EPTBlizzard's Official Post Regarding 1.3 Maps - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
pAzand
Sweden539 Posts
| ||
|
Thallis
United States314 Posts
| ||
|
MuteZephyr
Lithuania448 Posts
Also, as much as people hate the close positions on Slag, I don't think it would be good just to do away with all close position maps all together. I don't want to see 10 permutations of Shakuras in the map pool. The different spawns make games more varied and exciting, you never know if you're in for a drawn-out epic split map macro game, or a super tense and exciting early game micro extravaganza. Needless to say, I'm rather unhappy about MLG's map changes. I support some close position maps whole-heartedly! I also am super happy Blizz is going to put in one of the GSL maps! Glad to hear they're not outright ignoring everybody's work. The thing that kinda bothers me is how many players (look in the veto thread) are bashing certain maps without having played them many times or at all. They say they "look terrible". I think it's kinda hypocritical to expect Blizz to be open to new maps while we won't even try one of theirs. Different things are exciting and mix up gameplay and strategies. I don't want to see the same strat/build over and over and over again. I hated that really weird natural on Backwater, and still have lots of issues holding it, but enjoy playing the map because it's different and force both me and my opponent to do things differently. That kinda turned into a rant ^^ I guess all in all I think people need to loosen up about maps and not freak out just because a map doesn't look like shakuras does. I think as a whole, between fixing Temple and adding a GSL map, this is a major step forward for Blizz. | ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
| ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On March 04 2011 01:45 Jayrod wrote: I wish they had just implemented GSL maps at the original SC2 release date.. ya know... so no players would have to learn how to scout and would 15 nexus and double expand every game.... because diamond and below players know how to do that... Do you honestly think the original maps were teaching new players much beyond 4 gate, 3 rax, and roach all in? | ||
|
GrazerRinge
999 Posts
imo it is hard to decide to do such a step because one small error caused by blizzard can change a lot more then many of us might think. | ||
|
ccHaZaRd
Canada1024 Posts
| ||
|
deathserv
United States228 Posts
Otherwise I'm pretty happy. I have been losing like crazy on the new maps because I'm not used to them, and I think it's harder for Zerg when the maps are still unknown, but that will change. | ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
Honestly the new GSL maps are awesome. Really well done and fun to play. | ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
| ||
|
p1cKLes
United States342 Posts
On March 03 2011 13:01 monx wrote: Terrible map pool imo User was temp banned for this post. Serious? He was making a general statement about how he felt. The OP is about the new Maps. There are really only two sorts of posts that you can post. You like them...and this is why. You don't like them and this is why. Is it because he's missing the "why" Don't get me wrong, I think a moderator on forums is absolutely needed. Actually, I sent teamliquid an email thanking you for the fact that you have such strong moderators, which helps limit the constant QQ, but I'm not sure I'm getting this one? Anyways, I think the added maps, the changes and the new map pool are definitely a move in the right direction! | ||
|
hmsrenown
Canada1263 Posts
| ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote: THAT IS A GOOD THING. Why are you assuming you should get a worry free expansion on every single map? Forge FE should not be completely viable on every single map. Those maps mean that economic cheese can be punished, and things like 1 rax FE and 1 gate FE are economic cheese. I like big macro games as much has anyone, but I also hate that the trend amongst the pro maps definitely going towards NO rushes or all-ins. On maps like Shakuras, there was basically no threat of an all-in, because you can block off your nat ramp with a building and a defensive structure, and the rush distance was so long, your only real option was a proxy anyways. On some of the GSL maps, if you scout the wrong base twice, you can't cheese, simple as that. Not even the option for cheese. They'll have a rax or two and an expo on the way already by the time you get there. That is NOT good for gameplay. I've seen plenty of people go CC/nexus first on these maps, without even scouting, which is just ludicrous, imo. Heck, zergs can go 3 hatch before pool sometimes. That is somewhat cool for now because it's so novel, but that gets old fast too. There needs to be threat of pressure keeping people from just pure power macroing for the first 20 minutes of a "game". Power turtle macro into 200/200 death ball for 20 minutes, one 15 second engagement, and a GG. That's the trend these big "macro maps" is going toward, and that is even less fun than 2 rax all-ins. That's just sim-city with a happy ending. Imo, Blizzard has the right idea, although I admit they don't have amazing execution with some of their ideas, and they seem quite blind to basic map abuse strategies. But just look at maps like Xel'naga. It has all the "broken features" that many of you whine about, yet it plays extremely solid, and leads to both exciting macro games and great 1 base all-ins. Lets see, no easy third, wide open natural, rocks blocking both the gold and third, dominant xel'naga towers, holding a 4th and 5th base is basically impossible, and it's hard to scout the main. It is so fun to watch because as a player you have so many options, many of them equally viable. This is such a good post, and something I've been trying to express for a while now. People are blindly demanding big maps just because thats the way BW was, but forget that 1) its a different game and 2) huge maps will also lead into a smaller variety in strategies and games. Happy mediums like Xel'naga is where its at right now, imo. | ||
|
Corvi
Germany1406 Posts
| ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
The following statements puts Blizzard in the same boat as a math teachers who don't know algebra: "(4) 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." "(4) 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." LOL WTF, I mean seriously, MIND FUCKING BLOWNNNNNNNNNNNN like when my math teacher told me 1 plus 1 equals 23 and a half. Natural and main defended separately, back doors to natural, small map. Here are some other statements that are as true as the one made by Blizzard above: The Donau is the world's biggest ocean! Common house cats can breed with whales and produce really small whales! I'm better at Starcraft 2 than Jinro! Note: I am not complaining about the maps themselves, I'm just sad to see what I suspected all along. Blizzard's map makers are clueless. | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote: This is such a good post, and something I've been trying to express for a while now. People are blindly demanding big maps just because thats the way BW was, but forget that 1) its a different game and 2) huge maps will also lead into a smaller variety in strategies and games. Happy mediums like Xel'naga is where its at right now, imo. They demand bigger maps precisely because SC2 is a different game--cheese and all-ins are much more effective than they were in BW, thanks to scouting being more difficult while Chronoboost and MULEs make more units come out faster. We need the bigger maps for the game to be interesting at all. Otherwise it's just "welp, small map/close positions, better one-base it!" for T/P or "welp, small map/close positions, autolose" for Z. Those games are boring. No one likes to lose or win based on map position and games that stay on one/two bases lead to the biggest complaint spectators have about SC2, which is "the players just build their balls and then the balls smash and the game is over." Every map should allow for the possibility of 3+ base play every game. XNC is not a happy medium. If you look at the current crop of BW maps, even the smallest have twelve bases. XNC has ten. It's too small and the natural positioning/open-ness is stupid. It might be one of the best maps we have but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have drastically better. | ||
|
Honeybadger
United States821 Posts
Slag pits is painful to play, horrible looking, unbalanced, and bears no resemblance to the paragraph blizzard included. I think blizzard just writes a paragraph about what they want a map to work like, and don't actually give said paragraph to the mapmakers. I also get a very sinking feeling that blizzard doesn't even test their maps if they think shakuras was a plain map and that slag was totally fine to release with a twelve second rush distance. Overall, I like it though. I'd give it a B. Not going to make me quit starcraft or anything. While I like the concept of an occasional rush game, I am sick of seeing people defend the need for 4 rushing maps and no maps above the "medium" tileset. Also, the only good macro maps we have are on small tilesets (with the exception of typhon) this is an ECONOMY BASED RTS. This is not warcraft 3. I like rushing as much as anyone to mix up your style, but I've gotten sixpooled by 15 of the last 17 zergs I've played (as a terran, I love this. Free win FTW.) and one of the other zergs roach all-inned me. I don't feel like the maps are doing a good job if this is how zerg is getting played. | ||
|
Ponyo
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote: XNC is not a happy medium. If you look at the current crop of BW maps, even the smallest have twelve bases. XNC has ten. It's too small and the natural positioning/open-ness is stupid. It might be one of the best maps we have but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have drastically better. You start your post saying that SC2 is a different game and then base your entire criticism of Xel'naga on how BW maps were constructed. And even though Xel'naga has all these "features", it still produces excellent games ranging from short games to long macro games. So why criticize it for not following the BW formula, when its clearly working quite well as it is? Now I strongly agree with the longer post when I say Blizzard has the right idea but the implementation is far from perfect. Metalopolis on close positions is not an optimal situation, but that doesnt mean that Terminus RE on cross positions is necessarily much better. The goal is to find a good spot inbetween that creates the most variety and the best games. | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote: They demand bigger maps precisely because SC2 is a different game--cheese and all-ins are much more effective than they were in BW, thanks to scouting being more difficult while Chronoboost and MULEs make more units come out faster. We need the bigger maps for the game to be interesting at all. Otherwise it's just "welp, small map/close positions, better one-base it!" for T/P or "welp, small map/close positions, autolose" for Z. Those games are boring. No one likes to lose or win based on map position and games that stay on one/two bases lead to the biggest complaint spectators have about SC2, which is "the players just build their balls and then the balls smash and the game is over." Every map should allow for the possibility of 3+ base play every game. XNC is not a happy medium. If you look at the current crop of BW maps, even the smallest have twelve bases. XNC has ten. It's too small and the natural positioning/open-ness is stupid. It might be one of the best maps we have but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have drastically better. How? It's pretty much the most popular map in SC2 right now. What contributes to this? Imo, its the long rush distance alone that contributes. whining about having wide open nats and rocks covering future expos is meaningless when you have time to see and defend the threats to your base. At the same time, you can't do stupid crap like nexus first, because it's wide open enough so that you can punish blatant eco cheese if you scout it. I will agree it could use 2 more bases, but saying it blows because BW maps have at least 12 expos and XC has 10 is the quite possibly the stupidest possible argument I've seen in this thread to date. Aka, its not the same as BW therefore it sucks. Wtf dude? XC easily has an option for 3 base play every game, with 4 bases being quite common to see. Imo, Slag Pits is fine (backwater gulch isn't an option to consider yet.....LOL nat) if you disable close ground spawns. Typhoon and ST are completely fine, period. I'm worried about the two biggest GSL maps..........they don't belong on ladder. 99% of the player base will never have good games on those maps. I don't even like them so far for GSL....you have zero options for all-ins. And that's just as bad as all-ins every game. Imo, it's an overreaction to the excessively small ladder maps like Steppes and Blistering. Going from all-ins every game to possibly not even scouting which base your opponent is at until 4 minutes in.....is not necessarily a change for the better. Sure, it makes your games macro games, but at the expense of almost ALL early game pressure and cheese. You could lose a 7 pool to a CC first build if you scout the two wrong bases first, and that is fundamentally wrong. Cheese and all-ins is just as much part of SC as big macro games. It shouldn't be the focus, but there HAS to be that pressure and nervousness that your opponent could be doing something cheesy, otherwise the first 15 minutes of the game are meaningless and we should just start with two bases and a pool/gate/rax alreayd built just to save time. And for the Slag Pit haters. lets just say you disable close ground spawns......give me ONE good reason why this is a terrible imbalanced map. Its metalopolis.....only with golds you could actually get and hold in cross positions. I said this earlier, and I feel it needs to be repeated. SC2 is not Sim City with a happy ending. With no threat of early pressure, the game fundamentally falls apart, and balance becomes almost impossible. | ||
| ||
