|
Russian Federation304 Posts
i dont like all new maps, except typhon peaks
|
On March 04 2011 03:32 HaruHaru wrote:
i'm glad they're starting to remove gold mineral patches in the map
me too. It seems like there's the same "cool" features in so many of these maps.
*gold minerals toward the middle ("hard to defend!!")
*destructible rocks opening new paths/blocking expos after the nat ("strategery!!")
What I would like to see is bases besides mains with only 6 mineral and 1 gas. I think this would make more incentive to get a 3rd or 4th base besides just maxing out on 2 base.
|
On March 04 2011 05:47 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 03:32 HaruHaru wrote:
i'm glad they're starting to remove gold mineral patches in the map What I would like to see is bases besides mains with only 6 mineral and 1 gas. I think this would make more incentive to get a 3rd or 4th base besides just maxing out on 2 base.
Personally I think this would encourage more 1 base all in abusive type strategies simply because taking an expansion would be even less rewarding then it is now. Imagine ZvT, zerg could NEVER fast expand on a map like that because a 2 rax all in would crush zerg every single time.
|
I think Blizzard will be waiting to see which of the GSL maps is the most balanced and add that. That's why they cannot say yet. The GSL maps aren't perfect afterall. That's right. The pros in the GSL and other tournaments are essentially play testing these maps for us.
|
On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them THAT IS A GOOD THING. Why are you assuming you should get a worry free expansion on every single map? Forge FE should not be completely viable on every single map. Those maps mean that economic cheese can be punished, and things like 1 rax FE and 1 gate FE are economic cheese. I like big macro games as much has anyone, but I also hate that the trend amongst the pro maps definitely going towards NO rushes or all-ins. On maps like Shakuras, there was basically no threat of an all-in, because you can block off your nat ramp with a building and a defensive structure, and the rush distance was so long, your only real option was a proxy anyways. On some of the GSL maps, if you scout the wrong base twice, you can't cheese, simple as that. Not even the option for cheese. They'll have a rax or two and an expo on the way already by the time you get there. That is NOT good for gameplay. I've seen plenty of people go CC/nexus first on these maps, without even scouting, which is just ludicrous, imo. Heck, zergs can go 3 hatch before pool sometimes. That is somewhat cool for now because it's so novel, but that gets old fast too. There needs to be threat of pressure keeping people from just pure power macroing for the first 20 minutes of a "game". Power turtle macro into 200/200 death ball for 20 minutes, one 15 second engagement, and a GG. That's the trend these big "macro maps" is going toward, and that is even less fun than 2 rax all-ins. That's just sim-city with a happy ending. Imo, Blizzard has the right idea, although I admit they don't have amazing execution with some of their ideas, and they seem quite blind to basic map abuse strategies. But just look at maps like Xel'naga. It has all the "broken features" that many of you whine about, yet it plays extremely solid, and leads to both exciting macro games and great 1 base all-ins. Lets see, no easy third, wide open natural, rocks blocking both the gold and third, dominant xel'naga towers, holding a 4th and 5th base is basically impossible, and it's hard to scout the main. It is so fun to watch because as a player you have so many options, many of them equally viable. This is such a good post, and something I've been trying to express for a while now. People are blindly demanding big maps just because thats the way BW was, but forget that 1) its a different game and 2) huge maps will also lead into a smaller variety in strategies and games. Happy mediums like Xel'naga is where its at right now, imo. They demand bigger maps precisely because SC2 is a different game--cheese and all-ins are much more effective than they were in BW, thanks to scouting being more difficult while Chronoboost and MULEs make more units come out faster. We need the bigger maps for the game to be interesting at all. Otherwise it's just "welp, small map/close positions, better one-base it!" for T/P or "welp, small map/close positions, autolose" for Z. Those games are boring. No one likes to lose or win based on map position and games that stay on one/two bases lead to the biggest complaint spectators have about SC2, which is "the players just build their balls and then the balls smash and the game is over." Every map should allow for the possibility of 3+ base play every game. XNC is not a happy medium. If you look at the current crop of BW maps, even the smallest have twelve bases. XNC has ten. It's too small and the natural positioning/open-ness is stupid. It might be one of the best maps we have but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have drastically better. How? It's pretty much the most popular map in SC2 right now. What contributes to this? Imo, its the long rush distance alone that contributes. whining about having wide open nats and rocks covering future expos is meaningless when you have time to see and defend the threats to your base. At the same time, you can't do stupid crap like nexus first, because it's wide open enough so that you can punish blatant eco cheese if you scout it. I will agree it could use 2 more bases, but saying it blows because BW maps have at least 12 expos and XC has 10 is the quite possibly the stupidest possible argument I've seen in this thread to date. Aka, its not the same as BW therefore it sucks. Wtf dude? XC easily has an option for 3 base play every game, with 4 bases being quite common to see. Imo, Slag Pits is fine (backwater gulch isn't an option to consider yet.....LOL nat) if you disable close ground spawns. Typhoon and ST are completely fine, period. I'm worried about the two biggest GSL maps..........they don't belong on ladder. 99% of the player base will never have good games on those maps. I don't even like them so far for GSL....you have zero options for all-ins. And that's just as bad as all-ins every game. Imo, it's an overreaction to the excessively small ladder maps like Steppes and Blistering. Going from all-ins every game to possibly not even scouting which base your opponent is at until 4 minutes in.....is not necessarily a change for the better. Sure, it makes your games macro games, but at the expense of almost ALL early game pressure and cheese. You could lose a 7 pool to a CC first build if you scout the two wrong bases first, and that is fundamentally wrong. Cheese and all-ins is just as much part of SC as big macro games. It shouldn't be the focus, but there HAS to be that pressure and nervousness that your opponent could be doing something cheesy, otherwise the first 15 minutes of the game are meaningless and we should just start with two bases and a pool/gate/rax alreayd built just to save time. And for the Slag Pit haters. lets just say you disable close ground spawns......give me ONE good reason why this is a terrible imbalanced map. Its metalopolis.....only with golds you could actually get and hold in cross positions. I said this earlier, and I feel it needs to be repeated. SC2 is not Sim City with a happy ending. With no threat of early pressure, the game fundamentally falls apart, and balance becomes almost impossible.
Yes, exactly. People are just using the "it's GSL therefore it's perfect" card and cramming it down our throats. Yes, were players/spectators are relieved something was done about maps. That's all. But doesn't mean the maps are perfect.
Maps like Tal'darim are TOO big. Nothing happens for the first 15 minutes and after that it's endless harassment. The map completely ignores the early/mid-game dynamics and tension. The games are boring to watch. Remember how much shit Desert Oasis took because of the long ground distance? And here we are with people praising a map much larger than that.
|
The main piece of information I hoped to find that I felt was glaringly missing from their explanations is why they don't want main ramps close to the natural. All 4 of the removed ramps had ramps in a position that zerg's creep from their natural hatch would reach the ramp. This really helped queens/roaches/spines defend early hatches vs speedlings or hellions. All of the new maps (including temple, where they pushed the ramp out to fit a second gas so it's not cliff-able from the non-existent cliff) lack this feature. The worst is backwater gulch, which allegedly has a "familiar main to first expansion layout" despite the fact that the natural is nowhere near the main by ground...
|
On March 04 2011 05:55 ApBuLLet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 05:47 Dromar wrote:On March 04 2011 03:32 HaruHaru wrote:
i'm glad they're starting to remove gold mineral patches in the map What I would like to see is bases besides mains with only 6 mineral and 1 gas. I think this would make more incentive to get a 3rd or 4th base besides just maxing out on 2 base. Personally I think this would encourage more 1 base all in abusive type strategies simply because taking an expansion would be even less rewarding then it is now. Imagine ZvT, zerg could NEVER fast expand on a map like that because a 2 rax all in would crush zerg every single time.
In case I didn't make it clear, I meant for the mains to still have the 8mins/2gas layout. It would make no difference at all for a zerg defending a 2rax all-in, as there's no way zerg would need be using those last 2 mineral patches or gas from the nat at that point in the game.
If the mains were switched to 6min/1gas layout, I would totally agree. The power of one base terran supported by a mule would be absurd in that case.
|
Metalopolis = HighLander
maps keep dieing while this one remains
|
On March 04 2011 06:09 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them THAT IS A GOOD THING. Why are you assuming you should get a worry free expansion on every single map? Forge FE should not be completely viable on every single map. Those maps mean that economic cheese can be punished, and things like 1 rax FE and 1 gate FE are economic cheese. I like big macro games as much has anyone, but I also hate that the trend amongst the pro maps definitely going towards NO rushes or all-ins. On maps like Shakuras, there was basically no threat of an all-in, because you can block off your nat ramp with a building and a defensive structure, and the rush distance was so long, your only real option was a proxy anyways. On some of the GSL maps, if you scout the wrong base twice, you can't cheese, simple as that. Not even the option for cheese. They'll have a rax or two and an expo on the way already by the time you get there. That is NOT good for gameplay. I've seen plenty of people go CC/nexus first on these maps, without even scouting, which is just ludicrous, imo. Heck, zergs can go 3 hatch before pool sometimes. That is somewhat cool for now because it's so novel, but that gets old fast too. There needs to be threat of pressure keeping people from just pure power macroing for the first 20 minutes of a "game". Power turtle macro into 200/200 death ball for 20 minutes, one 15 second engagement, and a GG. That's the trend these big "macro maps" is going toward, and that is even less fun than 2 rax all-ins. That's just sim-city with a happy ending. Imo, Blizzard has the right idea, although I admit they don't have amazing execution with some of their ideas, and they seem quite blind to basic map abuse strategies. But just look at maps like Xel'naga. It has all the "broken features" that many of you whine about, yet it plays extremely solid, and leads to both exciting macro games and great 1 base all-ins. Lets see, no easy third, wide open natural, rocks blocking both the gold and third, dominant xel'naga towers, holding a 4th and 5th base is basically impossible, and it's hard to scout the main. It is so fun to watch because as a player you have so many options, many of them equally viable. This is such a good post, and something I've been trying to express for a while now. People are blindly demanding big maps just because thats the way BW was, but forget that 1) its a different game and 2) huge maps will also lead into a smaller variety in strategies and games. Happy mediums like Xel'naga is where its at right now, imo. They demand bigger maps precisely because SC2 is a different game--cheese and all-ins are much more effective than they were in BW, thanks to scouting being more difficult while Chronoboost and MULEs make more units come out faster. We need the bigger maps for the game to be interesting at all. Otherwise it's just "welp, small map/close positions, better one-base it!" for T/P or "welp, small map/close positions, autolose" for Z. Those games are boring. No one likes to lose or win based on map position and games that stay on one/two bases lead to the biggest complaint spectators have about SC2, which is "the players just build their balls and then the balls smash and the game is over." Every map should allow for the possibility of 3+ base play every game. XNC is not a happy medium. If you look at the current crop of BW maps, even the smallest have twelve bases. XNC has ten. It's too small and the natural positioning/open-ness is stupid. It might be one of the best maps we have but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have drastically better. How? It's pretty much the most popular map in SC2 right now. What contributes to this? Imo, its the long rush distance alone that contributes. whining about having wide open nats and rocks covering future expos is meaningless when you have time to see and defend the threats to your base. At the same time, you can't do stupid crap like nexus first, because it's wide open enough so that you can punish blatant eco cheese if you scout it. I will agree it could use 2 more bases, but saying it blows because BW maps have at least 12 expos and XC has 10 is the quite possibly the stupidest possible argument I've seen in this thread to date. Aka, its not the same as BW therefore it sucks. Wtf dude? XC easily has an option for 3 base play every game, with 4 bases being quite common to see. Imo, Slag Pits is fine (backwater gulch isn't an option to consider yet.....LOL nat) if you disable close ground spawns. Typhoon and ST are completely fine, period. I'm worried about the two biggest GSL maps..........they don't belong on ladder. 99% of the player base will never have good games on those maps. I don't even like them so far for GSL....you have zero options for all-ins. And that's just as bad as all-ins every game. Imo, it's an overreaction to the excessively small ladder maps like Steppes and Blistering. Going from all-ins every game to possibly not even scouting which base your opponent is at until 4 minutes in.....is not necessarily a change for the better. Sure, it makes your games macro games, but at the expense of almost ALL early game pressure and cheese. You could lose a 7 pool to a CC first build if you scout the two wrong bases first, and that is fundamentally wrong. Cheese and all-ins is just as much part of SC as big macro games. It shouldn't be the focus, but there HAS to be that pressure and nervousness that your opponent could be doing something cheesy, otherwise the first 15 minutes of the game are meaningless and we should just start with two bases and a pool/gate/rax alreayd built just to save time. And for the Slag Pit haters. lets just say you disable close ground spawns......give me ONE good reason why this is a terrible imbalanced map. Its metalopolis.....only with golds you could actually get and hold in cross positions. I said this earlier, and I feel it needs to be repeated. SC2 is not Sim City with a happy ending. With no threat of early pressure, the game fundamentally falls apart, and balance becomes almost impossible. Yes, exactly. People are just using the "it's GSL therefore it's perfect" card and cramming it down our throats. Yes, were players/spectators are relieved something was done about maps. That's all. But doesn't mean the maps are perfect. Maps like Tal'darim are TOO big. Nothing happens for the first 15 minutes and after that it's endless harassment. The map completely ignores the early/mid-game dynamics and tension. The games are boring to watch. Remember how much shit Desert Oasis took because of the long ground distance? And here we are with people praising a map much larger than that.
Lol. desert oasis wasn't terrible because it was a big map. Way to pull something out of context. It had large walking distance, but short air distance (hello air play), two different attack paths (coupled with the long walking distance, made counter attacks a bitch), and a retardedly wide open and faraway natural.
|
On March 03 2011 20:28 Candles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 19:16 kidleader wrote:
I usually dislike all the Blizzard bashing, but removing Shakuras and keeping Delta and Scrap, and even Xelnaga. There's interesting and then there's not guaranteeing the better play will win. Isn't the better player the one with the better all round game? Not just better at Macro? It like Jinro said. You want to have a little bit of the "all in" or "rush" style in your play to mix it up (obviously Paraphrased). Being a 2Dimensional Macro player is a crutch, just like being a constant 1-baser is a crutch. Obviously if the races aren't balanced so Zerg always loses on close positions on a certain map then there is an issue, but that is with the race balance and not the maps surely? A lot of people seem to forget that Zerg aren't purely an expand early Macro race. They have 1 base Roach contain into expand, Baneling busts, Nydus and drop harass. Yes Idra's style of hanging on, building momentum for the late game and then overunning people is amazing and beautiful to watch, but it isn't the only high level style surely? Kyrix style anyone?
Exactly, and Kespa maps allow for multiple styles of play. Blizzard maps only allow for very limited style of play. Just because the map is large or has a narrow natural entrance doesn't mean the game is gonna turn out into a macro game. Flash has cheesed and rushed countless times on so called macro maps.
|
"Shakuras is boring"? What the hell?
Id rather have a boring map, which shakuras is not, thats actually balanced, than one of these stupid new maps with no third, or a nat a million miles away. So sad, blizz stop taking out freaking shakuras!
GSL Maps though, awesome news, get them in asap!
|
I dont see how it matters if its boring as long as it's balanced and not completely devoid of any interesting terrain.
|
This is great news and all but until I see Delta Quadrant off that list and more GSL maps or at least Shakuras Plateau, I will not be fully satisfied. I mean, what is stopping them? I know I sound like a spoiled beetch but idc.
|
Shakuras is definatly not a boring map. Some of the best games ever played were played on that map. Yea, not a lot of "interesting" features, but its good enough that their reason for removing it is kinda lame.
However, still glad that Blizz is putting out some more information on new maps. Any of the new GSL maps would be good tbh.
|
I wanna see Hearbreak Ridge, Python, Destination, Colosseum, and Fighting Spirit make returns ^^
|
On March 04 2011 06:09 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them THAT IS A GOOD THING. Why are you assuming you should get a worry free expansion on every single map? Forge FE should not be completely viable on every single map. Those maps mean that economic cheese can be punished, and things like 1 rax FE and 1 gate FE are economic cheese. I like big macro games as much has anyone, but I also hate that the trend amongst the pro maps definitely going towards NO rushes or all-ins. On maps like Shakuras, there was basically no threat of an all-in, because you can block off your nat ramp with a building and a defensive structure, and the rush distance was so long, your only real option was a proxy anyways. On some of the GSL maps, if you scout the wrong base twice, you can't cheese, simple as that. Not even the option for cheese. They'll have a rax or two and an expo on the way already by the time you get there. That is NOT good for gameplay. I've seen plenty of people go CC/nexus first on these maps, without even scouting, which is just ludicrous, imo. Heck, zergs can go 3 hatch before pool sometimes. That is somewhat cool for now because it's so novel, but that gets old fast too. There needs to be threat of pressure keeping people from just pure power macroing for the first 20 minutes of a "game". Power turtle macro into 200/200 death ball for 20 minutes, one 15 second engagement, and a GG. That's the trend these big "macro maps" is going toward, and that is even less fun than 2 rax all-ins. That's just sim-city with a happy ending. Imo, Blizzard has the right idea, although I admit they don't have amazing execution with some of their ideas, and they seem quite blind to basic map abuse strategies. But just look at maps like Xel'naga. It has all the "broken features" that many of you whine about, yet it plays extremely solid, and leads to both exciting macro games and great 1 base all-ins. Lets see, no easy third, wide open natural, rocks blocking both the gold and third, dominant xel'naga towers, holding a 4th and 5th base is basically impossible, and it's hard to scout the main. It is so fun to watch because as a player you have so many options, many of them equally viable. This is such a good post, and something I've been trying to express for a while now. People are blindly demanding big maps just because thats the way BW was, but forget that 1) its a different game and 2) huge maps will also lead into a smaller variety in strategies and games. Happy mediums like Xel'naga is where its at right now, imo. They demand bigger maps precisely because SC2 is a different game--cheese and all-ins are much more effective than they were in BW, thanks to scouting being more difficult while Chronoboost and MULEs make more units come out faster. We need the bigger maps for the game to be interesting at all. Otherwise it's just "welp, small map/close positions, better one-base it!" for T/P or "welp, small map/close positions, autolose" for Z. Those games are boring. No one likes to lose or win based on map position and games that stay on one/two bases lead to the biggest complaint spectators have about SC2, which is "the players just build their balls and then the balls smash and the game is over." Every map should allow for the possibility of 3+ base play every game. XNC is not a happy medium. If you look at the current crop of BW maps, even the smallest have twelve bases. XNC has ten. It's too small and the natural positioning/open-ness is stupid. It might be one of the best maps we have but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have drastically better. How? It's pretty much the most popular map in SC2 right now. What contributes to this? Imo, its the long rush distance alone that contributes. whining about having wide open nats and rocks covering future expos is meaningless when you have time to see and defend the threats to your base. At the same time, you can't do stupid crap like nexus first, because it's wide open enough so that you can punish blatant eco cheese if you scout it. I will agree it could use 2 more bases, but saying it blows because BW maps have at least 12 expos and XC has 10 is the quite possibly the stupidest possible argument I've seen in this thread to date. Aka, its not the same as BW therefore it sucks. Wtf dude? XC easily has an option for 3 base play every game, with 4 bases being quite common to see. Imo, Slag Pits is fine (backwater gulch isn't an option to consider yet.....LOL nat) if you disable close ground spawns. Typhoon and ST are completely fine, period. I'm worried about the two biggest GSL maps..........they don't belong on ladder. 99% of the player base will never have good games on those maps. I don't even like them so far for GSL....you have zero options for all-ins. And that's just as bad as all-ins every game. Imo, it's an overreaction to the excessively small ladder maps like Steppes and Blistering. Going from all-ins every game to possibly not even scouting which base your opponent is at until 4 minutes in.....is not necessarily a change for the better. Sure, it makes your games macro games, but at the expense of almost ALL early game pressure and cheese. You could lose a 7 pool to a CC first build if you scout the two wrong bases first, and that is fundamentally wrong. Cheese and all-ins is just as much part of SC as big macro games. It shouldn't be the focus, but there HAS to be that pressure and nervousness that your opponent could be doing something cheesy, otherwise the first 15 minutes of the game are meaningless and we should just start with two bases and a pool/gate/rax alreayd built just to save time. And for the Slag Pit haters. lets just say you disable close ground spawns......give me ONE good reason why this is a terrible imbalanced map. Its metalopolis.....only with golds you could actually get and hold in cross positions. I said this earlier, and I feel it needs to be repeated. SC2 is not Sim City with a happy ending. With no threat of early pressure, the game fundamentally falls apart, and balance becomes almost impossible. Yes, exactly. People are just using the "it's GSL therefore it's perfect" card and cramming it down our throats. Yes, were players/spectators are relieved something was done about maps. That's all. But doesn't mean the maps are perfect. Maps like Tal'darim are TOO big. Nothing happens for the first 15 minutes and after that it's endless harassment. The map completely ignores the early/mid-game dynamics and tension. The games are boring to watch. Remember how much shit Desert Oasis took because of the long ground distance? And here we are with people praising a map much larger than that.
Jinro didn't actually get 4-gated. He actually went 5CC before Barracks. MKP didn't banshee rush and didn't pay for the rush's failure by a brutal counterattack. Instead, he took all the bases and massed Medivacs.
Have you actually watched the GSL?
|
What is economic cheese? Hahaha.
|
On March 04 2011 21:16 Wolf wrote:
What is economic cheese? Hahaha.
If you're serious, then you need to leave all map discussion threads to people who actually somewhat know what they are talking about.
|
On March 04 2011 22:06 Sm3agol wrote:If you're serious, then you need to leave all map discussion threads to people who actually somewhat know what they are talking about.
And you need to chill.
|
On March 04 2011 14:12 RHMVNovus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 06:09 Ownos wrote:On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them THAT IS A GOOD THING. Why are you assuming you should get a worry free expansion on every single map? Forge FE should not be completely viable on every single map. Those maps mean that economic cheese can be punished, and things like 1 rax FE and 1 gate FE are economic cheese. I like big macro games as much has anyone, but I also hate that the trend amongst the pro maps definitely going towards NO rushes or all-ins. On maps like Shakuras, there was basically no threat of an all-in, because you can block off your nat ramp with a building and a defensive structure, and the rush distance was so long, your only real option was a proxy anyways. On some of the GSL maps, if you scout the wrong base twice, you can't cheese, simple as that. Not even the option for cheese. They'll have a rax or two and an expo on the way already by the time you get there. That is NOT good for gameplay. I've seen plenty of people go CC/nexus first on these maps, without even scouting, which is just ludicrous, imo. Heck, zergs can go 3 hatch before pool sometimes. That is somewhat cool for now because it's so novel, but that gets old fast too. There needs to be threat of pressure keeping people from just pure power macroing for the first 20 minutes of a "game". Power turtle macro into 200/200 death ball for 20 minutes, one 15 second engagement, and a GG. That's the trend these big "macro maps" is going toward, and that is even less fun than 2 rax all-ins. That's just sim-city with a happy ending. Imo, Blizzard has the right idea, although I admit they don't have amazing execution with some of their ideas, and they seem quite blind to basic map abuse strategies. But just look at maps like Xel'naga. It has all the "broken features" that many of you whine about, yet it plays extremely solid, and leads to both exciting macro games and great 1 base all-ins. Lets see, no easy third, wide open natural, rocks blocking both the gold and third, dominant xel'naga towers, holding a 4th and 5th base is basically impossible, and it's hard to scout the main. It is so fun to watch because as a player you have so many options, many of them equally viable. This is such a good post, and something I've been trying to express for a while now. People are blindly demanding big maps just because thats the way BW was, but forget that 1) its a different game and 2) huge maps will also lead into a smaller variety in strategies and games. Happy mediums like Xel'naga is where its at right now, imo. They demand bigger maps precisely because SC2 is a different game--cheese and all-ins are much more effective than they were in BW, thanks to scouting being more difficult while Chronoboost and MULEs make more units come out faster. We need the bigger maps for the game to be interesting at all. Otherwise it's just "welp, small map/close positions, better one-base it!" for T/P or "welp, small map/close positions, autolose" for Z. Those games are boring. No one likes to lose or win based on map position and games that stay on one/two bases lead to the biggest complaint spectators have about SC2, which is "the players just build their balls and then the balls smash and the game is over." Every map should allow for the possibility of 3+ base play every game. XNC is not a happy medium. If you look at the current crop of BW maps, even the smallest have twelve bases. XNC has ten. It's too small and the natural positioning/open-ness is stupid. It might be one of the best maps we have but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have drastically better. How? It's pretty much the most popular map in SC2 right now. What contributes to this? Imo, its the long rush distance alone that contributes. whining about having wide open nats and rocks covering future expos is meaningless when you have time to see and defend the threats to your base. At the same time, you can't do stupid crap like nexus first, because it's wide open enough so that you can punish blatant eco cheese if you scout it. I will agree it could use 2 more bases, but saying it blows because BW maps have at least 12 expos and XC has 10 is the quite possibly the stupidest possible argument I've seen in this thread to date. Aka, its not the same as BW therefore it sucks. Wtf dude? XC easily has an option for 3 base play every game, with 4 bases being quite common to see. Imo, Slag Pits is fine (backwater gulch isn't an option to consider yet.....LOL nat) if you disable close ground spawns. Typhoon and ST are completely fine, period. I'm worried about the two biggest GSL maps..........they don't belong on ladder. 99% of the player base will never have good games on those maps. I don't even like them so far for GSL....you have zero options for all-ins. And that's just as bad as all-ins every game. Imo, it's an overreaction to the excessively small ladder maps like Steppes and Blistering. Going from all-ins every game to possibly not even scouting which base your opponent is at until 4 minutes in.....is not necessarily a change for the better. Sure, it makes your games macro games, but at the expense of almost ALL early game pressure and cheese. You could lose a 7 pool to a CC first build if you scout the two wrong bases first, and that is fundamentally wrong. Cheese and all-ins is just as much part of SC as big macro games. It shouldn't be the focus, but there HAS to be that pressure and nervousness that your opponent could be doing something cheesy, otherwise the first 15 minutes of the game are meaningless and we should just start with two bases and a pool/gate/rax alreayd built just to save time. And for the Slag Pit haters. lets just say you disable close ground spawns......give me ONE good reason why this is a terrible imbalanced map. Its metalopolis.....only with golds you could actually get and hold in cross positions. I said this earlier, and I feel it needs to be repeated. SC2 is not Sim City with a happy ending. With no threat of early pressure, the game fundamentally falls apart, and balance becomes almost impossible. Yes, exactly. People are just using the "it's GSL therefore it's perfect" card and cramming it down our throats. Yes, were players/spectators are relieved something was done about maps. That's all. But doesn't mean the maps are perfect. Maps like Tal'darim are TOO big. Nothing happens for the first 15 minutes and after that it's endless harassment. The map completely ignores the early/mid-game dynamics and tension. The games are boring to watch. Remember how much shit Desert Oasis took because of the long ground distance? And here we are with people praising a map much larger than that. Jinro didn't actually get 4-gated. He actually went 5CC before Barracks. MKP didn't banshee rush and didn't pay for the rush's failure by a brutal counterattack. Instead, he took all the bases and massed Medivacs. Have you actually watched the GSL?
A lot of people have watched the team leagues. What we saw was "some" good games on the new maps. Which doesn't mean the maps are terrible, but like many people have pointed out in this thread, when a map is too big, fast expand builds become way too safe. Once people figure out just how far greedy they can get, we end up with games where the entire early game tension is gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
