|
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.
Are you talking about normal econ builds, like 15 CC?
|
On March 05 2011 03:02 Furycrab wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2011 01:32 cuppatea wrote: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"
Yea, I mean I just find this a strange statement because it doesn't really apply to Shakuras. It's really not that big a map to be honest.
|
On March 05 2011 03:02 Furycrab wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2011 01:32 cuppatea wrote: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"
If that's what's happening (which is isn't) then it's the fault of the players, not the map. Today's game between Moon and Squirtle on Shakuras featured constant action from beginning to end and there was never more than brief period of inactivity. Even when both players fast expand, it's extremely rare to go past the 5 or 6 minute mark (real time) without either player moving out to attack or harass and you certainly you don't see good players sitting in their base for 20 minutes without engaging each other (it takes about half that time to reach max supply anyway).
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=188358
Take a look at that recap from GSL last season, there are 8 games rated 4.0 or above and 4 of them were on Shakuras, with 1 each on LT, Meta, Scrap and JB. The map has consistantly produced great games more than any other in the pool (think NesTea vs San, Leenock vs Clide, Kyrix vs MarineKing, Boxer vs Hyperdub etc). A list of the greatest GSL games ever played would be dominated by those on Shakuras.
The only thing having a large rush distance means is that 1 base all ins are weaker (which is a good thing because they're boring as fuck to watch and take little skill to execute) and players can actually recover from losing a battle since it takes the opponent more than a few seconds to walk from his base to yours and start destroying your production facilities.
Like I said in a previous post, there are fantastic pro level games played on Shakuras on an almost daily basis and if watching those bores you then I think your issue may lie with the game itself because the days of spawning on top of your opponent and players barely being able to expand are (thankfully) coming to an end (well, in tournament play at least, of course Blizzard seem intent on making ladder play suck).
|
 oesnt read every post*
I love how blizzard thinks slag pits will result in macro heavy games. Maybe they should check their definition of macro.
when you make a map with no 3rd expansion and close proximity spawns, you will not have macro heavy games. I'm not even that great at this game but I know what makes for good games and this map is just trash.
|
I wish blizzard gave us the ability to veto five maps.
|
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.
Yeah, they said if they have a small map it will be a multispawn map which I guess is Slag Pits?
|
On March 03 2011 13:24 teamsolid wrote:
Yea... why is Delta Quadrant still in the map pool. The Shakuras Plateau reasoning is pretty awful, but the other map replacements at least improve the pool.
This. Delta Quadrant is an awful map, Shakuras Plateau was pretty dang good, leading to some epic games, like IdrA vs. IMMvP. Delta Quadrant, imo, is STILL the worst map on the ladder.
|
Why leave in Delta Quadrant? WTF?!
|
Calgary25998 Posts
On March 05 2011 03:18 Wolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 22:06 Sm3agol wrote: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. Are you talking about normal econ builds, like 15 CC?
Economic cheese is a retarded term that people started making for economic builds like 15 Hatchery. It's stupid and you can assume anyone who uses the term is also stupid.
|
I wish blizzard let us thumb up maps instead of thumbing down. And the pool should be every blizz/iccup/gsl map.
|
i dont understand this obsession with the gsl maps. they are mostly terrible for the same reasons that blizzard ones are, they are just bigger so they favour protoss (warp in and/or deathball build time) and are worse for terran (no early pressure, ever).
gsl maps still have situations where a zerg must expand forwards, or super far away, meaning units can get cut off in transit. and they still have over 9000 little chokes which are rediculous against protoss. maybe its just me that thinks that forcefields should be used to make new angles in an otherwise open area, instead of just slicing an army in half which is an auto win.
im not a broodwar player but from what ive seen the maps used there, they arent better just because they are bigger than sc2 maps, they just have more variation in areas so people have real choice in where to engage, rather than always in a tiny choke.
|
i dont understand this obsession with the gsl maps. they are mostly terrible for the same reasons that blizzard ones are, they are just bigger so they favour protoss (warp in and/or deathball build time) and are worse for terran (no early pressure, ever).
Have you watched the TvZ's in GSL?
gsl maps still have situations where a zerg must expand forwards, or super far away, meaning units can get cut off in transit. and they still have over 9000 little chokes which are rediculous against protoss. maybe its just me that thinks that forcefields should be used to make new angles in an otherwise open area, instead of just slicing an army in half which is an auto win.
Except in the GSL matches vs Protoss, that hasn't occurred, only vs Terran where they siege up at Zergs choke then drop any base that Zerg has taken far away
|
On March 05 2011 04:44 Ex_Matt wrote:oesnt read every post* I love how blizzard thinks slag pits will result in macro heavy games. Maybe they should check their definition of macro. when you make a map with no 3rd expansion and close proximity spawns, you will not have macro heavy games. I'm not even that great at this game but I know what makes for good games and this map is just trash.
Yeah, I really scratched my head at that statement. Makes absolutely no sense. Not to mention the huge high ground thing inbetween close spawn positions, perfect for seige tanks. Its worse than steppes imo. I just don't get it. And why does Blizz love covering 3rds with rocks? If you want macro games, make more easily accessible bases, not less...
|
On March 05 2011 06:12 CarachAngren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2011 04:44 Ex_Matt wrote:oesnt read every post* I love how blizzard thinks slag pits will result in macro heavy games. Maybe they should check their definition of macro. when you make a map with no 3rd expansion and close proximity spawns, you will not have macro heavy games. I'm not even that great at this game but I know what makes for good games and this map is just trash. Yeah, I really scratched my head at that statement. Makes absolutely no sense. Not to mention the huge high ground thing inbetween close spawn positions, perfect for seige tanks. Its worse than steppes imo. I just don't get it. And why does Blizz love covering 3rds with rocks? If you want macro games, make more easily accessible bases, not less...
I think they are trying to find a mid-ground between satisfying bronze leaguers and master leaguers with these maps. At least thats what I take after reading their explanation about Slag Pits/Shakuras... The result is that most people aren't actually satisfied.
Edit: english
|
If they are trying then they are not trying very hard.
Its not difficult to ask the players and listen to what they want. Blizzard seems to ask the players and completely ignore it. Actually, they don't even need to ask. The community has been giving out their opinions on everything related to the gameplay on a patch to patch basis.
Then they finally grant some of our wishes in the form of trolling us with more garbage maps to play on and follow it up with some bogus explanation.
And if you want to contact blizzard directly, you have no direct email address, you have to do it through their automated site which sends their copy and pasted automated reply to your fucking junk mail folder. They even make a note of saying "add these 6 email addresses to your safe sender list to ensure your response doesnt get lost". It leads me to believe that no one involved with map making actually reads anything that the community tries to get across to them.
I know I'm never gonna be a pro-gamer or be invited to any kind of pro-gamer event, but I still want something competative to play the game on.
|
I like that they remove (6) Quicksand.
OFC 1v1 is most serious mode, but it took me like 3 minutes of 1 game to realize that this is stupidest map, and voted it down for all modes (I believe it was back then when it was in FFA too).
There are some issues with maps in 1v1, but compared to this map its just minor. This was actually the worst map Blizzard created.
|
i don't understand what they are thinking here. delta quadrant seems like one of the worst possible maps for new players, doesn't it? it has like 6 different gimmicks on it and its super hard to not die and to expand. it was also the least popular ladder map according to that blizzard poll on their forums a few weeks ago iirc.
i don't like slag pits either but not every map they add is going to be perfect, i applaud them for at least changing things around. the system isn't very good right now but hopefully it will get better.
|
On March 05 2011 04:36 cuppatea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2011 03:02 Furycrab wrote:On March 05 2011 01:32 cuppatea wrote: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:
[quote]
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" If that's what's happening (which is isn't) then it's the fault of the players, not the map. Today's game between Moon and Squirtle on Shakuras featured constant action from beginning to end and there was never more than brief period of inactivity. Even when both players fast expand, it's extremely rare to go past the 5 or 6 minute mark (real time) without either player moving out to attack or harass and you certainly you don't see good players sitting in their base for 20 minutes without engaging each other (it takes about half that time to reach max supply anyway). http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=188358Take a look at that recap from GSL last season, there are 8 games rated 4.0 or above and 4 of them were on Shakuras, with 1 each on LT, Meta, Scrap and JB. The map has consistantly produced great games more than any other in the pool (think NesTea vs San, Leenock vs Clide, Kyrix vs MarineKing, Boxer vs Hyperdub etc). A list of the greatest GSL games ever played would be dominated by those on Shakuras. The only thing having a large rush distance means is that 1 base all ins are weaker (which is a good thing because they're boring as fuck to watch and take little skill to execute) and players can actually recover from losing a battle since it takes the opponent more than a few seconds to walk from his base to yours and start destroying your production facilities. Like I said in a previous post, there are fantastic pro level games played on Shakuras on an almost daily basis and if watching those bores you then I think your issue may lie with the game itself because the days of spawning on top of your opponent and players barely being able to expand are (thankfully) coming to an end (well, in tournament play at least, of course Blizzard seem intent on making ladder play suck).
Thank you for actually bringing numbers in this discussion.
Frankly, Shakuras has produced quite a few of the MOST entertaining games of SC2 ever played. If you don't agree with that you just haven't been watching enough ESPORTS in the past six months. I'm quite annoyed to see it removed from the ladder pool, but quite relieved that it's not being taken out of any tournaments.
|
On March 05 2011 04:36 cuppatea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2011 03:02 Furycrab wrote:On March 05 2011 01:32 cuppatea wrote: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:
[quote]
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" If that's what's happening (which is isn't) then it's the fault of the players, not the map. Today's game between Moon and Squirtle on Shakuras featured constant action from beginning to end and there was never more than brief period of inactivity. Even when both players fast expand, it's extremely rare to go past the 5 or 6 minute mark (real time) without either player moving out to attack or harass and you certainly you don't see good players sitting in their base for 20 minutes without engaging each other (it takes about half that time to reach max supply anyway). http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=188358Take a look at that recap from GSL last season, there are 8 games rated 4.0 or above and 4 of them were on Shakuras, with 1 each on LT, Meta, Scrap and JB. The map has consistantly produced great games more than any other in the pool (think NesTea vs San, Leenock vs Clide, Kyrix vs MarineKing, Boxer vs Hyperdub etc). A list of the greatest GSL games ever played would be dominated by those on Shakuras. The only thing having a large rush distance means is that 1 base all ins are weaker (which is a good thing because they're boring as fuck to watch and take little skill to execute) and players can actually recover from losing a battle since it takes the opponent more than a few seconds to walk from his base to yours and start destroying your production facilities. Like I said in a previous post, there are fantastic pro level games played on Shakuras on an almost daily basis and if watching those bores you then I think your issue may lie with the game itself because the days of spawning on top of your opponent and players barely being able to expand are (thankfully) coming to an end (well, in tournament play at least, of course Blizzard seem intent on making ladder play suck).
Starrating on matches is highly suggestive matter, and relates pretty highly to the taste of the reviewer. However all the games you just pointed out to me, all have one thing in common, both players fast expanded... Practically blind since they all involve Terran and Protoss (1 tvt).
Can they be interesting games? Yes. Can they be incredibly predictable... well ya. There's an early game tension that is just not there, the long rush distance means that both players are effectively telegraphing most if not all their moves... which is made even worst by the limited attack paths and very safe naturals.
My problem with that map isn't that 1 base allins are weaker, it's that 1 base pressure doesn't work. To be clear, so I include Zergs in this... 1 base pressure is any kind of poking at your opponent below 30 supply in workers.Which means that unless you fast expand, you will have the burden of trying to do enough damage to your opponent should he decide to so so...
It's artificially making games longer now that players have resigned to just double fast expanding against one another...
|
On March 05 2011 04:44 Ex_Matt wrote:oesnt read every post* I love how blizzard thinks slag pits will result in macro heavy games. Maybe they should check their definition of macro. when you make a map with no 3rd expansion and close proximity spawns, you will not have macro heavy games. I'm not even that great at this game but I know what makes for good games and this map is just trash.
Is it just me .. to me it seems on slug pits its very easy to cheese a Z early on .. hard to hold that expansion vs. P an T early pushes ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
