|
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 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.
They really have to stop doing this. In BackWater the center gold should be taken away because the 10 and 4 positions have it as an easy third. Which naturally puts the 2 and 8 at a disadvantage. It also makes for 1 sided games. Who ever get map control first autowins because they can take the gold and also the normal third next to the natural. Not to mention that on cross postions Terran can siege from his mineral line to your effectively denying you expo but protecting his. Also the destructable rocks in the natural are to much. 1 would be fine, the one next to the entrance of your natural that leads to your Third. But the second set of rocks makes defending you Natural a nightmare. Especially versus Blink Stalkers and 4 gates.
As for Typoon i actually like this map. Especially for Tanks. Most of the destructable rocks are in decent placement. Serving more as a defence rather then an inpediment. I just really hate Up and Down positions because of the stupid hallway connecting Naturals makes for stupid games.
|
On March 04 2011 13:36 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 20:28 Candles wrote: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.
When Flash Cheeses*sniffle* makes me so happy  . Didn't the other day he Bunker rushed a Toss into a Deep Six in Proleague?
And yeah macro map doesn't always equal no cheese. Heck sometimes cheese is stronger becasue its less expected. What Macro maps do is make Cheese and 1 base play more of an all-in and weaker.
|
On March 04 2011 23:03 GinDo 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 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. They really have to stop doing this. In BackWater the center gold should be taken away because the 10 and 4 positions have it as an easy third. Which naturally puts the 2 and 8 at a disadvantage. It also makes for 1 sided games. Who ever get map control first autowins because they can take the gold and also the normal third next to the natural. Not to mention that on cross postions Terran can siege from his mineral line to your effectively denying you expo but protecting his. Also the destructable rocks in the natural are to much. 1 would be fine, the one next to the entrance of your natural that leads to your Third. But the second set of rocks makes defending you Natural a nightmare. Especially versus Blink Stalkers and 4 gates. As for Typoon i actually like this map. Especially for Tanks. Most of the destructable rocks are in decent placement. Serving more as a defence rather then an inpediment. I just really hate Up and Down positions because of the stupid hallway connecting Naturals makes for stupid games.
No such thing as an easy third on Backwater, heck, no such thing as an easy second, forth or fifth either. Fuck that map
But yeah, I think why Blizzard have these awful maps is because of Bronze/Silver/Platinum/low-Diamond league.
Could you imagine those with GSL maps? It would be no one attacking for 10-20mins, then suddenly an attack, then...confusion as no one knows what to do next when the game isn't over after the first attack.
Why can't they just add GSL/MLG maps to ladder for Masters players? Heck, even Diamond players...
|
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
|
On March 04 2011 23:08 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 23:03 GinDo wrote: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 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. They really have to stop doing this. In BackWater the center gold should be taken away because the 10 and 4 positions have it as an easy third. Which naturally puts the 2 and 8 at a disadvantage. It also makes for 1 sided games. Who ever get map control first autowins because they can take the gold and also the normal third next to the natural. Not to mention that on cross postions Terran can siege from his mineral line to your effectively denying you expo but protecting his. Also the destructable rocks in the natural are to much. 1 would be fine, the one next to the entrance of your natural that leads to your Third. But the second set of rocks makes defending you Natural a nightmare. Especially versus Blink Stalkers and 4 gates. As for Typoon i actually like this map. Especially for Tanks. Most of the destructable rocks are in decent placement. Serving more as a defence rather then an inpediment. I just really hate Up and Down positions because of the stupid hallway connecting Naturals makes for stupid games. No such thing as an easy third on Backwater, heck, no such thing as an easy second, forth or fifth either. Fuck that map But yeah, I think why Blizzard have these awful maps is because of Bronze/Silver/Platinum/low-Diamond league. Could you imagine those with GSL maps? It would be no one attacking for 10-20mins, then suddenly an attack, then...confusion as no one knows what to do next when the game isn't over after the first attack. Why can't they just add GSL/MLG maps to ladder for Masters players? Heck, even Diamond players...
Year their is. Once you secure your Natural. Which is quite difficult. The Gold is right in front of your base. And your Third is right next to you natural.
Hard Natural. Easy Third. Too easy of a Gold
EDIT: TYPO
|
On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war....
If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"?
"Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that
|
On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that
Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment.
While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums.
|
On March 04 2011 23:21 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment. While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums.
I just don't understand how these can ever go through, it is not like they are devoid of communication, you have David Kim casually messaging Minigun about upcoming changes when hes streaming, you have Pro players constantly polled on game balance, you have the community managers, tournaments, everything that points towards what makes good maps, yet still Shakuras gets removed...I just don't get it.
|
On March 04 2011 23:21 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment. While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums.
Yea it reminds me of their Situation Reports, where they first announced explanations for all their balance changes. Everyone was like "Cool! Awesome! Now we have explanations!" And then in the next patch they reduced Neural Parasite to 12 seconds without any explanation or even within the announced patch notes...
Though that explanation of War Zone/Ruins of Tarsonis is one of the most ridiculous things I've read from Blizzard in a long time.
|
On March 04 2011 23:21 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment. While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums.
As a player the map isn't quite my cup of tea but it's not horrible to play on...
As a spectator, the map is boring. It's lead to games of things like blind 14 hatch into a practically blind 15 cc. There's no real tension until the 15 minute mark and then since the attack paths are somewhat limited (I don't care if you say there are 3 paths instead of 2 that blizz mentioned) so it leads to another 10-15 minutes where usually players are poking at the other guys workers looking to solidify a macro lead.
I like Macro games and macro style strategies/wins too. I just like them when they are the result of one player have a clear and better understanding of what he needs to be scouting, not because there's two extra football fields between the players and you have like 5 minutes to react/bunker/sunken/whatever whenever the opponent leaves his base punishing players who try to go for crisp timing pushes.
I know I'll be criticized for this, especially since in general on these macro maps the player with the better mechanics will win more often, but once they have been out for a while and that people have figured out the very few defensive timings you need to be aware of... they become very boring to watch.
|
On March 05 2011 00:44 Furycrab wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 23:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment. While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums. As a player the map isn't quite my cup of tea but it's not horrible to play on... As a spectator, the map is boring. It's lead to games of things like blind 14 hatch into a practically blind 15 cc. There's no real tension until the 15 minute mark and then since the attack paths are somewhat limited (I don't care if you say there are 3 paths instead of 2 that blizz mentioned) so it leads to another 10-15 minutes where usually players are poking at the other guys workers looking to solidify a macro lead. I like Macro games and macro style strategies/wins too. I just like them when they are the result of one player have a clear and better understanding of what he needs to be scouting, not because there's two extra football fields between the players and you have like 5 minutes to react/bunker/sunken/whatever whenever the opponent leaves his base punishing players who try to go for crisp timing pushes. I know I'll be criticized for this, especially since in general on these macro maps the player with the better mechanics will win more often, but once they have been out for a while and that people have figured out the very few defensive timings you need to be aware of... they become very boring to watch.
While I can agree to some extent that that is what happens when not so good players play it.....you clearly didn't just see the IEM match between M00n and Squirtle, game 3. GO WATCH THAT NOW.
|
On March 05 2011 00:49 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2011 00:44 Furycrab wrote:On March 04 2011 23:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment. While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums. As a player the map isn't quite my cup of tea but it's not horrible to play on... As a spectator, the map is boring. It's lead to games of things like blind 14 hatch into a practically blind 15 cc. There's no real tension until the 15 minute mark and then since the attack paths are somewhat limited (I don't care if you say there are 3 paths instead of 2 that blizz mentioned) so it leads to another 10-15 minutes where usually players are poking at the other guys workers looking to solidify a macro lead. I like Macro games and macro style strategies/wins too. I just like them when they are the result of one player have a clear and better understanding of what he needs to be scouting, not because there's two extra football fields between the players and you have like 5 minutes to react/bunker/sunken/whatever whenever the opponent leaves his base punishing players who try to go for crisp timing pushes. I know I'll be criticized for this, especially since in general on these macro maps the player with the better mechanics will win more often, but once they have been out for a while and that people have figured out the very few defensive timings you need to be aware of... they become very boring to watch. While I can agree to some extent that that is what happens when not so good players play it.....you clearly didn't just see the IEM match between M00n and Squirtle, game 3. GO WATCH THAT NOW.
I can find good games on "any" map. It comes down to a ratio of how many good games you get... Even steppes of war had some great games. There's a sweet spot in between the two that leads to a whole lot more interesting games.
|
On March 05 2011 01:01 Furycrab wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2011 00:49 Sm3agol wrote:On March 05 2011 00:44 Furycrab wrote:On March 04 2011 23:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment. While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums. As a player the map isn't quite my cup of tea but it's not horrible to play on... As a spectator, the map is boring. It's lead to games of things like blind 14 hatch into a practically blind 15 cc. There's no real tension until the 15 minute mark and then since the attack paths are somewhat limited (I don't care if you say there are 3 paths instead of 2 that blizz mentioned) so it leads to another 10-15 minutes where usually players are poking at the other guys workers looking to solidify a macro lead. I like Macro games and macro style strategies/wins too. I just like them when they are the result of one player have a clear and better understanding of what he needs to be scouting, not because there's two extra football fields between the players and you have like 5 minutes to react/bunker/sunken/whatever whenever the opponent leaves his base punishing players who try to go for crisp timing pushes. I know I'll be criticized for this, especially since in general on these macro maps the player with the better mechanics will win more often, but once they have been out for a while and that people have figured out the very few defensive timings you need to be aware of... they become very boring to watch. While I can agree to some extent that that is what happens when not so good players play it.....you clearly didn't just see the IEM match between M00n and Squirtle, game 3. GO WATCH THAT NOW. I can find good games on "any" map. It comes down to a ratio of how many good games you get... Even steppes of war had some great games. There's a sweet spot in between the two that leads to a whole lot more interesting games.
The ratio of good games on Shakuras is FAR higher than Steppes or any other map that has been featured in the Blizzard map pool thus far (only Xel Naga comes close).
Barely a day goes by that we don't see at least one epic pro level game played out on Shakuras (see Moon vs Squirtle today).
|
On March 03 2011 12:45 Wolf wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2356440#blog(4) Arid Wastes Team play maps where your base is too far from your ally tend to favor race compositions that can use mobile armies. This is the reason why we will avoid having maps like Arid Wastes in the team play ladder in the future. ]
that's pretty much the dumbest thing i'Ve ever heard -.-
near and shared bases, remove A LOT of skill / timing and scouting.
close and shared bases SUCK REALLY HARD
imo, the 2n2 mappool was reall really bad already, and now it's just pure bullshit.
I'm considering quitting 2n2 alltogether, although 2n2 was my favorite thing in SC:BW, and not that bad in sc2 until now
|
it's pretty funny they call slag pits a macro map. i think i get 6pooled and zealot rushed every game on it, and have no idea how any race successfully takes a second. in fact i had better success taking my first expo in an open main than expanding to the intended natural.
meanwhile, blizzard does make a reference to pulling shakuraas to "replace" with "something new." i read this as we pulled shakuraas and put in typhon. maybe they'll apply similar logic in pulling dq in the future.
i think the player map will be something without a ton of unique features. neutral buildings, low health rocks, rocks that cut a ramp in half instead of fully blocking it off, one gas mineral fields, and rich vespene geysers all don't seem blizzard's style as i think they'd worry low level players would struggle with such elements.
|
On March 05 2011 01:05 cuppatea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2011 01:01 Furycrab wrote:On March 05 2011 00:49 Sm3agol wrote:On March 05 2011 00:44 Furycrab wrote:On March 04 2011 23:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment. While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums. As a player the map isn't quite my cup of tea but it's not horrible to play on... As a spectator, the map is boring. It's lead to games of things like blind 14 hatch into a practically blind 15 cc. There's no real tension until the 15 minute mark and then since the attack paths are somewhat limited (I don't care if you say there are 3 paths instead of 2 that blizz mentioned) so it leads to another 10-15 minutes where usually players are poking at the other guys workers looking to solidify a macro lead. I like Macro games and macro style strategies/wins too. I just like them when they are the result of one player have a clear and better understanding of what he needs to be scouting, not because there's two extra football fields between the players and you have like 5 minutes to react/bunker/sunken/whatever whenever the opponent leaves his base punishing players who try to go for crisp timing pushes. I know I'll be criticized for this, especially since in general on these macro maps the player with the better mechanics will win more often, but once they have been out for a while and that people have figured out the very few defensive timings you need to be aware of... they become very boring to watch. While I can agree to some extent that that is what happens when not so good players play it.....you clearly didn't just see the IEM match between M00n and Squirtle, game 3. GO WATCH THAT NOW. I can find good games on "any" map. It comes down to a ratio of how many good games you get... Even steppes of war had some great games. There's a sweet spot in between the two that leads to a whole lot more interesting games. The ratio of good games on Shakuras is FAR higher than Steppes or any other map that has been featured in the Blizzard map pool thus far (only Xel Naga comes close). Barely a day goes by that we don't see at least one epic pro level game played out on Shakuras (see Moon vs Squirtle today).
Here's where I disagree, but then again I prefer watching tense shorter matches, or games with some ridiculous yell out loud timing that lead one player to be crushed or glorious defenses, than hour long deathball/harass matches.
Shak it's too easy to fast expand and too hard to punish the player for it so to me it leads to alot of boring games.
|
On March 05 2011 01:08 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 12:45 Wolf wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2356440#blog(4) Arid Wastes Team play maps where your base is too far from your ally tend to favor race compositions that can use mobile armies. This is the reason why we will avoid having maps like Arid Wastes in the team play ladder in the future. ] that's pretty much the dumbest thing i'Ve ever heard -.- near and shared bases, remove A LOT of skill / timing and scouting. close and shared bases SUCK REALLY HARD imo, the 2n2 mappool was reall really bad already, and now it's just pure bullshit. I'm considering quitting 2n2 alltogether, although 2n2 was my favorite thing in SC:BW, and not that bad in sc2 until now
No, I completely disagree. Far away ally bases lead to really boring games. Making it difficult to defend your ally makes 2v2 really stupid. It just leads to people constantly attacking and winning because there's no defender's advantage. You can attack together easily but you can't defend together easily? That's just stupid. All-ins are already common and quite powerful in 2v2. They don't need even more help by making things difficult to defend.
Arid Wastes in particular considering they had those backdoor rocks which were basically impossible to defend for your ally, and impossible to defend the rocks from being taken down in the first place. Though the map could have been made a ton better by simply making a cliff and removing the rocks. Because honestly just constantly attacking your opponent through the rocks almost will always guarantee a win on that map because the ally won't be able to help. The "Unshared Bases" was not nearly as much of a problem as the backdoor rocks.
|
On March 05 2011 01:18 Furycrab wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2011 01:05 cuppatea wrote:On March 05 2011 01:01 Furycrab wrote:On March 05 2011 00:49 Sm3agol wrote:On March 05 2011 00:44 Furycrab wrote:On March 04 2011 23:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment. While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums. As a player the map isn't quite my cup of tea but it's not horrible to play on... As a spectator, the map is boring. It's lead to games of things like blind 14 hatch into a practically blind 15 cc. There's no real tension until the 15 minute mark and then since the attack paths are somewhat limited (I don't care if you say there are 3 paths instead of 2 that blizz mentioned) so it leads to another 10-15 minutes where usually players are poking at the other guys workers looking to solidify a macro lead. I like Macro games and macro style strategies/wins too. I just like them when they are the result of one player have a clear and better understanding of what he needs to be scouting, not because there's two extra football fields between the players and you have like 5 minutes to react/bunker/sunken/whatever whenever the opponent leaves his base punishing players who try to go for crisp timing pushes. I know I'll be criticized for this, especially since in general on these macro maps the player with the better mechanics will win more often, but once they have been out for a while and that people have figured out the very few defensive timings you need to be aware of... they become very boring to watch. While I can agree to some extent that that is what happens when not so good players play it.....you clearly didn't just see the IEM match between M00n and Squirtle, game 3. GO WATCH THAT NOW. I can find good games on "any" map. It comes down to a ratio of how many good games you get... Even steppes of war had some great games. There's a sweet spot in between the two that leads to a whole lot more interesting games. The ratio of good games on Shakuras is FAR higher than Steppes or any other map that has been featured in the Blizzard map pool thus far (only Xel Naga comes close). Barely a day goes by that we don't see at least one epic pro level game played out on Shakuras (see Moon vs Squirtle today). Here's where I disagree, but then again I prefer watching tense shorter matches, or games with some ridiculous yell out loud timing that lead one player to be crushed or glorious defenses, than hour long deathball/harass matches. Shak it's too easy to fast expand and too hard to punish the player for it so to me it leads to alot of boring games.
Then it sounds like SC2 may not be the game for you because it's only going to keep moving in the direction of high econ macro games, at least on the competitive level (which it needs to if the game is to prosper as an esport because the majority of fans don't want to see 10 minute games decided by a 1 or 2 base all in ending in 1 quick battle).
|
On March 05 2011 01:32 cuppatea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2011 01:18 Furycrab wrote:On March 05 2011 01:05 cuppatea wrote:On March 05 2011 01:01 Furycrab wrote:On March 05 2011 00:49 Sm3agol wrote:On March 05 2011 00:44 Furycrab wrote:On March 04 2011 23:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment. While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums. As a player the map isn't quite my cup of tea but it's not horrible to play on... As a spectator, the map is boring. It's lead to games of things like blind 14 hatch into a practically blind 15 cc. There's no real tension until the 15 minute mark and then since the attack paths are somewhat limited (I don't care if you say there are 3 paths instead of 2 that blizz mentioned) so it leads to another 10-15 minutes where usually players are poking at the other guys workers looking to solidify a macro lead. I like Macro games and macro style strategies/wins too. I just like them when they are the result of one player have a clear and better understanding of what he needs to be scouting, not because there's two extra football fields between the players and you have like 5 minutes to react/bunker/sunken/whatever whenever the opponent leaves his base punishing players who try to go for crisp timing pushes. I know I'll be criticized for this, especially since in general on these macro maps the player with the better mechanics will win more often, but once they have been out for a while and that people have figured out the very few defensive timings you need to be aware of... they become very boring to watch. While I can agree to some extent that that is what happens when not so good players play it.....you clearly didn't just see the IEM match between M00n and Squirtle, game 3. GO WATCH THAT NOW. I can find good games on "any" map. It comes down to a ratio of how many good games you get... Even steppes of war had some great games. There's a sweet spot in between the two that leads to a whole lot more interesting games. The ratio of good games on Shakuras is FAR higher than Steppes or any other map that has been featured in the Blizzard map pool thus far (only Xel Naga comes close). Barely a day goes by that we don't see at least one epic pro level game played out on Shakuras (see Moon vs Squirtle today). Here's where I disagree, but then again I prefer watching tense shorter matches, or games with some ridiculous yell out loud timing that lead one player to be crushed or glorious defenses, than hour long deathball/harass matches. Shak it's too easy to fast expand and too hard to punish the player for it so to me it leads to alot of boring games. Then it sounds like SC2 may not be the game for you because it's only going to keep moving in the direction of high econ macro games, at least on the competitive level (which it needs to if the game is to prosper as an esport because the majority of fans don't want to see 10 minute games decided by a 1 or 2 base all in ending in 1 quick battle).
I didn't say I only liked 10 minute games. I said I don't like games where the tension starts only at the 20 minute mark. Read my previous post, I'm fairly clear on what I find interesting in a game and I'm fairly certain most people can agree it's more fun to watch. It's why maps like Xel Naga generate on average much more interesting games than Shakuras... Sorry if I know what my taste is in what's a good game and not just falling blind to the whole "Oh let's make sure the players have to run two marathons between each other so they can't possibly hurt each other before they both have max supply"
|
On March 05 2011 00:14 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 23:21 Sm3agol wrote:On March 04 2011 23:14 Dommk wrote:On March 04 2011 23:09 CounterOrder wrote:
Cant we just be happy that Blizzard actually tried to explain its motivation for map changes and such even if we disagree with them? Like has been mentioned they are moving in the right direction.
They have stated they want to reduce rush/all-in maps and in fact said that there will never be a 2 player map of that sort. Should we be angry about that? I mean really the biggest issue here is that they kept DQ and took out Shakuras.
I think people are a little too worked up. I mean im just happy they tried to explain their point of view. Doesnt matter if i agree or not, point is they are moving towards more macro style maps as well as testing out GSL maps on the ladder. Shit, i dont mind.
What the fuck? Be happy? are you serious? This isn't even a step in the right direction, this is one step forward then two step back. They remove one of THE most popular maps in the game due to it being "plain"? They remove two player rush maps, only to add a 4player map "MACRO" map with your only choice being to take an super open second with a backdoor before having to either a) get a gold or b) go to ANOTHER SPAWN to get your third, not only that but close positions the rush distance is SHORTER than Steppes of fucking war.... If you are happy with these maps then I honestly don't know what to say, look at what Blizzard have made, look at how tournaments are run, look at the great maps they are using, yet we have to be happy with awful maps because Blizzard is "trying"? "Hey guys they gave us a reason for adding awful maps, we should be happy!", no FUCK that Woah, woah. Calm down there good sir, we're going to need you step away from the computer for a moment. While imo, Blizzrd isnt exactly executing it correctly, they are certainly listening to the community, and are trying to please you. They just have their own ideas about what really needs to be fixed, and try different things to get the same result. I can almost guarantee that Shak will be back in the map pool after the massive QQ all over their forums. I just don't understand how these can ever go through, it is not like they are devoid of communication, you have David Kim casually messaging Minigun about upcoming changes when hes streaming, you have Pro players constantly polled on game balance, you have the community managers, tournaments, everything that points towards what makes good maps, yet still Shakuras gets removed...I just don't get it.
Exactly. The problem is, we have all of the above happening, tons of information being gleaned from progamers data mining, etc. However, Blizzard makes these inane changes that represent almost a complete 180 degree turn from what that data should indicate. We get them to explain their thought process, hoping for some undiscovered treasure trove of a viewpoint we hadn't thought of before.
Instead we get
There isn't a huge problem with this map, but we feel there aren't enough interesting features. The natural expansion is easy to take and defend; there are only two possible attack paths, only one of which is generally used, and main bases aren’t easy to harass
Which is a response filled with ...
Near patent falsehoods: (Only one path is generally used??? Why don't we tell Nestea that when he's in the Semifinals of the biggest Starcraft tournament on Earth)
Blanket generalizations: (The main bases aren't any harder to harass with air units than any other map, drops can still provide excellent harass as well).
Lack Of Common Sense: (They remove a macro map because the natural is easy to take and defend? Is that not the point of a macro map Blizzard?)
It just leaves everyone with their jaws on the floor wondering exactly how the thought process works over there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
