EPTBlizzard's Official Post Regarding 1.3 Maps - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DaCruise
Denmark2457 Posts
| ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
they didn't mention changes in DQ. | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
On March 03 2011 13:12 Meta wrote: Their reasoning behind removing shakuras was ridiculous. First of all, there are 3 attack paths. Second, the expansion layout was hardly plain, with 2 accessible thirds and 3 if it's cross position. As for the middle, two watchtowers with two lines of tall grass, along with 4 separate routes guarded by rocks doesn't seem too "featureless" to me. It doesn't make any sense. "Lack of features" is a terrible reason to remove a good map. I hope tournaments continue to use it. If only the removed Delta Quadrant instead. Every tournament has already removed this awful map. They could have at least taken out the destructible rocks in the backdoor natural... it would be a decent map without that single issue. Agreed. Also slag pits rationale was sort of bad. It's not at all like metal, because of all the high ground low ground boxing off your third, amking it imporssible (near) to take. | ||
|
Cri du Chat
Germany606 Posts
On March 03 2011 14:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I can't find it anymore either o.o Yeah strange, their post IS new, but the information seems old o.o the map changes and the explanations... unless they edited it a few details and reposted or something. You propably mean this interview they gave. It was posted in one of the threads about the new maps. http://www.shacknews.com/article/67645/starcraft-2-adds-and-removes | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On March 03 2011 14:35 ixi.genocide wrote: Shattered temple is gonna be much better than lt. The only thing that I would do to improve st is removing the rocks at the gold and making the gold normal mineral patches. The island is a much safer third. It makes sense for the more dangerous third to be more valuable. If you made the gold blue, you'd have to take a gas or some minerals out of the island to make it less desirable. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On March 03 2011 15:19 DaCruise wrote: The map changes in general are great. Terran´s Temple is now temple of awesomeness, Backwater Gulch is far better than blistering, slag pits is better than steppes and typhon peeks replaces Shakuras. Only delta remains to be removed. Technically, Typhon replaces Steppes and Slag replaces Shakuras. If you think of it the way you said, though, this is a lot better of a change: Jungle Basin was removed for sucking. Lost Temple - > Shattered Temple is agreed to be a good change. Blistering - > Backwater is a...well, it's better. Kinda. Steppes -> Slag Pits is better 2/3rds of the time, and better for Zerg generally according to Catz Shakuras - > Typhon is now the only controversial map change. I like Shakuras, too, but I think Typhon will prove to be a better map then people think. That's...actually a much more palatable way of looking at it. What an interesting thing phrasing can be. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
| ||
|
Zerokaiser
Canada885 Posts
| ||
|
Terranium
Turkmenistan144 Posts
Seriously WTF?!!? I hope the blizzard guy who wrote this crap gets fired. | ||
|
netherDrake
Singapore1831 Posts
They should reinstate Shakuras, remove Delta/Backwater/Slag and add in 3 GSL maps. | ||
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
Neverplay
Austria532 Posts
 | ||
|
Natt
France253 Posts
| ||
|
Malkavian183
Turkey227 Posts
| ||
|
wimbowaia
Norway20 Posts
Hahahahaha... /fail | ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
Again, we wanted to reduce the number of rush maps, and Steppes was the most rush-friendly rush map we decided to cut. It’s not that we don’t like rush maps, but we have learned over the course of season 1 that two-player rush maps are generally more one-sided than four-player rush maps. For the ladder map changes, the rush-possible maps we’ll have will be four-player maps only. blizzard, you should learn that rush maps are generally more retarded... -_- About Typhon..... I have a feeling FF's (+ tanks?) would be kinda strong there I guess? O_o; | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10372 Posts
You propably mean this interview they gave. It was posted in one of the threads about the new maps. http://www.shacknews.com/article/67645/starcraft-2-adds-and-removes Ahh yeah thanks I'm guessing they were interviewed first and that's how the old thread was made, and then they posted the interview officially onto their bnet forums.@Dental Floss And yeah a bit disappointing. I fear they indeed do not see it the way we do =/. I mean, some maps should have their own gimmicks and styles because that makes things unique, but you have to have plain maps too. Shattered Temple and Metal imo aren't very plain though... unless perhaps if they get rid of the close ground positions. And lol yeah at Slag Pits being more macro heavy. It doesn't even have more bases and isn't even bigger. In fact it has 2 less bases. Lol... | ||
|
wimbowaia
Norway20 Posts
And lol yeah at Slag Pits being more macro heavy. It doesn't even have more bases and isn't even bigger. In fact it has 2 less bases. Lol... Not to mention that the rush distance in close spots are shorter than steppes of war.. ^^ | ||
|
Buffy
Sweden665 Posts
On March 03 2011 16:55 wimbowaia wrote: Not to mention that the rush distance in close spots are shorter than steppes of war.. ^^ Found that out the hard way. Dont know if it was a miss by them or they wanted it to either be a heavy macro / gamble on random allin pre lair. Still nice to see more maps from them. | ||
| ||
