|
On March 03 2011 13:44 Frenzy175 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 12:45 Wolf wrote:
(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.
This makes me sad, pretty much killing off the whole concept of early map control and good team work and army control. Seems they just want you to be able to sit in your base until you want to move out with your army together with no danger or effort.
Do you play 2v2 at a good level? Seriously when you have PTvsXX it's 4gatemarine rush, when you have PZvsXX it's 4gatespeedling rush, when you have TZvsXX it's marinespeedling rush. You get that almost 75% of the games. Having spread out bases heavily favor attack on defense and that's silly (not the mention the defensor advantage is already so thin in this game). In fact 2vs2 as a whole is completly broken, like PvP, mainly because of warpgate technology being so easy to research, so low on the tech tree and so easy to execute.
|
United States589 Posts
Am I the only one that finds it amusing they said they wanted to remove "rush maps" yet they leave in Delta Quad and take out Shakuras?
And please, please, can we have the GSL maps on ladder? I love those, they're an absolute blast.
|
Clearly Blizzard doesn't want you to expand, ever. Especially if you're a protoss
|
(2)Steppes of War
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.
I laughed so hard about this, I don't know why.
I essentially I read it as: "yeah, we hate this map too and don't know why the hell we allowed it in the first place"
We took out Shakuras Plateau, which was a very plain macro map, and added this map instead. Some of the key features of this map are the low-ground high-yield expansions, the two lines of shrub area that can be used to position units, as well as the low-ground watch tower that watches over all of the low-ground center.
LULZ WHAT? WHAT A TERRIBLE COMPARATIVE EXCHANGE
|
I like how blizzard is finally adding new maps. However the spawns on slag pits seem a little close.
|
I'd like to see their reasons for keeping maps in on top of why they've remove it, particularly scrap station. I liked Shakuras too. I found it actually quite unique - games on that map felt different to games on other maps. Can't see how you can call Shakuras plain with Metalopolis in the map pool, unless the mere presence of gold makes it interesting. I dunno, i find their criticism of it being plain quite odd when i've seen a lot of really fun games - i think i've seen more brood lords on Shakuras than any other map.
But i like communication so this is nice and i look forward to seeing how these new maps develop.
|
I have one question about this post:
The frequency of all-in roach/speedling, 4 warpgate push, or even mass marine/marauder stimpack push by breaking the rocks was a bit too high, so we decided to pull this map from the ladder.
and to a lesser extent:
The gameplay on this map is very different, but the average length of games was too long, so it is being taken out of ladder play.
Do you think they actually data mine build orders?
Everybody knows there was a tendency to all-in the backdoor rocks on Blistering Sands, both from experience and from tournaments/VODs/streams. Which information do you think Blizzard used? I seem to remember them saying they prefer to start from their own (data-mined) data because it shows the full picture across all the divisions.
|
The reasoning blizzard gives for each of the map changes just proves their lack of understanding of maps and the game in general. Some of the things they mention about the maps are just plain false, and the real facts about the maps are just the opposite of what blizzard would have you believe in the explanation. Frankly just adding one gsl map wont cut it. Don't get me wrong, it will help, but adding one good map don't make up for 7 bad ones. If there would be any chance of a decent map pool, they should add all 4 of them, and once and for all get rid of maps like delta, blackwater and the horrific slag pits joke. And ofc, they should bring shakuras back. It makes no sense at all to remove the best map in the map pool so far. But then again, all this wont happen. Personally I think we are stuck with these shitty maps for quite some time. It just makes me sad that the group of people who decides what maps we all have to play on, are the group of people who knows least about game 
|
Throwing out Shakuras because it's "plain/boring" but keeping Delta Quadrant and Meta (no matter if they are good maps or not) is pretty ballsy....
It's like saying.
We remove this Ball because it's rolling to smooth, so now go and play with this rugby ball, this should make soccer more interesting.
|
do we know yet which GSL map they're looking at to add to the map pool?
|
On March 03 2011 13:10 SiegeFlank wrote:Show nested quote +(4) Shakuras Plateau
This map we decided to remove for a different reason. 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. For a change, we wanted to replace this relatively plain map with something new. Clearly not enough destructible rocks and gold bases, eh Blizzard? Despite not having the most interesting features by blizzard's definition, this map has brought out some of the most exciting macro games we've seen so far. Considering how much the community loves this map, it's really doing them a disservice to remove it. Still don't understand what they were thinking when they removed this map, can only hope it gets undone (again).
This. Shakuras always produced the most exciting games to watch. Delta Quadrant stays and Shakuras is out? What a complete joke.
|
backwater Gulch
". Early gameplay on this map should feel familiar, and there probably aren't too many early-game threats or difficulties in terms of gimmicky strategies you need to worry about."
This is the wrong-est statement ever-est
EDIT: reading more i found one which is challenging it
Slag Pits
Metalopolis was one of two favorite maps across the different skill levels of players. We decided to introduce a very similar map, but slightly more macro heavy.
So the fact that the close position rush distance is shorter then that of Metalo, and there is no 3rd base nowhere nearby and the gold is harder to take due to rocks -> better macro map.
Who the hell is writing these map analysis? I wouldnt even mention Shakuras Pleateau, the map which created some of the best games and is aknowledged as one of the 2-3 balanced maps out there.
|
these are the same retarded reasonings which were posted a week ago. i thought they changed sth
|
i think it's pretty silly
Blistering Sands was honestly a great map except for the back rocks.
so instead of working up some sort of solution they simply remove it.
then add a map like Slag Pits with what? closest rush distances in the entire game currently? atleast for close positions.
their reason for removing shakuras was disturbing also. they seriously only want maps with restricting gimmicks?
|
Blizzard thinks Shakuras isn't interesting enough but DQ is? Haha. Okay I understand that their definition of interesting is "gimmicky" but I think most players would disagree on that definition.
|
First, remove the new maps again + delta
second get shakuras back
third get the gsl maps in the mappool
then everything is good. slagpits a better version of meta? serious? x]
|
Why let Delta Quadrant stay? It's beyond me, it's the most horrible map from the old pool. Imo worse than Blistering and Steppes. Everything about this map is just really, really bad. Gah.
|
On March 03 2011 19:01 Dezire wrote:
First, remove the new maps again + delta
second get shakuras back
third get the gsl maps in the mappool
then everything is good. slagpits a better version of meta? serious? x]
Heres a better one. Blizzard removes all of their maps. Inserts all the ICCUP and all GSL maps into the pool, and rotates them every 3 months, with weekly maps of the week.
|
(4) Typhon Peaks
This map has a lot of the fun traits of previous maps. Rocks by the sides of the map are positioned similarly to Scrap Station to reduce rush distance in vertical start locations.
That's like saying "hey, I'll puch you in the face" as if I'd hand over a birthday-present. How on God's green earth can they even be PROUD of such a "feature". The person responsible for that should stand in the corner for a couple of days until he learns what a bad, bad boy he was.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
