current ones. Hopefully Blizzard will realize soon enough when the pros are shunning their map pool, changes need to be made.
|
I don't agree with Crossfire for the GSL map selection. TBH, I feel like the map doesn't play out too well in general. That might be way a lot of GSL players remove it.
EDIT: I also don't agree with having a 4 player map with ONLY cross positions. Sure, the backdoor could be problematic but that's why there are other maps to choose from.
|
Great map pool! I also like the modifications to the maps. Good job MLG.
|
No Tal'Darim, Terminus or Crevasse, but other weaker maps that are not in the ladder. Considering MLG's stance on map changes last year, I can't see them changing their minds the entire season.
|
YES, TESTBUG IS IN! I love you MLG.
|
Surprised they chose Crossfire over Tal'Darim Altar or Crevasse. Crossfire seems like it could be a bit unbalanced for tanks and colossi.
The changes are overall pretty good, and should make the maps more balanced, but hopefully there will be better maps in the future and they won't have to turn to modifying existing maps so much.
|
Nice! Really like the spawn positions changes. Would have liked to see Terminus RE rather than crossfire, but maybe that's just because I haven't seen enough of crossfire. Anyone recommend any good games on it?
|
That is so awesome. Way to go MLG, taking some initiative and setting a standard for cross map/no close spawns. Hope other tournaments pick this up. Way to go.
|
Very happy to see this. Props to MLG
|
Really great map pool and changes. Should make for much better games. Good job MLG.
|
Definitely a step in the right direction, although Crevasse would've been a good addition. And also I find it strange they decided to go with Neo LT so fast.
|
Preventing close spawns and forcing cross pos. is ridiculous IMO. Then it seems like there's no point for them to be playing on 2v2 maps. Part of being on the 2v2 maps is scouting to see where your opponent is and adjusting accordingly...
|
|
|
I can see why you'd want to prevent metal and LT close positions, but forcing shakuras cross positions? Please. It's a great zerg pool even without that.
|
...Good maps, however would have liked to see a couple more maps for variety.
Edit: oh wow blocking close spawns on some of these maps.
I might actually like Metal now.
|
On March 01 2011 08:52 rift wrote:
No GSL maps, but weaker maps that are not in the ladder. Predictable..
-_-...
Good selection and I look forward to watching this tournament even more so now!
It will be interesting to see the building blockers in action as well.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
scrap station  Love all the other maps... I think it is overall a good thing that they are working so hard to prevent map imbalances.
|
I agree on the no close positions on ST and Metal (from a Protoss frustrated by concussive shell perspective), but I also think preventing horizontal spawn on Shakuras is a bit of an overkill.
Also kinda sad that Scrap Station is still in it and Tal'darim Altar or Taminus RE are not, but I understand it since they prob wanted to keep as many ladder maps (ladder practice) and still take few community (GSL + ICCup) and one fan favorite (Shakuras).
|
Not a fan of the Crossfire selection, but hey, it's still better than a lot of the maps in the current ladder pool.
I love the decision to prevent close spawn positions on Metal, Shattered and Shakuras. What I don't really like is their decision to make the ramps unbunkerable (so not a word) and unable to be blocked via pylons. That seems to be babying Zergs a little too much. Expo before pool should be risky. If you don't have close positions, it's less so. With the inability to wall the Zerg in, it's completely gone.
But overall MLG seems to be doing a great job with this map pool for 2011. I'm sure the more macrocentric Zergs like IdrA are going to love this.
|
Most of my tvz builds rely on getting the supply-rax wall in at bottom of my ramp to prevent scouting and possible 6 pool all ins...
Also, having only cross position really favours zergs :/ and limits strategies
Good job to MLG regardless
|
pretty great map pool overall and great choices with ramp change to prevent bunker block and changes to spawn locations
players get 1 map veto choice right?
|
This is unreal for me o_o
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
With the absence of any four player spawning maps on the pool, I also would've liked to see Terminus or Tal'Darim in over Peaks of Crossfire. But overall, it's a great pool, and I'm excited to see how Testbug holds up!
Grats ICCup team!
On March 01 2011 08:59 Superouman wrote:
This is unreal for me o_o
|
On March 01 2011 08:57 iNcontroL wrote:scrap station Love all the other maps... I think it is overall a good thing that they are working so hard to prevent map imbalances.
Pretty much this. I'm impressed because you could tell they didn't just half-ass this.
Also : On March 01 2011 08:55 Killerhands wrote:
Preventing close spawns and forcing cross pos. is ridiculous IMO. Then it seems like there's no point for them to be playing on 2v2 maps. Part of being on the 2v2 maps is scouting to see where your opponent is and adjusting accordingly...
All maps minus Shakuras still require positional scouting, additionally you still need to scout there base, it's literally a 15-30 second time saver to rule out a single base. Plus, merely seeing close positions as a Zerg on a map like Lost Temple puts you in a mindset that you're playing from behind, which is not something you want in a tournament (or ever, really).
|
On March 01 2011 08:52 rift wrote:
No Tal'Darim, Terminus or Crevasse, but other weaker maps that are not in the ladder. Considering MLG's stance on map changes last year, I can't see them changing their minds the entire season.
The only non ladder maps are Iccup testbug and GSL's Crossfire SE. State their weaknesses.
Masters' League map selection. Could be Grand Master if it wasn't for PvP on Scrap. Much love to MLG!
|
ugh this testbug map is going to be a huge pain to learn...
|
Most excited to see the ICCUP map in there. Cant wait to play on it.
|
Amazing Map Selection by MLG, Hope they are okay with changing maps if needed during the season. other then that this looks great.
|
Would rather another GSL map then crossfire but hey glad to see their adding customs  . Wish it was a different iccup map idk why I just dislike testbug one of the very few iccup maps I don't like but this MLG should be awesome :D.
No "terrible" maps and forcing no close positions on lt/meta wow good decision indeed and the shakuras change as well. Mad props to MLG for doing some good changes this will be a good first MLG :D
|
Gee, why not just make every map have 2 spawns, that way there is absolutely no chance a positional imbalance can occur. This new trend of disabling spawns is going to lead to boring, predictable play and a lazyness on the part of mapmakers. Why perfectly balance a 4-player map when you can just disable some spawns? I'm also startled by MLG's decision to use Shattered Temple when it is so far still in PTR testing, meaning there is very little qualitative information on how games will be played out.
Overall I can't say I'm too happy with this map pool. On one hand we get two custom maps (crossfire SE and Testbug, but Crossfire is hardly the best GSL map ...) and on the other hand we are still getting the same stagnant maps that have been out since Day 1 beta. You only have to look to the poll on the right to see the three most unfavored GSL maps happen to also be in MLG.
|
its what blizzard should have done with the maps
|
On March 01 2011 09:02 setzer wrote:
I'm also startled by MLG's decision to use Shattered Temple when it is so far still in PTR testing, meaning there is very little qualitative information on how games will be played out.
Mmmm, you sure about that? Last time I checked it's a ladder map, it was added a few days ago. Which allows for a month of ladder practice of it.
|
i know a lot of zerg players won't be happy no matter what mlg do, but this is immensely satisfying to see. takes out a lot of the coin flipping involved on metalopolis and temple at least. crossfire isnt the ideal gsl map for them to have included, but at least theyre making a nod to the gsl pool.
|
On March 01 2011 09:02 setzer wrote:
Gee, why not just make every map 2v2, that way there is absolutely no chance a positional imbalance can occur. This new trend of disabling spawns is going to lead to boring, predictable play and a lazyness on the part of mapmakers. Why perfectly balance a 4v4 map when you can just disable some spawns? I'm also startled by MLG's decision to use Shattered Temple when it is so far still in PTR testing, meaning there is very little qualitative information on how games will be played out.
Overall I can't say I'm too happy with this map pool. On one hand we get two custom maps (crossfire SE and Testbug, but Crossfire is hardly the best GSL map ...) and on the other hand we are still getting the same stagnant maps that have been out since Day 1 beta. You only have to look to the pole on the right to see the three most unfavored GSL maps happen to also be in MLG.
Shattered Temple replaced Lost Temple in the ladder pool two or three days ago
|
This is fucking great. Now if only Blizz could do the same (ie. disable close spawns etc etc)
|
Good maps and like the spawn changes!!
|
Would've definitely preferred Crevasse or TalDarim, but overall this is a great map pool. TestBug makes for good matchups.
Including shattered temple does make me nervous considering how MLG wouldn't change their pool before. I'd rather another ICCUP or GSL map over that map because there's some funkiness to it that still needs to be explored, I feel, before it can be called a good or bad map.
|
Repost of mine from the MLG format thread, concerning the same topic.
I'm suprised they have Crossfire, and as an observer I'm little disappointed we'll never be seeing Desert Oasis or Kulas Ravine again in a tournament (despite them being horribly imbalanced, I suppose Day[9]'s and DJWheat's showmatch and IdrA getting blunk was a worthy send off though).
I do think all revisions of Shakuras and Metalopolis should be using the MLG version of:
"Starting spawns on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple have been modified to prevent close ground spawns.
Starting spawns on Shakuras Plateau have been modified to ensure cross-map spawns only."
Does the low ground block also prevent low ground wall-ins such as Barracks/Supply depot? Regardless, as a whole I believe having an anti-pylon/bunker block is another beneficial feature that should be made default on other maps in order to promote lengthier games.
Yet with all these big maps, features to lengthen matches and perhaps uncertainty and unfamiliarity with them, will the MLG be running for longer than it currently has been since it will be less likely to have as many rush games.
|
sick 
not to found of crossfire tho, tal'darim is cooler 
but awesoem awesome
|
why would they make it 100% macro maps
i mean macro is the greatest skill determent but fuck its not all sc2
cheese, rush builds, and other early game tactics are still part of the game
(not saying that they wont be viable but thats the purpose of doing only cross positions right?)
|
omg, the modificated maps = epic
only thing I don't understand is why scrap station is still in tournament map pools..
|
I just realized that nexus/hatch first will be almost impossible.
|
Looks very cool!
I still don't understand Scrap Station being a favorite map for these tournaments though.
|
On March 01 2011 09:04 coddan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:02 setzer wrote:
Gee, why not just make every map 2v2, that way there is absolutely no chance a positional imbalance can occur. This new trend of disabling spawns is going to lead to boring, predictable play and a lazyness on the part of mapmakers. Why perfectly balance a 4v4 map when you can just disable some spawns? I'm also startled by MLG's decision to use Shattered Temple when it is so far still in PTR testing, meaning there is very little qualitative information on how games will be played out.
Overall I can't say I'm too happy with this map pool. On one hand we get two custom maps (crossfire SE and Testbug, but Crossfire is hardly the best GSL map ...) and on the other hand we are still getting the same stagnant maps that have been out since Day 1 beta. You only have to look to the pole on the right to see the three most unfavored GSL maps happen to also be in MLG. Shattered Temple replaced Lost Temple in the ladder pool two or three days ago
I was wrong about that, I thought it was PTR only. I'm still against the decision to use that map when other iccup and GSL maps have been around longer and have undergone more rigorous testing.
|
279 Posts
Thanks for the feedback all. Enforcing cross spawns was something we've been intending to for a while now.
Also, we will be revisiting map list after every event and will be adjusting throughout the year. I think I tweeted it last week, but we were being ultraconservative with changes last year because we were new on SC2. We have (hopefully) a better handle on it this season.
|
|
|
Looks ok to me, i would have prefered to see taldarim altar and/or terminus re over crossfire but i guess you cant have everything :>
enforcing cross on shakuras is more important than people realize. this is a really big issue in ZvT...
|
. So awesome!
|
This is what blizzards map pool should look like, props to MLG!
|
On March 01 2011 09:02 setzer wrote:
Gee, why not just make every map 2v2, that way there is absolutely no chance a positional imbalance can occur. This new trend of disabling spawns is going to lead to boring, predictable play and a lazyness on the part of mapmakers. Why perfectly balance a 4v4 map when you can just disable some spawns? I'm also startled by MLG's decision to use Shattered Temple when it is so far still in PTR testing, meaning there is very little qualitative information on how games will be played out.
Overall I can't say I'm too happy with this map pool. On one hand we get two custom maps (crossfire SE and Testbug, but Crossfire is hardly the best GSL map ...) and on the other hand we are still getting the same stagnant maps that have been out since Day 1 beta. You only have to look to the poll on the right to see the three most unfavored GSL maps happen to also be in MLG.
That is quite comical I have to say. heh
|
This is great news! I love the chosen maps and I think its awesome Testbug is in there!
|
On March 01 2011 09:07 MLG_Lee wrote:
Also, we will be revisiting map list after every event and will be adjusting throughout the year.
That is very awesome. Love these changes.
|
Canada13389 Posts
This is a step in the right direction. Let's see how this worksd out when actually being played though.
|
that...
is..
FUCKING
AMAZING!
OH MY GOD i love what MLG is turning this into....
first the GSL Maps... now custom versions of Blizzard maps... awe mah gawd!
|
WoW just wow.
Sure u can go and debate the choices, but its A HUGE improvment. Grats to ICCUP team. Testbug really deserves this. As most of the other readers I agree, that a real 4Player map of GSL/ICCUP would be a good choice in the pool.
The best thing of all the things u did is not the decision to go with the custom maps, it is to take the Blizzard maps that got true potential and modified them in a way that they will give the best base for great game.
Hooray for MLG.
Wouldnt it be great to have a international selection of guys that organize map pools for the big tournaments, to let ALL players have the same pool in every big tournament? This pool should be periodicly changed... oh dreams.
plz MLG/NASL/ESL work together, if u can get GSL into it. This would be so great. And to make the dream perfect...Get Blizzard involved, make them accept this organisation and let them put them on ladder, too
|
Cool! I am really glad MLG is being proactive with the maps... the mods are pretty significant too, can't wait to see the games that get churned out :D
On March 01 2011 08:59 Superouman wrote:
This is unreal for me o_o
Congrats man
edit:question answered upon reading closer
|
279 Posts
On March 01 2011 08:59 Superouman wrote:
This is unreal for me o_o
<3u.
|
On March 01 2011 08:57 iNcontroL wrote:scrap station Love all the other maps... I think it is overall a good thing that they are working so hard to prevent map imbalances.
Lol Whats wrong with Scrap? Is been here forever.
|
MLG, I love you. For adding a community map, I'll be buying the HD stream this year.
|
On March 01 2011 09:10 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:02 setzer wrote:
Gee, why not just make every map 2v2, that way there is absolutely no chance a positional imbalance can occur. This new trend of disabling spawns is going to lead to boring, predictable play and a lazyness on the part of mapmakers. Why perfectly balance a 4v4 map when you can just disable some spawns? I'm also startled by MLG's decision to use Shattered Temple when it is so far still in PTR testing, meaning there is very little qualitative information on how games will be played out.
Overall I can't say I'm too happy with this map pool. On one hand we get two custom maps (crossfire SE and Testbug, but Crossfire is hardly the best GSL map ...) and on the other hand we are still getting the same stagnant maps that have been out since Day 1 beta. You only have to look to the poll on the right to see the three most unfavored GSL maps happen to also be in MLG. That is quite comical I have to say. heh
Same maps in both. But I wouldn't have needed THAT poll to tell you SS is probably the current most disliked map.
|
On March 01 2011 09:16 Cyanocyst wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 08:57 iNcontroL wrote:scrap station Love all the other maps... I think it is overall a good thing that they are working so hard to prevent map imbalances. Lol Whats wrong with Scrap? Is been here forever.
I'm pretty sure it's just a 4 gate fest in PvP.
|
On March 01 2011 09:16 Cyanocyst wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 08:57 iNcontroL wrote:scrap station Love all the other maps... I think it is overall a good thing that they are working so hard to prevent map imbalances. Lol Whats wrong with Scrap? Is been here forever.
PvP for ex, is "who can 4gate better".
|
Not a fan of the forced spawn locations. Glad Testbug is in though!
|
yayayay good maps, goooooo MLG! I kinda wish instead of temple or xel'naga they included crevasse or terminus, but this is good enough that I can't complain!
|
It's awesome that MLG took a bunch of criticism and, this season stepped the fuck up and took it into account. Tournament organizers are saving this game.
|
exciting, but i'm curious. What if the terran/toss decide to block themselves in from the bottom of the ramp? i see some terran's do this, maybe toss?? , doesn't this effect them? ie 2 rax at the bottom of the ramp
|
Blizzard needs to learn to take some fucking notes.
|
This is nearly a perfect map pool, considering the map climate. Well done MLG!
Not a fan of the forced spawn locations.
I am a huge fan of the forced spawn locations. The only reason they are doing it is to prevent garbage games. How can that be bad?
|
great move MLG, you'll be getting my support this year!
|
Great job MLG with map pick and modifications. Gonna be awesome.
|
On March 01 2011 09:17 Biigfoot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:16 Cyanocyst wrote:On March 01 2011 08:57 iNcontroL wrote:scrap station Love all the other maps... I think it is overall a good thing that they are working so hard to prevent map imbalances. Lol Whats wrong with Scrap? Is been here forever. I'm pretty sure it's just a 4 gate fest in PvP.
...ah ...yeah. Well i make sure to stay away from PvP. Excuse my lack of insight.
|
Absolutely fantastic map pool. Only thing I disagree with is choosing crossfire as the one GSL map, but I'm happy with the distribution anyway.
|
Man these are some awesome changes and maps to add (I especially like ICCUP Testbug).
I strongly agree with removing the possibility of close positions on Metalopolis. I always found it interesting though that this map could be played so differently depending on how you spawn. One map yet so many different types of games that can occur.
|
ya know with them editing the maps, i wonder if we'll see IN map advertisements? ie metal with those buildings that are in-between-air between bases(i hope that made sense) lol
|
On March 01 2011 09:22 theBullFrog wrote:
ya know with them editing the maps, i wonder if we'll see IN map advertisements? ie metal with those buildings that are in-between-air between bases(i hope that made sense) lol
*pst i'd like credit if thats a new idea* :D
I would assume not, Blizzard does not like the idea afaik, and from the iCCup side we are strictly against ads being anywhere but the load screens. I cannot speak for GSL maps or anyone else, but I know iCCup will NOT ever do that.
|
Wow! Thanks for the awesome decision-making, MLG
|
On March 01 2011 09:22 theBullFrog wrote:
ya know with them editing the maps, i wonder if we'll see IN map advertisements? ie metal with those buildings that are in-between-air between bases(i hope that made sense) lol
*pst i'd like credit if thats a new idea* :D
Am I mistaken or did Quake Live have this kind of thing?
|
Wow. Thats awesome!
Not that super big GSL Maps but a lot of cool and nice maps. Everything is pobbile on these aps. not like those Rushmaps by Blizzard or those "play macro or die" maps by gsl.
Im looking forward to see some cool games on those maps
|
This is so great seeing both mlg and gsl working to use maps that are actually good. I haven't seen any games on ICCUP Testbug yet but i can't wait because it looks super cool.
Congrats ICCUP map makers.
|
very nice changes, however i would really like to see Taldarim or Terminus.. such great maps.
|
On March 01 2011 09:19 SiguR wrote:
I am a huge fan of the forced spawn locations. The only reason they are doing it is to prevent garbage games. How can that be bad?
Probably because of the often overlooked component is how certain maps can be imbalanced with cross positions. For example, you'll often see people say metalopolis for TvZ favors T in close positions but Z in cross positions. I personally think such maps should be removed from the map pool, and denying the advantage from one side but not the other isnt the proper way around it.
I also am not a big fan of testbug. Such a weird map.
|
wouldn't it be awesome if we had maps that we DIDN'T need to take a spawn out of to be fair?
|
Very nice decision all around. Good job MLG admins!
|
Great map pool, players and spectators alike should be really excited.
We'll truly see the best players win this time around.
|
Great from MLG! After Kulas, this is surprising...
...heavenly ladder map pool...
...if only...
|
On March 01 2011 09:23 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:22 theBullFrog wrote:
ya know with them editing the maps, i wonder if we'll see IN map advertisements? ie metal with those buildings that are in-between-air between bases(i hope that made sense) lol
*pst i'd like credit if thats a new idea* :D I would assume not, Blizzard does not like the idea afaik, and from the iCCup side we are strictly against ads being anywhere but the load screens. I cannot speak for GSL maps or anyone else, but I know iCCup will NOT ever do that.
I liked maps that had the clan TAG written in the middle with minerals. Not saying I never not did that in BW once.
TDO hwaiting!
On a serious note, I could see it but I doubt it would go over well with Blizzard. Imagine making a tourney map and having the Kespa logo in it or another game developer that competes with Blizzard?
|
I am happy with this. Every time I see a close position spawn I just groan and contemplate not watching the game.
|
On March 01 2011 09:23 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:22 theBullFrog wrote:
ya know with them editing the maps, i wonder if we'll see IN map advertisements? ie metal with those buildings that are in-between-air between bases(i hope that made sense) lol
*pst i'd like credit if thats a new idea* :D I would assume not, Blizzard does not like the idea afaik, and from the iCCup side we are strictly against ads being anywhere but the load screens. I cannot speak for GSL maps or anyone else, but I know iCCup will NOT ever do that.
Yea, just curious. As a player I honestly wouldn't mind it, but as a spectator it would be kind of a "taking away from the game" feeling for ingame advertisement.
|
I want to know how the building blockers at the bottom of the ramp will work. In PvZ many protoss build a wall between their ramp and expo.
|
Starting spawns on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple have been modified to prevent close ground spawns.
Starting spawns on Shakuras Plateau have been modified to ensure cross-map spawns only.
This is just laughable. Why even have 4 player maps then? This change completely removes an important dimension of the game imo.
|
On March 01 2011 09:28 theBullFrog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:23 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On March 01 2011 09:22 theBullFrog wrote:
ya know with them editing the maps, i wonder if we'll see IN map advertisements? ie metal with those buildings that are in-between-air between bases(i hope that made sense) lol
*pst i'd like credit if thats a new idea* :D I would assume not, Blizzard does not like the idea afaik, and from the iCCup side we are strictly against ads being anywhere but the load screens. I cannot speak for GSL maps or anyone else, but I know iCCup will NOT ever do that. Yea, just curious. As a player I honestly wouldn't mind it, but as a spectator it would be kind of a "taking away from the game" feeling for ingame advertisement.
That's our concern. I know it pisses me off in other games that do it, I would HATE to see that become the golden standard in SCII .
Sort of makes a battle between a bunch of colsi and roaches seem rather fake when they are doing it by the "McDonald's Xel Naga Watch Tower" lol
|
Map pool is pretty good 8/10. SC2 map pool is just really weak, I wish they added more of the large custom maps but this should give decently balanced games (at least as balanced as SC2 can be).
|
On March 01 2011 09:28 Jerax wrote:Show nested quote +Starting spawns on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple have been modified to prevent close ground spawns.
Starting spawns on Shakuras Plateau have been modified to ensure cross-map spawns only. This is just laughable. Why even have 4 player maps then? This change completely removes an important dimension of the game imo.
Because Terran is heavily favored over Zerg in close positions? I don't see how map positions whose imbalance is highly established is an integral part of the game. BW did not have such close positions.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On March 01 2011 09:28 Jerax wrote:Show nested quote +Starting spawns on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple have been modified to prevent close ground spawns.
Starting spawns on Shakuras Plateau have been modified to ensure cross-map spawns only. This is just laughable. Why even have 4 player maps then? This change completely removes an important dimension of the game imo.
If Blizzard can prevent close spawns on Shakuras, what's wrong with preventing close spawns on other maps? Close spawns lead to worse games, especially on Metalopolis.
|
Amazing, fantastic map pool and decisions. Best pool of any tournament in sc2 history in my opinion. Great job MLG, you've really outdone yourselves!
|
Would be funny if nasl changed crossfire map named it "NASL MLG GSL CROSSFIRE SE" also if u get a TvT on the map its pretty boring map.
I dont like test bug map imo (texturing is confusing to new spectators) the other ICCUP map i thought was better.
|
Yeah some more GSL maps wouldnt hurt but still ... i just want to hug the one person who decided to rule out close spawns on meta
Aso im not sureforcing spawns on shakuras ... they were already forced, does that meab that you can only spawn cross-map or is it just redundant ?
|
The building blocking idea is intriguing. The meta i'm worried about. All of us zergs fear that the most, well not so much anymore. But how do we practice for it in ladder? i guess we get practice partners.
But, we may not have to practice for it, but honeslty doesn't it kind of mess with the zergmind a bit knowing that in a tournament i won't have to deal with this shit? Certain build trends exist due to this fear. Do we practice with out it or with it?
Not hatin on the idea. just food for thought
|
Shattered Temple. AWESOME. I just hoped that Typhon was in too
|
Pretty good map pool overall, and still a decent amount of practice can be had through laddering. Cool about the cross spawns for Metal and LT (or ST rather), but I'm a bit more curious to how this will play out on Shak.
|
Ideally they wouldn't have to disable spawns, but I think in the future that means that tournaments will try not to include maps with design bad enough to necessitate it. If you have a wound, put a bandaid on it. You know the bandaid won't last forever, but you still need to put the bandaid on it.
IMO it's either this, or take Metalopolis and Shakuras out of the pool. Close positions metalopolis in particular is just too horrible to leave in; it's worse than Steppes of War by virtually every measure.
|
On March 01 2011 09:30 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:28 Jerax wrote:Starting spawns on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple have been modified to prevent close ground spawns.
Starting spawns on Shakuras Plateau have been modified to ensure cross-map spawns only. This is just laughable. Why even have 4 player maps then? This change completely removes an important dimension of the game imo. If Blizzard can prevent close spawns on Shakuras, what's wrong with preventing close spawns on other maps? Close spawns lead to worse games, especially on Metalopolis.
Especially since the close spawns make the map so drastically different. Close positions on Metalopolis is considered a free-win/free-loss by Jinro and IdrA. Probably by other players too. Cross positions is actually considered a good game though. The spawn positions shouldn't change the map that much.
|
Would've liked to see Terminus Re I guess but otherwise very well done all things considered. Especially the edit jobs. This makes me much more interested in following MLG tournaments.
|
On March 01 2011 09:33 Whole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:30 motbob wrote:On March 01 2011 09:28 Jerax wrote:Starting spawns on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple have been modified to prevent close ground spawns.
Starting spawns on Shakuras Plateau have been modified to ensure cross-map spawns only. This is just laughable. Why even have 4 player maps then? This change completely removes an important dimension of the game imo. If Blizzard can prevent close spawns on Shakuras, what's wrong with preventing close spawns on other maps? Close spawns lead to worse games, especially on Metalopolis. Especially since the close spawns make the map so drastically different. Close positions on Metalopolis is considered a free-win/free-loss by Jinro and IdrA. Probably by other players too. Cross positions is actually considered a good game though. The spawn positions shouldn't change the map that much.
According to Jinro, close position is free win for Terran, and the other positions are free win for Zerg. He hates Metalopolis.
|
People has to understand that most of the training done by foreigners is on ladder as the team scene is not as prominent as it is in Korea (yet), so they can't add too many custom maps.
Currently the pool has three 4 players maps, one 3 players map and three 2 players map. I think that balance correct, as it will allow a wide array of strategies.
|
Looks great. I'm on the same page as everyone else when it comes to scrap station though. Hoping that's the next map to go.
|
I like the decision. I'm surprised they included testbug in here but still, good choices from MLG.
|
On March 01 2011 09:35 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:33 Whole wrote:On March 01 2011 09:30 motbob wrote:On March 01 2011 09:28 Jerax wrote:Starting spawns on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple have been modified to prevent close ground spawns.
Starting spawns on Shakuras Plateau have been modified to ensure cross-map spawns only. This is just laughable. Why even have 4 player maps then? This change completely removes an important dimension of the game imo. If Blizzard can prevent close spawns on Shakuras, what's wrong with preventing close spawns on other maps? Close spawns lead to worse games, especially on Metalopolis. Especially since the close spawns make the map so drastically different. Close positions on Metalopolis is considered a free-win/free-loss by Jinro and IdrA. Probably by other players too. Cross positions is actually considered a good game though. The spawn positions shouldn't change the map that much. According to Jinro, close position is free win for Terran, and the other positions are free win for Zerg. He hates Metalopolis.
Well I'm 100% sure he said it was a "hard game" and he much rathers it than the free win close positions give.
|
On March 01 2011 09:35 vrok wrote:
Would've liked to see Terminus Re I guess but otherwise very well done considering. Especially the edit jobs.
exactly my thoughts. think terminus is a really interesting map and would be a nice addition.
but really no complains. respect for having the balls going that far with the editing and great job with the pool overall.
|
mad props to mlg for eliminating the close-spawns and ramp blocks
seems like mlg really knows what it is doing... sticking to its guns on some issues like extended series and listen to communities on some other issues like maps
|
just because the map pool isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't a huge step up from last year.. very very excited about seeing this year's mlg!
|
impressed to see MLG stepping up and using a "GSL" titled map. good stuff
|
On March 01 2011 09:29 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:28 theBullFrog wrote:On March 01 2011 09:23 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On March 01 2011 09:22 theBullFrog wrote:
ya know with them editing the maps, i wonder if we'll see IN map advertisements? ie metal with those buildings that are in-between-air between bases(i hope that made sense) lol
*pst i'd like credit if thats a new idea* :D I would assume not, Blizzard does not like the idea afaik, and from the iCCup side we are strictly against ads being anywhere but the load screens. I cannot speak for GSL maps or anyone else, but I know iCCup will NOT ever do that. Yea, just curious. As a player I honestly wouldn't mind it, but as a spectator it would be kind of a "taking away from the game" feeling for ingame advertisement. That's our concern. I know it pisses me off in other games that do it, I would HATE to see that become the golden standard in SCII . Sort of makes a battle between a bunch of colsi and roaches seem rather fake when they are doing it by the "McDonald's Xel Naga Watch Tower" lol
Naw you'd have to change it to arches instead of tower with same function. That wouldn't be too intrusive if that was changed.
|
Really happy to see testbug in there, it's a great map that I think has a lot of potential for awesome games.
Not crazy about scrap station being in there, would like to see it replaced by a solid four player map like Terminus or Tal'daram altar. I do like crossfire though.
|
I think its dumb to only have cross map spawns on MLG Shakuras Plateau. I'm fine with the no close spawns on meta/ST but no backdoor spawns on Shakuras is kinda lame.
Otherwise i think the map pool is amazing and am pretty happy with it
|
I was about to post:
"My biggest complaint (and this is kind of nit-picking), but why add the MLG in front of Scrap Station & Crossfire SE if they didn't receive any changes?"
After thinking about it for a minute though, I guess it would make it more convenient if searching for MLG listed all the maps they're using.
|
Testbug is so cool, glad to see it in here
|
What is different between MLG Scrap Station and regular Scrap Station?
What is different between MLG GSL Crossfire SE and GSL Crossfire SE?
Sorry if this is obvious :x
edit: Maybe it *is* just to help search em?
|
Major props to MLG taking a proactive approach in the map selection. I would have liked to see crevasse and/or Terminus over Crossfire, but this is only a minor quibble.
|
I really like this map pool, only change I would have made is cutting scrap station and putting in another one of the GSL/ICCUP/New Ladder maps.
I'm also not a huge fan of restricting spawn positions on maps but I guess given the current balance of the game it's a necessary evil, however if Zerg early game does get buffed I wouldn't mind seeing the return of close spawns on some of these maps for MLG.
|
good pool, but could need more gsl maps imo.
and dont ask me why they even picked the worst out of these.
|
On March 01 2011 09:41 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:
mad props to mlg for eliminating the close-spawns and ramp blocks
Fucking baller MLG. Good show.
|
On March 01 2011 09:49 gogogadgetflow wrote:
What is different between MLG Scrap Station and regular Scrap Station?
What is different between MLG GSL Crossfire SE and GSL Crossfire SE?
Sorry if this is obvious :x
No difference. It's just to make them easier to be found: "To access this map pool, including the non-ladder maps, simply search for "MLG" on the StarCraft 2 map selection screen."
|
Shakuras cross positions only seems a bit stupid. Why not use a better 2 player map if you only have 2 spawns?
It really is a very mediocre map, it's only saving grace is the size.
There are tons of custom 2 player maps that are way more interesting and balanced.
Personally i'm very glad none of the GSL maps have been added as I'm of the opinion that they are just as imbalanced as some of the blizzard maps.
|
United States2095 Posts
I absolutely love these maps. Thanks for removing some of the reasons zergs hate these maps, the coin flip in getting a close position. I love the fact your using Iccup + GSL maps as well. Much love MLG!
|
Wow, this is a great map pool. It shows that MLG is listening to the community. Testbug is such an awesome selection. Blizzard may think we all hate Shakuras, but MLG knows what's up!
|
|
|
yessssssssssssssssssssss testbug
|
I've never ever ever seen Testbug before... and it looks awesome. I'll have to wait and see what games turn out to be like on it
|
On March 01 2011 09:52 Kazang wrote:
Shakuras cross positions only seems a bit stupid. Why not use a better 2 player map if you only have 2 spawns?
It really is a very mediocre map, it's only saving grace is the size.
There are tons of custom 2 player maps that are way more interesting and balanced.
Personally i'm very glad none of the GSL maps have been added as I'm of the opinion that they are just as imbalanced as some of the blizzard maps.
I too am very glad about false statements.
|
Overall I am soooooooooooooo much happier than I thought I would be about the map pool. Saying that though, I really dislike scrap station >.<.
Still, overall amazing decision making by the MLG team, the part about no close spawns is what really makes me happy.
|
Really good map pool. I'm so excited for MLG this year =)
|
best mappool ive ever seen in sc2
|
On March 01 2011 09:52 Kazang wrote:
Shakuras cross positions only seems a bit stupid. Why not use a better 2 player map if you only have 2 spawns?
It really is a very mediocre map, it's only saving grace is the size.
There are tons of custom 2 player maps that are way more interesting and balanced.
Personally i'm very glad none of the GSL maps have been added as I'm of the opinion that they are just as imbalanced as some of the blizzard maps.
I think they want to keep it mostly ladder maps for players who rely mostly on ladder.
|
I'm excited with the current map pool. I also see it as a possibility to later showcase the other GSL and ICCUP (or others, possible) in future MLG events by rotating through those maps. I don't know if that will happen, though it would be a lot of fun for me if it did.
|
On March 01 2011 09:54 gogogadgetflow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:52 Kazang wrote:
Shakuras cross positions only seems a bit stupid. Why not use a better 2 player map if you only have 2 spawns?
It really is a very mediocre map, it's only saving grace is the size.
There are tons of custom 2 player maps that are way more interesting and balanced.
Personally i'm very glad none of the GSL maps have been added as I'm of the opinion that they are just as imbalanced as some of the blizzard maps. I too am very glad about false statements.
He was probably referring to the fact that Crossfire is actually a Blizzard map that GSL tweaked rather than a GSL original creation.
|
On March 01 2011 09:54 gogogadgetflow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:52 Kazang wrote:
Shakuras cross positions only seems a bit stupid. Why not use a better 2 player map if you only have 2 spawns?
It really is a very mediocre map, it's only saving grace is the size.
There are tons of custom 2 player maps that are way more interesting and balanced.
Personally i'm very glad none of the GSL maps have been added as I'm of the opinion that they are just as imbalanced as some of the blizzard maps. I too am very glad about false statements.
Crossfire is a Blizzard map......
On March 01 2011 09:55 Whole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:52 Kazang wrote:
Shakuras cross positions only seems a bit stupid. Why not use a better 2 player map if you only have 2 spawns?
It really is a very mediocre map, it's only saving grace is the size.
There are tons of custom 2 player maps that are way more interesting and balanced.
Personally i'm very glad none of the GSL maps have been added as I'm of the opinion that they are just as imbalanced as some of the blizzard maps. I think they want to keep it mostly ladder maps for players who rely mostly on ladder.
Shakuras isn't in the ladder any more though, it's been replaced by the new blizzard maps, that's the thing.
It's not a bad map but it's far from the best if you are using one that isn't in the ladder anyway.
|
I don't like scrap station being there
Rest are good, metal close is still SOW
|
Anyone know when the attendees list gets announced for dallas? id love to see who has signed up
|
Great choice on the maps by MLG, I'd like to see more GSL maps, but still great map pool!!! :D
|
Testbug is such a gorgeous map, and received really good feedback in the Startale tournament. I'm really looking forward to seeing this used in MLG.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YaoIS.jpg)
|
|
|
I'm guessing that the reason for not including Tal'Darim Altar, Terminus, and Crevasse hinges on the time factor. MLG has a metric ass-load of games to get through in a weekend and those larger maps, while awesome, do take more time to play out. I am sad to see that none of them are included but I can understand that reasoning.
|
On March 01 2011 10:03 Wargizmo wrote:Testbug is such a gorgeous map, and received really good feedback in the Startale tournament. I'm really looking forward to seeing this used in MLG.
This version is slightly outdated, i forgot to update the map thread >.<
It's edited now
|
Really glad to finally have this news out in the open! Look forward to more quality iCCup maps all year long guys~
|
So awesome to see they included Testbug! ICCup can be proud that more and more tournaments put at least one of their maps in their pool. Unfortunately Blizzard doesn't like ICCup too much, so it is very unlikely for them to include those maps in the ladder some time.
|
Good job MLG. Map imbalance is a hot topic these days and I think you nailed it. Thanks for listening to the community! Keep it up!
|
Lost Temple gone makes me sad . But anyway i like the maps though, should add like 1 or 2 more
|
Fantastic map pool! One question about the map changes though; are you disabling both close-by-ground and close-by-air? Or only close-by-ground?
In the future Id like MLG to choose either GSL or iccup instead of taking a little bit of both map pools, however this is a good first step.
|
On March 01 2011 10:24 kNightLite wrote:
Fantastic map pool! One question about the map changes though; are you disabling both close-by-ground and close-by-air? Or only close-by-ground?
In the future Id like MLG to choose either GSL or iccup instead of taking a little bit of both map pools, however this is a good first step.
i would imagine only close ground because close air isnt that bad. (never heard a complaint about it)
also i keep looking at this thread because this decision by MLG is fucking awesome.
|
Best mappool so far. I'd play any of these maps gladly. Keeping Shakuras and adding Gslmaps... useful skills toi have on ladder!
|
On March 01 2011 09:57 Wargizmo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 09:54 gogogadgetflow wrote:On March 01 2011 09:52 Kazang wrote:
Shakuras cross positions only seems a bit stupid. Why not use a better 2 player map if you only have 2 spawns?
It really is a very mediocre map, it's only saving grace is the size.
There are tons of custom 2 player maps that are way more interesting and balanced.
Personally i'm very glad none of the GSL maps have been added as I'm of the opinion that they are just as imbalanced as some of the blizzard maps. I too am very glad about false statements. He was probably referring to the fact that Crossfire is actually a Blizzard map that GSL tweaked rather than a GSL original creation.
Crossfire was actually created by someone at Mapdori 5 years ago that was then tweaked and renamed by Blizzard.
Testbug is cool, but I get a horrible framerate on it, probably due to having so many different textures. Hopefully that doesn't impact anyone that likes to play on higher graphics settings if MLG's computers suck.
I'm very interested to see how well Terran does against Zerg on maps that have no possibility of close spawns. I have a bad feeling that a lot of maps (metal, temple, shakuras...) are only "balanced" TvZ because Terran usually wins close and Zerg usually wins far.
|
why crossfire of all the gsl map -.- ugh....i guess that will do. Really wish they would of added any other gsl map beside that one.
|
Fantastic map pool.
Modified ladder maps, Crossfire and Testbug. I couldn't be happier.
|
So impressed.
Well done MLG. :D
|
Nice to see MLG being proactive about their maps and adding in balance changes. However, if they were going to pick a GSL map I'm sure many would've preferred Tal Darim, Crevasse, or Terminus over Crossfire.
|
Fantastic changes, well done by MLG. Will do a effort to get to watch it now
|
Really progressive changes. Better in every way from last year!
|
Great decision to make only cross map. Things are shaping up nicely in major competitions
|
The best change imo is that shakuras is only 2 positions. It was getting very old seeing terrans with tanks on the low ground every game. Testbug is pretty cool too. MLG is really taking initiative and doing it right.
|
MLG Hwaiting!! Looking forward to seeing some great games on the Starcraft mainstage (most Starcraft players won't know how cool the "mainstage" is, but trust me, it's better than anything you've seen in any tournament before).
|
Not bad at all. I like the GSL maps, but there's probably a reason they can't use them.
at least it won't be "xel'naga and then something else"
|
A shame they didnt pick Terminus, but its not a bad pool at all.
|
I'm excited that this map pool, especially with no close positions because i like to see exciting games... but I'm kinda concerned about the players, with all of these long macro maps, getting through the open bracket seems like it would be extremely physically(and mentally) taxing on the players with the amount of Bo3's they'll be forced to play.
|
Good balance of maps!
Key notes are the decisions to prevent close spawns on Meta and Shattered Temple, as well as forcing Shakuras to be cross pos only.
NICE
Although I may not necessarily agree with these changes if they were permanent for, lets say, the 1v1 ladder, this is certainly good for a top level tournament. Perhaps not the horizontal Shakuras positions, but I wouldn't know xD.
|
I was a bit bummed to see spawn positions and ramp blocking getting removed. The amount of variation in the games will be dropping, but I guess no one can really blame the map now. Well, aside from Scrap PvP, but it is what it is. I would also like to know if the ramp antiblock interferes with walling your own expansion or ramp blocking yourself with barracks+depot.
However, this should cut down on a lot of the whining and general excuse making in the LR threads, so that's a big plus. Less QQ for the future of MLG? Only time will tell.
|
On March 01 2011 11:23 TheGrimace wrote:
I was a bit bummed to see spawn positions and ramp blocking getting removed. The amount of variation in the games will be dropping, but I guess no one can really blame the map now. Well, aside from Scrap PvP, but it is what it is. I would also like to know if the ramp antiblock interferes with walling your own expansion or ramp blocking yourself with barracks+depot.
However, this should cut down on a lot of the whining and general excuse making in the LR threads, so that's a big plus. Less QQ for the future of MLG? Only time will tell.
What.
I think you mean the amount of variation will be rising? Do you seriously think creativity is walling the Zerg off in PvZ when they FE? Not at all. With the neutral supply depo, there will be more creativity in builds, army composition, etc.
|
Worst thing I see about this map pool is the use of scrap station. Compared to past tournaments though, that is nothing. I never saw Testbug until now but it looks like a really good map. Can't wait for MLG to begin!
|
Very nice map pool looking forward to watching these MLG
|
I know I've already commented once, I'd just like to say that I think this is the best map pool I've seen out of GSL/Blizz Ladder/Iccup/anything else. Very stoked, as a Terran player I always felt my wins on Shakuras close positions weren't even remotely as satisfying as my wins cross positions, and I just enjoyed the gameplay more. I really dislike maps where they have narrow paths directly between bases with two breakable rocks... just felt like it destroyed the awesomeness of flanking potential.
I've gotten so much more excited for SC2 lately on the proscene (even though Terran is still dominating, I personally think Zerg has had much more opportunities but are just fucking up their hive tech transitions when they have advantages midgame). As a player who recently switched back to Zerg from Terran (I was originally top 200 Zerg around up til November, where I hovered around 125th spot), I am amazed to find out the game is so different post MKP! It's weird, I dominate terrans in the early-mid game and am LOSING the lategame when I have 6+ bases, tons of larvae stored, and 3k min / 2k gas and I can't stop marine tank.
Spoiler of a recent GSL game below
+ Show Spoiler +Kinda like what happened to Ret game 2, where he had a massive advantage supply wise and shit, but as he lost his army he couldn't efficiently get it back together nor pump out enough broodlords to delay. It's what's happening to me EVERY lategame, so weird that I had it convinced in my mind as Terran that it was at a disadvantage lategame. Anyways, ending my rambling now, sorry I just took a ton of adderall and got distracted
|
I really like this map pool, and the seemingly passive aggressive changes on shakuras and metal.
|
TBH i'm beginning to feel that in a few month blizzards maps will die out and all that's left in tourneys are iccup+gsl+other popular map maker's maps.
Anyway, GOGO MLG, <3 them for doing this.
|
I'm blown away on how good this map pool is plus the forced spawns+ the ramp blockers for lame wins. Maybe one day the ladder maps will look similar to this pool
|
OP should have a poll, "Overall, do you like the modifications that MLG did to the maps (ie. forced cross positions, no walling in bottom of ramp, etc.)."
I feel like there's an overwhelmingly positive response from the community!
|
Seems good, I'll be interested in seeing how this plays out!
|
279 Posts
We do listen. Really, we do. :D As a league, I know we will always be under scrutiny, but hopefully this goes a little way to showing the community that we pay attention and that we often have reasons for the things that we do.
Along those lines, I see a lot of questions about why we chose Crossfire vs some of the other GSL maps. Personally, I love Crevasse, but we're also under some serious time constraints due to our bracket size and format. The average time in all the major competition replays we could get our hands on showed Crevasse exceeding our cut off. Unfortunately, so we really couldn't risk having a map that might delay the progress of the tournament. 5mins more every round ends up being a 3hr+ delay by the end of the weekend. And the schedule is already REALLY long for the players.
Crossfire, while not as good in allowing the macro-game to be played out as some of the other larger maps these days, has some really exciting elements to it that I'm looking forward to seeing on the main stage at Dallas.
|
MLG guys, you're awesome. Testbug is an excellent addition.
I honestly would have liked to seen more iCCup maps; specifically, Braxis in lieu of Scrap Station and Fighting Spirit... well, just generally in there because Fighting Spirit's fucking awesome. That said, the map pool's pretty judicious. Well done, MLG. I'll be there.
As a spectator, silly. The guy with the absurd signs? Oh, yeah, that'll be me.
EDIT: Neglected to note this:
On March 01 2011 12:00 eviltomahawk wrote:
Nevertheless, the biggest part about adding Testbug is that we now have a 3 player map. Tau Cross had its moment to shine in BW, now it's time for Testbug to shine in SC2 as well.
3 player maps. Not only is it inherently :awesomeface:, as far as rotational imbalance goes for Z, it's pretty well-insulated short of a ridiculous sort of viking-banshee attack. It's a fantastic map.
*IdrA air-five*
|
Awesome map pool will lead to awesome games. The adjustments make to Shakuras, Metalopolis, and Shattered Temple are just as good as the new additions of Crossfire and Testbug IMO. Close positions makes them crappy maps, but cross positions make them among the best maps currently available.
It's awesome to see iCCup Testbug being picked up by MLG. I do recall that ESL Europe has begun using iCCup maps, and with MLG also using them, things are only going to get better. My only problem with Testbug is that I preferred them using the Badlands tile set in the top right 1/3 of the map instead of the current Twilight world one (or whatever it is).
Nevertheless, the biggest part about adding Testbug is that we now have a 3 player map. Tau Cross had its moment to shine in BW, now it's time for Testbug to shine in SC2 as well.
|
I think it's important to note that there are seven maps. MLG sets up all their games so that a full extended series runs through all of the maps. That way, your win is less dependent on getting maps that favor you and more dependent on being good at every map in the map pool.
|
United States5162 Posts
The only reservation I have is forcing cross spawn on Shakuras. The backdoor rocks into your main, while annoying, never seemed game breaking imo. Besides that,<3 MLG
|
Holy cow. This is excellent news! Yay MLG! :D
|
|
|
No love for Rush Hour III
:p
|
What an awesome map pool. MLG is really showing that they're on the ball with map changes this year. Looking forward to watching them soon.
On March 01 2011 11:56 MLG_Lee wrote:
We do listen. Really, we do. :D As a league, I know we will always be under scrutiny, but hopefully this goes a little way to showing the community that we pay attention and that we often have reasons for the things that we do.
Along those lines, I see a lot of questions about why we chose Crossfire vs some of the other GSL maps. Personally, I love Crevasse, but we're also under some serious time constraints due to our bracket size and format. The average time in all the major competition replays we could get our hands on showed Crevasse exceeding our cut off. Unfortunately, so we really couldn't risk having a map that might delay the progress of the tournament. 5mins more every round ends up being a 3hr+ delay by the end of the weekend. And the schedule is already REALLY long for the players.
Crossfire, while not as good in allowing the macro-game to be played out as some of the other larger maps these days, has some really exciting elements to it that I'm looking forward to seeing on the main stage at Dallas.
Pretty understandable. Any GSL map is miles ahead of many of the ladder maps anyhow, e.g. Delta Quadrant, etc.
|
not sure if anyone will be against these rules. if they are, they probably arent the biggest fan of starcraft 2. very awesome to hear.
|
|
|
This is fantastic. Great map pool, probably going to buy MLG tickets just to show my support. But, since the comments in this thread are going to be overwhelmingly positive anyways, I think I'll voice some concerns.
- I don't really like how they force cross positions on Shakuras. Why not just make it a 2 player map if there's only one true spawn configuration? I agree that horizontal positions could be rough on zerg sometimes, but I feel another solution would work better. Why not remove the inner four expansions, add ramps up to where the semi-island currently is, and remove the mains' secondary ramps?
- The triple texture scheme on Testbug irritates me. I know it's all preference, but I figure I'll say it so other people don't think they're alone. The map layout is great, but the aesthetics are distracting.
- Scrap Station could probably be replaced with a better map. It's one of Blizzard's better ones, but it really sucks for a few matchups. I think Terminus or Pawn would have been good choices instead.
Not trying to be too negative here though. Love this decision by MLG.
|
Odd to see them make such an informed and wise decision with the map pool and yet a seemingly short-sited and destructive decision with the tourney format.
|
On March 01 2011 11:58 RHMVNovus wrote:
MLG guys, you're awesome. Testbug is an excellent addition.
I honestly would have liked to seen more iCCup maps; specifically, Braxis in lieu of Scrap Station and Fighting Spirit... well, just generally in there because Fighting Spirit's fucking awesome. That said, the map pool's pretty judicious. Well done, MLG. I'll be there.
As a spectator, silly. The guy with the absurd signs? Oh, yeah, that'll be me.
live on my legacy!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I'm kinda sad they picked my least favourite GSL map, but I'm quite excited about the rest of the pool, especially about Testbug! Nice job MLG.
For the future : don't forget to reconsider the map pool before each event and don't hesitate to pick some other ICCUP maps, there a lot of great possibilities there.
|
Beautiful map selection.
MLG I applaud you for listening to the community, this is exactly what we need to make western eSports a great thing.
Can't wait til it starts!
|
its a good combo of iccup/gsl/blizz (new and old). cross positions are smart. big thumbs up here.
|
|
|
On March 01 2011 10:59 applejuice wrote:
MLG Hwaiting!! Looking forward to seeing some great games on the Starcraft mainstage (most Starcraft players won't know how cool the "mainstage" is, but trust me, it's better than anything you've seen in any tournament before).
Wait until you guys see the Main Stage this year, it will be phenomenal. I am so pumped for the 2011 season of SC2. The hardest thing for me is keeping focused on the actual work I have to do at the event because all I want to do is watch!!
Just so you guys know, SC2 has swept the office. Almost every work day ends with a few matches between us, we are all terrible(compared to Pros) but it is still fun.
|
On March 01 2011 09:02 setzer wrote:
Gee, why not just make every map have 2 spawns, that way there is absolutely no chance a positional imbalance can occur. This new trend of disabling spawns is going to lead to boring, predictable play and a lazyness on the part of mapmakers.
^^ agree..
HOWEVER, great to see MLG taking SC2 for realz putting some real work into it.. and ensuring we get some great amazing games!
♥
very excited
|
wow bad maps for terran ;D
|
On March 01 2011 13:44 drewbie.root wrote:
wow bad maps for terran ;D
Sorta true. How do you feel about the GSL maps (in particular, TalDarim Altar and Crevasse)?
|
LoL, what did they do, optimize every map based on zerg tears? Thats pretty ridiculous IMO. While macro maps are cool to watch, Cross positions on those maps is a huge bonus for zerg. Seems over the top to force cross positions on all maps. Yes macro games are more fun watch but i dont think they realize how this is going to affect other matchups.. Hurts Toss and Terran aggression which is needed to stop zerg from power droning. I feel like blocking both building walls at ramps AND forcing cross position is just way overdone.
The map pool is certainly better than the ladder pool, but seems pretty brutal that they decided to favor zerg on every map.
|
IdrA must have tears his eyes from joy this time.
This is pretty awesome news though. I was really concerned for the MLG map pool, after the Kulas Ravine incidents of last year...
|
LoL, what did they do, optimize every map based on zerg tears?
Can you grow up? It's not just that macro games are fun to watch, it's also that close positions are a complete waste of time to watch. And have you stopped to think of overall fairness? Having macro games all the time is a more balanced (even if you somehow think thats a HUGE bonus for zerg). than having the possibility of free wins.
|
can we see thumbnails of all the maps? thanks!
|
|
|
It's a big step to finally see ICCUP maps in official tournaments imo.
|
On March 01 2011 14:01 Gentso wrote:Can you grow up? It's not just that macro games are fun to watch, it's also that close positions are a complete waste of time to watch. And have you stopped to think of overall fairness? Having macro games all the time is a more balanced (even if you somehow think thats a HUGE bonus for zerg). than having the possibility of free wins.
Umm, it is a bonus for zerg. The bigger the map positions, the better zerg gets. You can argue it all you want. Even dustin browder said that originaly they found zerg to be just way to strong on big maps which is why they decided on the smaller ones for launch. Overall fairness? seriously? Taking away terran and protoss strengths and changing the maps to cater to zerg strengths, how is that "overall Fairness".
I dont really care all the much, I just think they went way over the top. Whether you like it or not, The game is currently balanced around close positions or small rush distances. Changing the maps like that is going to throw things out of whack. Besides, there is no reason to get upset when someone has a different opinion.
|
|
|
On March 01 2011 14:17 Darpa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 14:01 Gentso wrote:LoL, what did they do, optimize every map based on zerg tears? Can you grow up? It's not just that macro games are fun to watch, it's also that close positions are a complete waste of time to watch. And have you stopped to think of overall fairness? Having macro games all the time is a more balanced (even if you somehow think thats a HUGE bonus for zerg). than having the possibility of free wins. Umm, it is a bonus for zerg. The bigger the map positions, the better zerg gets. You can argue it all you want. Even dustin browder said that originaly they found zerg to be just way to strong on big maps which is why they decided on the smaller ones for launch. Overall fairness? seriously? Taking away terran and protoss strengths and changing the maps to cater to zerg strengths, how is that "overall Fairness". I dont really care all the much, I just think they went way over the top. Whether you like it or not, The game is currently balanced around close positions or small rush distances. Changing the maps like that is going to throw things out of whack. Besides, there is no reason to get upset when someone has a different opinion.
If you watch the GSL games on these big maps, Terran seems to have noooo problems whatsoever adjusting to a macro game. The only major changes are that they have to use more drops, especially multiple drops at once, and late game they should incorporate ghosts because infestors with ultras+mutas is really scary. Otherwise, marine/tank with maybe some thors chucked in is EXTREMELY strong no matter what the rush distance is.
|
On March 01 2011 14:17 Darpa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 14:01 Gentso wrote:LoL, what did they do, optimize every map based on zerg tears? Can you grow up? It's not just that macro games are fun to watch, it's also that close positions are a complete waste of time to watch. And have you stopped to think of overall fairness? Having macro games all the time is a more balanced (even if you somehow think thats a HUGE bonus for zerg). than having the possibility of free wins. Umm, it is a bonus for zerg. The bigger the map positions, the better zerg gets. You can argue it all you want. Even dustin browder said that originaly they found zerg to be just way to strong on big maps which is why they decided on the smaller ones for launch. Overall fairness? seriously? Taking away terran and protoss strengths and changing the maps to cater to zerg strengths, how is that "overall Fairness". I dont really care all the much, I just think they went way over the top. Whether you like it or not, The game is currently balanced around close positions or small rush distances. Changing the maps like that is going to throw things out of whack. Besides, there is no reason to get upset when someone has a different opinion.
You say the game is balanced around rush distances and small maps, except in some of these close spawn positions it is actually unfarily difficult for the zerg. Sure there is too far the other way (for instance, anything other than close spawn on slag pits is ridiculously good for zerg in zvt), but maps like metalopolis and temple are just as viable for terran and protoss as they are for zerg in cross positions.
|
Testbug is my favorite map, if not just for its aesthetics.
I am glad to see its inclusion in MLG and therefore recognition in the StarCraft 2 community.
|
I'm going to be excited to see how testbug plays out
|
I might have wanted a different GSL map, but everything else here is AWESOME! Not allowing close spawns is amazing, I don't know about preventing the low ground wall in though as forcing cross positions/close by air negates a lot of that and there is something to be said about having a little bit of rush ability....
|
Seems like a really nice pool, great that there are no close positions on Metalopolis, etc. I would prefer Tal'Darim Altar to Scrap Station, but still...
And finally an ICCup map made it into a big tournament, wow! I wouldn't have thought it possible anymore
I just hope that this map pool is not set in stone for 2011 and that they will be more flexible in adjusting it than last year...
|
MLG really came through on this one.
Massive props.
|
Yeah MLG! They know what they're doing! I love these maps and these changes.
|
Really disappointed by MLG for picking up TestBug. Dunno why the hype. It makes bad computers lag too =/
|
On March 01 2011 15:01 desrow wrote:
Really disappointed by MLG for picking up TestBug. Dunno why the hype. It makes bad computers lag too =/
It's been getting hyped because it's a solid map and most of the games we see on it are epic thus far . Plus it uses some really interesting concepts like rocks over a tower.
Also sorry about the bad comp thing, but lots of custom maps do if you want them to look good, luckily MLG uses sick computers so no lag during the games!
|
On March 01 2011 08:48 MisterPuppy wrote:
looks great. hopefully a tournament standard comes along soon, or maybe NASL adopts these maps?
This.
Every major tournament should agree on the same map pool, and have things like prevent close spaw on certain maps.
This is awsome, very glad to see MLG going in the right direction, great maps.
|
United Arab Emirates492 Posts
I am really happy to see MLG is heading in the right direction. After all the negativity they got for their previous season, it looks like they have their goals set straight this time around.
|
On March 01 2011 17:28 ScaringKids wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 08:48 MisterPuppy wrote:
looks great. hopefully a tournament standard comes along soon, or maybe NASL adopts these maps? This.
Every major tournament should agree on the same map pool, and have things like prevent close spaw on certain maps. This is awsome, very glad to see MLG going in the right direction, great maps.
I dont agree on that. They should all have quite similar but not always the same. Mixing it up is the best thing we have in SC2 over most other games.
|
On March 01 2011 15:01 desrow wrote:
Really disappointed by MLG for picking up TestBug. Dunno why the hype. It makes bad computers lag too =/
I actually like Testbug, I'm excited to see it for MLG. Definitely now worth paying for the premium stream
|
Although not 100% perfect in my opinion this mappool is WAY better than I expected; probably as good as it could've gotten, considering the massive pile of BS that is the current ladder maps - huge props to MLG for really taking an effort to work around the screwed maps provided by Blizzard.
Ok, now somebody get a blizz representative and tell them to just USE THIS EXACT SETUP (sorry for caps) for ladder maps. It would be so much better...a ladder mappool with crossfire and testbug, no close spawns, shakuras back....would bring me tears of joy. Sadly, Blizz doesn't want me to be happy.
|
Really good map pool, 100 times better than any map pool that blizz has come out with, imo GSL map pool is better, but compared to ladder im sure the players will have no complaints at all.
lets hope NASL does the same!
|
TestBug is awesome from a spectator point of view. The terrain is sick, it's visually appealing in every way especially on high graphics settings. Really cool concept.
Pretty good map choice! Of course I'm slightly "eh" to Crossfire as all current GSL games we've seen have been... lackluster, but maybe that's just giving it a bad rap due to lack of games.
Would've liked to see that other iCCup map, Brazix Orbital I think, featured in the Startale tournament, it was pretty suave!
|
So essentially there are a bunch of 3 player maps. Positional dynamics without the zerg auto loss games?--sounds good to me.
|
Wasn't too balanced from what I recall, but we saw a lot of fucking epic games on that map! Ha, I'm grinning just thinking about it. We saw tons of aggressive strats like the revival of 2gate vs Zerg since they were close map positions, to mass drop play by Terran in TvP with like 8+ dropships, Corsair/Reaver had it's chance to shine on that map, we saw Flash vs Stork where I believe Flash went 1 fact FOUR CC's quadruple expansion (or was it only 3?) to a quick 5 bases, which just made me go "wtf, is he still on 1 fact?", epic Fantasy vs Jaedong game, Zerg mass sunken camping vs Terran on 4base skipping lurkers into Guardians --> ultras on a crazy high number of gasses... ah... so many strats that were fun to watch, but weren't too popular, surfaced out on that map because of the architecture. LOVED IT.
Was awful at playing it though, if I ever got it in tourney games where I had to play I just 4pooled, lol.
|
I am very happy with these =)
|
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds.
|
wow MLG delivers :D I can't wait for this season.
|
Very awesome of MLG to take this initiative. Instead of leaving old, bad maps in the pool for so long.
|
Nice that they are using custom maps, my only complaint is Testbug's looks, not that MLG has any saying in it, but that map looks horrible.
Oh, it seems they removed the lava on that map. huge step in the right direction. Doesnt really matter though i guess, no point to complain about looks in this thread.
|
Pretty balanced set of maps, but I'd like to see newer maps. Shakuras Plateau, Xel'naga Caverns, and especially Metalopolis and Scrap Station have been palyed to death.
|
On March 01 2011 17:28 ScaringKids wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 08:48 MisterPuppy wrote:
looks great. hopefully a tournament standard comes along soon, or maybe NASL adopts these maps? This. Every major tournament should agree on the same map pool, and have things like prevent close spaw on certain maps. This is awsome, very glad to see MLG going in the right direction, great maps.
Disagree completely, that takes the fun out of it. Even BW MSL vs OSL had different map pools they went through, added a variety. Also, it prevents one race from completely dominating the scene if the map pool ends up being biased in some way. While MSL might have heavy Zerg biased maps, OSL might be using maps that are Zerg neutral or even disadvantageous.
Also, the more maps we have, the more unique strats we'll see. While it sounds unideal, progamers will be able to abuse the fact that other progamers haven't seen certain strategies on that map yet, so watching the execution of them becomes awesome. When it's a map that's used over and over again, once that strat is used once, it's usually fleshed out and might be a "one-time gimmick." In short, it promotes innovative play. People like seeing new cheeses (or even just strategies), just not the old repetitive ones that are used over and over again like 4gates.
|
On March 01 2011 18:06 Motiva wrote:
wow MLG delivers :D I can't wait for this season.
neither, esp with idra, and even maybe grubby, along with all the other big western names attending, and with the great maps now.
tbh i find MLG as interesting as GSL. while GSL has the best players in the world, i feel more of a connection to the western players, esp the members of liquid and eG
|
Good job to MLG forcing the changes Blizzard should have done ages ago.
|
yeah testbug is pretty laggy, but the textures are cool.
|
I think the "walling bullshit" is part of the game and easily prevented by a patrolling worker. -_-
|
11589 Posts
On March 01 2011 18:12 Pondo wrote:
Good job to MLG forcing the changes Blizzard should have done ages ago.
Blizzard has stated, multiple times, that tournaments should use their own map pool.
As far as MLG's choices go, they seem pretty good. Obviously, having every game in a 256+ person tournament last 45 minutes would be bad, and this is why the largest GSL/iCCup maps were not included, but the games should be long and entertaining nonetheless.
Can't wait to see the map pool in action on April Fool's! I'm definitely making the trip to downtown Dallas for this one.
|
|
|
On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds.
yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs
|
11589 Posts
On March 01 2011 18:15 Wolf wrote:
I think the "walling bullshit" is part of the game and easily prevented by a patrolling worker. -_-
Even Jinro, a really good Terran who has used the bottom-of-ramp bunker wall-in, said that it's practically a free win 33% of the time. Anything to take that random crap out of the game is a good choice in my, and many other's opinions.
The GSL has done this, and now MLG is following suit. Even Blizzard thought the pylon wall-in was too strong and nerfed it. I don't think many people want to watch, or even play, games that can be won with such a mindlessly executable strat.
|
Hoooooly crap, I had never dreamt that they would do anything like this.
Major props.
|
Testbug. Hell yeah!
I don't like SS and Shattered Temple as a protoss. Even CatZ said on his stream that the middle for Shattered Temple is too open, and SS is just bad for protoss
|
Really cool map pool. Great to see the good old maps without the imba/uninteresting close spawn.
At first I was really disappointed that Crossfire is in, cause I think it's a retarded map for Zerg with all these chokes. But then again, the rest of the map pool is really nice for Zerg, so that kinda balances it out.
imo Crossfire and Scrap Station are the weak maps (maybe new LT too), hopefully MLG will remove those later this year. A map like Terminus Re or iCCup Braxis Orbital would be a great addition then.
|
On March 01 2011 18:15 Wolf wrote:
I think the "walling bullshit" is part of the game and easily prevented by a patrolling worker. -_-
Not necessarily, I've seen plenty of times they come in with 2 scvs at once, and before the Z can pull additional workers the drone is forced to either move or die. Patrolling should stop it, but no it doesn't auto prevent it, especially if the ramp is a decent distance from the min line. It's stupid to let it happen, it's not even fun to watch, and it's not a strat you even have to really plan out but rather "oh, I might as well do this."
|
On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs
It's impossible to have a macro game when you're just sitting in your base anyway. Macro games are about trying to secure an economic advantage.
|
Will it also be impossible to wall at the bottom of your own ramp, cause that would be very weird.
But great map pool!
|
On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs
The funny thing is that new players think a "macro game" is something unique or out of the norm in SC. In Brood War most games were macro because it was not a game of all-ins on tiny, simplified Blizzard maps. This is how the game is meant to be. Every map should be removed and replaced with these Korean maps or iCCup maps of similar size. Most games I saw in the invitational with Startale were still all-ins because the iCCup map size generally mirrors Blizzard's; it was what we were raised on, and it needs to be eliminated from competitive play. BW games take a while to build up; SC2 players need to have some patience in watching.
On the ladder situation: tournaments changing to only-custom maps is the best initiative the competitive community can take to convince Blizzard to add them to the map pool.
|
On March 01 2011 18:22 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 18:15 Wolf wrote:
I think the "walling bullshit" is part of the game and easily prevented by a patrolling worker. -_- Even Jinro, a really good Terran who has used the bottom-of-ramp bunker wall-in, said that it's practically a free win 33% of the time. Anything to take that random crap out of the game is a good choice in my, and many other's opinions. The GSL has done this, and now MLG is following suit. Even Blizzard thought the pylon wall-in was too strong and nerfed it. I don't think many people want to watch, or even play, games that can be won with such a mindlessly executable strat.
It's a free win IF zerg allows it. Not hard to patrol a drone at the ramp and float an overlord over a hatch to see bunker rushes coming. Bad change imo. Options keep getting reduced in matchups, kinda making the game dull. I actually never fear cheese from a T. And yes, that's bad.
|
On March 01 2011 19:24 rift wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs The funny thing is that new players think a "macro game" is something unique or out of the norm in SC. In Brood War most games were macro because it was not a game of all-ins on tiny, simplified Blizzard maps. This is how the game is meant to be. Every map should be removed and replaced with these Korean maps or iCCup maps of similar size. Most games I saw in the invitational with Startale were still all-ins because the iCCup map size generally mirrors Blizzard's; it was what we were raised on, and it needs to be eliminated from competitive play. BW games take a while to build up; SC2 players need to have some patience in watching. On the ladder situation: tournaments changing to only-custom maps is the best initiative the competitive community can take to convince Blizzard to add them to the map pool.
Well I'm pretty sure the person you quoted was being sarcastic.
|
On March 01 2011 19:29 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 19:24 rift wrote:On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs The funny thing is that new players think a "macro game" is something unique or out of the norm in SC. In Brood War most games were macro because it was not a game of all-ins on tiny, simplified Blizzard maps. This is how the game is meant to be. Every map should be removed and replaced with these Korean maps or iCCup maps of similar size. Most games I saw in the invitational with Startale were still all-ins because the iCCup map size generally mirrors Blizzard's; it was what we were raised on, and it needs to be eliminated from competitive play. BW games take a while to build up; SC2 players need to have some patience in watching. On the ladder situation: tournaments changing to only-custom maps is the best initiative the competitive community can take to convince Blizzard to add them to the map pool. Well I'm pretty sure the person you quoted was being sarcastic.
Yah, I was responding to the person he quoted.
|
On March 01 2011 19:36 rift wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 19:29 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 01 2011 19:24 rift wrote:On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs The funny thing is that new players think a "macro game" is something unique or out of the norm in SC. In Brood War most games were macro because it was not a game of all-ins on tiny, simplified Blizzard maps. This is how the game is meant to be. Every map should be removed and replaced with these Korean maps or iCCup maps of similar size. Most games I saw in the invitational with Startale were still all-ins because the iCCup map size generally mirrors Blizzard's; it was what we were raised on, and it needs to be eliminated from competitive play. BW games take a while to build up; SC2 players need to have some patience in watching. On the ladder situation: tournaments changing to only-custom maps is the best initiative the competitive community can take to convince Blizzard to add them to the map pool. Well I'm pretty sure the person you quoted was being sarcastic. Yah, I was responding to the person he quoted.
Oh. Kinda confusing^.
|
On March 01 2011 08:46 Asha` wrote:
Key notes are the decisions to prevent close spawns on Meta and Shattered Temple, as well as forcing Shakuras to be cross pos only.
Wish Blizzard would implement this..
|
What's with all these shitty building blockers? Seriously , it's a part of the game as cheese is a part of the game.And no close spawn? What the hell? Also part of the damn game.
|
On March 01 2011 19:50 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:
What's with all these shitty building blockers? Seriously , it's a part of the game as cheese is a part of the game.And no close spawn? What the hell? Also part of the damn game.
Yeah people are acting like the game is somehow imperfect or could use improvement, it's insane. Be ashamed of yourselves.
|
On March 01 2011 19:24 rift wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs The funny thing is that new players think a "macro game" is something unique or out of the norm in SC. In Brood War most games were macro because it was not a game of all-ins on tiny, simplified Blizzard maps. This is how the game is meant to be. Every map should be removed and replaced with these Korean maps or iCCup maps of similar size. Most games I saw in the invitational with Startale were still all-ins because the iCCup map size generally mirrors Blizzard's; it was what we were raised on, and it needs to be eliminated from competitive play. BW games take a while to build up; SC2 players need to have some patience in watching. On the ladder situation: tournaments changing to only-custom maps is the best initiative the competitive community can take to convince Blizzard to add them to the map pool.
Meant to be? It's Blizzard's damn game , and it's meant to be whatever the hell they wish it to be. I'm actually really glad to see close spawn games, more emphasis on the micro aspect of the game and really fun to watch. The game should be diverse, you shouldn't be forced by the damn tournament hosts to play in a certain way.
|
On March 01 2011 19:54 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 19:24 rift wrote:On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs The funny thing is that new players think a "macro game" is something unique or out of the norm in SC. In Brood War most games were macro because it was not a game of all-ins on tiny, simplified Blizzard maps. This is how the game is meant to be. Every map should be removed and replaced with these Korean maps or iCCup maps of similar size. Most games I saw in the invitational with Startale were still all-ins because the iCCup map size generally mirrors Blizzard's; it was what we were raised on, and it needs to be eliminated from competitive play. BW games take a while to build up; SC2 players need to have some patience in watching. On the ladder situation: tournaments changing to only-custom maps is the best initiative the competitive community can take to convince Blizzard to add them to the map pool. Meant to be? It's Blizzard's damn game , and it's meant to be whatever the hell they wish it to be. I'm actually really glad to see close spawn games, more emphasis on the micro aspect of the game and really fun to watch. The game should be diverse, you shouldn't be forced by the damn tournament hosts to play in a certain way.
The tournament hosts can....... choose the maps used in the tournament, though. Go play Blood bath in customs for micro emphasis.
|
I think it's pretty rare to see more/more interesting/more emphasized micro in rush games as opposed to macro games. In cheese/rush/timing push games, usually the deciding factor is whether or not the rushed player happened to make the one bad choice that will kill them or not kill them. In close positions they often have to make that choice blind. Sometimes it's their build order. Sometimes it's making two too many drones.
|
On March 01 2011 19:57 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 19:54 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:On March 01 2011 19:24 rift wrote:On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs The funny thing is that new players think a "macro game" is something unique or out of the norm in SC. In Brood War most games were macro because it was not a game of all-ins on tiny, simplified Blizzard maps. This is how the game is meant to be. Every map should be removed and replaced with these Korean maps or iCCup maps of similar size. Most games I saw in the invitational with Startale were still all-ins because the iCCup map size generally mirrors Blizzard's; it was what we were raised on, and it needs to be eliminated from competitive play. BW games take a while to build up; SC2 players need to have some patience in watching. On the ladder situation: tournaments changing to only-custom maps is the best initiative the competitive community can take to convince Blizzard to add them to the map pool. Meant to be? It's Blizzard's damn game , and it's meant to be whatever the hell they wish it to be. I'm actually really glad to see close spawn games, more emphasis on the micro aspect of the game and really fun to watch. The game should be diverse, you shouldn't be forced by the damn tournament hosts to play in a certain way. The tournament hosts can....... choose the maps used in the tournament, though. Go play Blood bath in customs for micro emphasis.
Oh yeah you made some nice points there. Really constructive.I don't wanna play a shitty custom map. I wanna play normal Starcraft 2 and I want MLG to allow players to play however they want and not make preposterous restrictions to please QQing zergs.
|
really nice balanced maps
|
On March 01 2011 20:00 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 19:57 Shikyo wrote:On March 01 2011 19:54 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:On March 01 2011 19:24 rift wrote:On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs The funny thing is that new players think a "macro game" is something unique or out of the norm in SC. In Brood War most games were macro because it was not a game of all-ins on tiny, simplified Blizzard maps. This is how the game is meant to be. Every map should be removed and replaced with these Korean maps or iCCup maps of similar size. Most games I saw in the invitational with Startale were still all-ins because the iCCup map size generally mirrors Blizzard's; it was what we were raised on, and it needs to be eliminated from competitive play. BW games take a while to build up; SC2 players need to have some patience in watching. On the ladder situation: tournaments changing to only-custom maps is the best initiative the competitive community can take to convince Blizzard to add them to the map pool. Meant to be? It's Blizzard's damn game , and it's meant to be whatever the hell they wish it to be. I'm actually really glad to see close spawn games, more emphasis on the micro aspect of the game and really fun to watch. The game should be diverse, you shouldn't be forced by the damn tournament hosts to play in a certain way. The tournament hosts can....... choose the maps used in the tournament, though. Go play Blood bath in customs for micro emphasis. Oh yeah you made some nice points there. Really constructive.I don't wanna play a shitty custom map. I wanna play normal Starcraft 2 and I want MLG to allow players to play however they want and not make preposterous restrictions to please QQing zergs.
I feel like I'm a serial responder here but close positions definitely don't let people play how they want no matter what the matchup is.
|
I feel like making Shakuras only cross positions makes it even more boring. It's essentially just 2 bases with easily defendable naturals seperated by a huge open expanse. Dull.
|
On March 01 2011 19:54 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 19:24 rift wrote:On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs The funny thing is that new players think a "macro game" is something unique or out of the norm in SC. In Brood War most games were macro because it was not a game of all-ins on tiny, simplified Blizzard maps. This is how the game is meant to be. Every map should be removed and replaced with these Korean maps or iCCup maps of similar size. Most games I saw in the invitational with Startale were still all-ins because the iCCup map size generally mirrors Blizzard's; it was what we were raised on, and it needs to be eliminated from competitive play. BW games take a while to build up; SC2 players need to have some patience in watching. On the ladder situation: tournaments changing to only-custom maps is the best initiative the competitive community can take to convince Blizzard to add them to the map pool. Meant to be? It's Blizzard's damn game , and it's meant to be whatever the hell they wish it to be. I'm actually really glad to see close spawn games, more emphasis on the micro aspect of the game and really fun to watch. The game should be diverse, you shouldn't be forced by the damn tournament hosts to play in a certain way.
No it's meant to be whatever the community shapes it into. Just because the game was firm in Blizzards hand with the ladder maps doesn't mean the community or tournaments have to give even two cents about it. What some people really seem to not get is that these "macro" maps change the flow of the game, not the duration. New aggressive expanding leads to totally different timings (upgrades, army, attack patterns).
If you sit in your base for 50 minutes without anything happening it's safe to say that both you and your opponent don't understand the game.
|
On March 01 2011 19:54 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 19:24 rift wrote:On March 01 2011 18:19 joshboy42 wrote:On March 01 2011 18:05 Poocs wrote:
I think it's ridiculous to force macro games. Takes away from the variety of strategies used. But I guess the community just wants to see 50 minutes games instead of cool builds. yep you're totally right. every game thats not a 5-10min all-in rush is a 50minute macro game with both players sitting in their bases twiddling their thumbs The funny thing is that new players think a "macro game" is something unique or out of the norm in SC. In Brood War most games were macro because it was not a game of all-ins on tiny, simplified Blizzard maps. This is how the game is meant to be. Every map should be removed and replaced with these Korean maps or iCCup maps of similar size. Most games I saw in the invitational with Startale were still all-ins because the iCCup map size generally mirrors Blizzard's; it was what we were raised on, and it needs to be eliminated from competitive play. BW games take a while to build up; SC2 players need to have some patience in watching. On the ladder situation: tournaments changing to only-custom maps is the best initiative the competitive community can take to convince Blizzard to add them to the map pool. Meant to be? It's Blizzard's damn game , and it's meant to be whatever the hell they wish it to be. I'm actually really glad to see close spawn games, more emphasis on the micro aspect of the game and really fun to watch. The game should be diverse, you shouldn't be forced by the damn tournament hosts to play in a certain way.
close positions promotes games decided more by luck than skill, as many times you have to blind counter your opponent and can lose on build orders. plus the games are generally shorter and not as exciting, either to play or spectate. its not like its impossible to do any early aggression in the other spawn locations on metal or LT, but it allows more ways to play the game
|
On March 01 2011 20:07 The KY wrote:
I feel like making Shakuras only cross positions makes it even more boring. It's essentially just 2 bases with easily defendable naturals seperated by a huge open expanse. Dull.
Really? I think the opposite, in TvZ at least. Going down that corridor and knowing the game most likely wouldn't go on for very much longer, regardless of who won, was quite annoying to me (wasn't always the case, but more so than often). "Close" positions completely eliminated the option of flanking. It was either 1) Deal ineffectively with T down a narrow corridor 2) Abandon main, rebuild elsewhere, try to counter attack natural and hope it's relatively undefended. Some of the more boring play, while cross expansions was always significantly more harass oriented.
|
Do these building blockers prevent a low ground wallin with supply + barracks?
That would be pretty lame.
|
i think it will be a downed supply depot like its on one of the gsl maps
|
On March 01 2011 19:50 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:
What's with all these shitty building blockers? Seriously , it's a part of the game as cheese is a part of the game.And no close spawn? What the hell? Also part of the damn game.
All-Ins like early Proxibarracks are still possible.
Going a 2 Rax/Bunker-Push or some other Building Block and laugh at the sweating Zerg while T/P is doing a totally save and normal build is not.
You see the diffrence here?
|
I love the removal of close position spawns, they're boring.
|
Wow, truly awesome. Way to have the balls to actually prevent close positions, I won't be in Dallas, but I'll be sure to make it out to at least 1 or 2 events this season.
|
On March 01 2011 19:50 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:
What's with all these shitty building blockers? Seriously , it's a part of the game as cheese is a part of the game.And no close spawn? What the hell? Also part of the damn game.
You act like they removed the whole concept of cheese, rushes and all-ins. It is still possible to do those even if there are building blockers.
EDIT: minor grammar correction
|
This all makes for an interesting competition.. Makes me excited to watch
Been waiting since MLG Dallas eagerly!
|
I would love to see more iCCup or GSL maps but other than that it's a great map pool with great changes to the existing maps.
|
nice. I like the * idea too.
|
I applaud MLG for taking steps to balance Blizzard's maps such as neutral depots and preventing close spawns. That said, I wish they would have been a bit more adventurous in their map choices, especially if these are to be the maps used all year (last year they showed reluctance to change the pool mid-season). Why they chose Crossfire over any of the GSL maps is beyond me. But seeing iCCup get some recognition is really cool.
|
Like others have said, nice job MLG. Great maps all around and personally as someone who offraces quite a bit i feel that all these maps are the best choice in terms of balance and macro/micro/diversity.
I'm glad there adding in the new LT, personally its the only new that i can stand outta the new map pool and wont give the cliff dropping that we see on the regular LT.
Should be a good time when the tournament series start.
|
279 Posts
On March 02 2011 00:13 Rokk wrote:
I applaud MLG for taking steps to balance Blizzard's maps such as neutral depots and preventing close spawns. That said, I wish they would have been a bit more adventurous in their map choices, especially if these are to be the maps used all year (last year they showed reluctance to change the pool mid-season). Why they chose Crossfire over any of the GSL maps is beyond me. But seeing iCCup get some recognition is really cool.
From my post earlier in the thread Rokk:
On March 01 2011 11:56 MLG_Lee wrote:
We do listen. Really, we do. :D As a league, I know we will always be under scrutiny, but hopefully this goes a little way to showing the community that we pay attention and that we often have reasons for the things that we do.
Along those lines, I see a lot of questions about why we chose Crossfire vs some of the other GSL maps. Personally, I love Crevasse, but we're also under some serious time constraints due to our bracket size and format. The average time in all the major competition replays we could get our hands on showed Crevasse exceeding our cut off. Unfortunately, so we really couldn't risk having a map that might delay the progress of the tournament. 5mins more every round ends up being a 3hr+ delay by the end of the weekend. And the schedule is already REALLY long for the players.
Crossfire, while not as good in allowing the macro-game to be played out as some of the other larger maps these days, has some really exciting elements to it that I'm looking forward to seeing on the main stage at Dallas.
|
Sorry, I didn't have the time to read the entire thread. Thanks for the response, Lee. Since I have you for a second, are you guys planning to keep the same map pool for the year or has that not been decided yet?
|
On March 02 2011 00:23 MLG_Lee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 00:13 Rokk wrote:
I applaud MLG for taking steps to balance Blizzard's maps such as neutral depots and preventing close spawns. That said, I wish they would have been a bit more adventurous in their map choices, especially if these are to be the maps used all year (last year they showed reluctance to change the pool mid-season). Why they chose Crossfire over any of the GSL maps is beyond me. But seeing iCCup get some recognition is really cool. From my post earlier in the thread Rokk: Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 11:56 MLG_Lee wrote:
We do listen. Really, we do. :D As a league, I know we will always be under scrutiny, but hopefully this goes a little way to showing the community that we pay attention and that we often have reasons for the things that we do.
Along those lines, I see a lot of questions about why we chose Crossfire vs some of the other GSL maps. Personally, I love Crevasse, but we're also under some serious time constraints due to our bracket size and format. The average time in all the major competition replays we could get our hands on showed Crevasse exceeding our cut off. Unfortunately, so we really couldn't risk having a map that might delay the progress of the tournament. 5mins more every round ends up being a 3hr+ delay by the end of the weekend. And the schedule is already REALLY long for the players.
Crossfire, while not as good in allowing the macro-game to be played out as some of the other larger maps these days, has some really exciting elements to it that I'm looking forward to seeing on the main stage at Dallas.
I totally get this, and I'm really happy with the map pool and I think the games will be awesome to watch, but can't you just as easily have one really long game hold up a large part of the tournament? I've seen ZvT on steppes of war end up having a 85 minute game before.
|
I really like that mlg included iccup and gsl maps. After jp talking on woc on sotg about why mlg would "promote" other things with their map pool etc i was a bit scared Being a bit too careful maybe, but much more important imo that you're willing to try^^ gw.
|
On March 01 2011 11:56 MLG_Lee wrote:
We do listen. Really, we do. :D As a league, I know we will always be under scrutiny, but hopefully this goes a little way to showing the community that we pay attention and that we often have reasons for the things that we do.
Along those lines, I see a lot of questions about why we chose Crossfire vs some of the other GSL maps. Personally, I love Crevasse, but we're also under some serious time constraints due to our bracket size and format. The average time in all the major competition replays we could get our hands on showed Crevasse exceeding our cut off. Unfortunately, so we really couldn't risk having a map that might delay the progress of the tournament. 5mins more every round ends up being a 3hr+ delay by the end of the weekend. And the schedule is already REALLY long for the players.
Crossfire, while not as good in allowing the macro-game to be played out as some of the other larger maps these days, has some really exciting elements to it that I'm looking forward to seeing on the main stage at Dallas.
I love that they are paying such attention to the community requests, and then this post explaining why they picked what they did is great.
I am worried though because it seems like everything they are doing is just setting up the Jinro for another MLG win. I mean come on macro maps are so IMBA in his favor it is ridiculous! :D
|
great maps.
|
On March 02 2011 00:27 Rokk wrote:
Sorry, I didn't have the time to read the entire thread. Thanks for the response, Lee. Since I have you for a second, are you guys planning to keep the same map pool for the year or has that not been decided yet?
MLG have said that they will be changing maps during the season.
|
excellent map pool apart from scrap station, one of the most horrible maps for toss
|
Awesome map pool. Great for Zergs and macro players. Maybe the patch will drop before the tourney and we will have another ZvZ final like Assembly. lol
|
Fantastic decisions! MLG FTW
|
smart for keeping shakuras in. Really is a great map. Think cross pos only is an awesome stipulation that they are adding.
|
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 truly support these maps. Especially with the custom changes.
I am not certain yet but I think I will buy a premium ticket for MLG. Depends on what they offer for Europeans though.
But I liked that they explained their format on SotG 27.
|
Sweet, can't wait to see the new maps in action.
|
I'm really excited to see these new maps, played, and I can't wait to see you guys this summer in Columbus!
|
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
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2572/vlcsnap2010110618h34m38.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/i7Cd6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/XxIZ6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Z9hmI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/9fXrU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/gddXF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/hx25J.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/e4D0c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/3GoJ1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/DQLNL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/NL4kR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/8DR8w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Qg2RA.jpg)
