• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 22:30
CET 04:30
KST 12:30
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview2TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners12Intel X Team Liquid Seoul event: Showmatches and Meet the Pros10[ASL20] Finals Preview: Arrival13
Community News
[TLMC] Fall/Winter 2025 Ladder Map Rotation12Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada4SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA8StarCraft, SC2, HotS, WC3, Returning to Blizzcon!45$5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship7
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview [TLMC] Fall/Winter 2025 Ladder Map Rotation TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview Mech is the composition that needs teleportation t
Tourneys
RSL Revival: Season 3 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Constellation Cup - Main Event - Stellar Fest Tenacious Turtle Tussle Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 499 Chilling Adaptation Mutation # 498 Wheel of Misfortune|Cradle of Death Mutation # 497 Battle Haredened Mutation # 496 Endless Infection
Brood War
General
FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle BW General Discussion What happened to TvZ on Retro? Brood War web app to calculate unit interactions [ASL20] Ask the mapmakers — Drop your questions
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL21] RO32 Group D - Sunday 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO32 Group C - Saturday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Current Meta Simple Questions, Simple Answers PvZ map balance How to stay on top of macro?
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Clair Obscur - Expedition 33 Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Artificial Intelligence Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion Series you have seen recently...
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Dyadica Gospel – a Pulp No…
Hildegard
Coffee x Performance in Espo…
TrAiDoS
Saturation point
Uldridge
DnB/metal remix FFO Mick Go…
ImbaTosS
Reality "theory" prov…
perfectspheres
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2069 users

Blizzard's Official Post Regarding 1.3 Maps

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Normal
Wolf
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Korea (South)3290 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 04:09:04
March 03 2011 03:45 GMT
#1
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2356440#blog

With StarCraft II Patch 1.3, we're making some changes to the ladder map pool (as originally announced in this forum post). We've prepared some additional information to explain which maps are remaining, why certain maps have been removed, and what players should look for in the new maps we're adding.

We're going to be watching these changes closely and reading your feedback, so let us know what you think. In addition to these changes, we also have a few more maps in the works to add to the ladder pool, including a player-created map currently being featured in the GSL. We’ll have more information on those as it becomes available.


Changes to 1v1:

+ Show Spoiler +
1v1 Maps Carrying Over:
(2) Scrap Station
(2) Xel'Naga Caverns
(4) Delta Quadrant
(4) Metalopolis

1v1 Maps Removed:

(2) Blistering Sands
We wanted to reduce the number of rush maps in general, and Blistering Sands was one of them. On top of that, Blistering Sands matches resulted in too many all-in games due to the rocks into the main base. 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.

(2) Jungle Basin
Jungle Basin has a few traits that make it extremely favorable for terran, so we decided to remove it from the ladder. These include:

It's possible to set up siege tanks right below the main base of your opponent and harass his natural expansion while preventing his forces from leaving his base.
Too many choke points everywhere on the map made it difficult for zerg to deal with marines, marauders, or siege tank-based skirmishes.
Difficult access to second expansion
High ground right in front of the ramp leading down to main. Setting up units at both this high ground as well as part of the low ground was too powerful, especially for terrans that use siege tanks.

(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.

(4) Lost Temple
Problems of Lost Temple:

If one side controls one of the center watch towers, there's no alternate ground-based route to half of the map, meaning it's too easy for the game to become a stalemate with each side taking half of the map.
Small islands in the corners were problematic in that they were difficult to assault as each of the three races. We noticed it's possible to hold out at one or both of these islands and drag on a game for longer than needed. It was also problematic in that in some matchups, these islands were just free expansions that almost never get attacked, which is not what we wanted in an expansion.
The choke point by the natural expansions were too small; it was possible to block them off easily using only a few buildings.

(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.


1v1 Maps Added:

(4) Backwater Gulch

Backwater Gulch has a familiar main to first expansion layout. 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. The second expansion, however, features a high ground area that is accessible by two ramps, meaning it can be easily harassed. The center area has two watch towers as well as two high-yield expansions that will be difficult to maintain, and the key to victory in some games could come down to how long you hold one or both of these center expansions.

(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. 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.

(4) The Shattered Temple

The Shattered Temple is a newer version of Lost Temple that's more balanced. Improvements to Lost Temple found in this map include:

Wider center area
Watch tower changed to cover only a part of the center of the map. It's possible to sneak units around the corners of the central area without getting detected by the watch tower.
Rocked-off islands. This creates an alternate attack route and reduces stalemate situations that islands cause.
Larger choke point by the expansion makes it more difficult to block off.

(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. The center has two watch towers and provides the main attack path like in Shakuras Plateau, and the second expansion is similar to the setup of Xel'Naga Caverns. Even though this map is brand new, players will be able to utilize some of their existing strategies that have been used on other maps, and potentially combine them to fit the unique play style of this new map.


Changes to 2v2:

+ Show Spoiler +
2v2 Maps Carrying Over:
(4) High Orbit
(4) Monlyth Ridge
(4) Red Stone Gulch
(4) Scorched Haven
(8) Tempest

2v2 Maps Removed:

(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.

(4) Tarsonis Assault
This map has a similar feel to Scorched Haven or Monlyth Ridge. The main difference is that distance to future expansions are very far. We wanted to remove one of these three maps since they’re similar in style, and Tarsonis Assault was the worst one out of the three.

(4) Twilight Fortress
This map is an extremely macro-heavy map we wanted to try. 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.

(4) War Zone
War Zone suffers from similar problems as Arid Wastes. It's nearly impossible for certain team setups to help each other, and in team games, we want to have maps that are more team-play based.



2v2 Maps Added:

(4)Gutterhulk

Like Scorched Haven or Monlyth Ridge, this map has a center area between the two allies where each player can safely expand. However, the main difference is that there are rocks blocking off the back of the main bases, meaning harassing either players’ main bases is possible. In terms of main attack routes, there are five different attack paths to your opponents, meaning that control of the two watch towers is key to success on this map.

(4) Khaydarin Depths

This map was first showcased during BlizzCon 2009 even before the game launched. This map features an easily defendable high-yield expansion in between you and your ally. However, this expansion is blocked off by destructible rocks, meaning you have to choose when to break this rock vs. when to attack or defend vs. the opposing team. Controlling the center of the map gains you access to most of the center of the map, but there are still back-door routes around to the opponents’ bases by breaking one set of destructible rocks.

(4) Omega Sector

Omega Sector is a two-player version of the popular 3v3 map Arakan Citadel. The start locations are very similar on both maps, and side expansion areas are a bit more easily accessible by the opposing players. This map has three possible paths to attack, and although the center is the fastest route, the other two routes will be used very frequently because there are no watch towers overlooking them. As with Arakan Citadel, your ally is slightly far away from your base, so consider this when placing your first production structures.

(4) Ruins of Tarsonis

Ruins of Tarsonis is a more balanced version of War Zone, which is being removed from the map pool. The biggest downside of War Zone was that it was nearly impossible to assist your ally if you didn't have a mobile army. However, with the shared choke points on this map, it's now possible to play as any race combination without obvious disadvantages. In the mid/late game, however, there are back-door attack paths leading to your second expansion areas, so be sure to defend those locations as well.


Changes to 3v3:

+ Show Spoiler +
3v3 Maps Carrying Over:
(6) Arakan Citadel
(6) Colony 426
(6) Dig Site
(6) Frontier
(6) Monsoon
(6) The Bio Lab
(6) Typhoon
(6) Ulaan Deeps

3v3 Map Removed:

(6) Quicksand
This map was removed for the same reason as a couple of the 2v2 maps. The only strategy teams can do on this map is rush, and the side with more mobility and that gathers its army the fastest wins.



Changes to 4v4:

+ Show Spoiler +
4v4 Maps Carrying Over:
(8) Extinction
(8) High Ground
(8) Lava Flow
(8) Megaton
(8) Outpost
(8) Sand Canyon
(8) Toxic Slums

4v4 Map Added:

(8)District 10

This map is divided in half for each team to control each side. Make sure to take control of the two watch towers in order to control your team's side, and pay close attention to the destructible rocks leading into the main base shared by you and your teammates.


Changes to FFA:

+ Show Spoiler +
FFA Maps Carrying Over:
(4) Metalopolis
(6) Quicksand
(6) Tectonic Rift
(8) Abyss

FFA Maps Removed:

(4) Lost Temple
Being replaced by the newer (4) The Shattered Temple.

(4) Kulas Ravine
This map is being removed and will be replaced by (4) Slag Pits, as Kulas is no longer part of any ladder pool.



FFA Maps Added: (descriptions above)

(4) Slag Pits
(4) The Shattered Temple
Commentatorhttp://twitter.com/proxywolf
TL+ Member
KevinIX
Profile Joined October 2009
United States2472 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 04:00:20
March 03 2011 04:00 GMT
#2
we also have a few more maps in the works to add to the ladder pool, including a player-created map currently being featured in the GSL.



!!! Blizzard is moving in the right direction.
Liquid FIGHTING!!!
monx
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Canada1400 Posts
March 03 2011 04:01 GMT
#3
Terrible map pool imo

User was temp banned for this post.
@ggmonx
Wolf
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Korea (South)3290 Posts
March 03 2011 04:01 GMT
#4
On March 03 2011 13:00 KevinIX wrote:
Show nested quote +
we also have a few more maps in the works to add to the ladder pool, including a player-created map currently being featured in the GSL.



!!! Blizzard is moving in the right direction.


I'm surprised they're talking about this one, and not Terminus RE. If they were considering Terminus, I'd have expected them to say "A Blizzard-made map modified by players". I'm thinking it's going to be Tal'Darim.
Commentatorhttp://twitter.com/proxywolf
TL+ Member
Noev
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
United States1105 Posts
March 03 2011 04:03 GMT
#5
On March 03 2011 13:01 Wolf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2011 13:00 KevinIX wrote:
we also have a few more maps in the works to add to the ladder pool, including a player-created map currently being featured in the GSL.



!!! Blizzard is moving in the right direction.


I'm surprised they're talking about this one, and not Terminus RE. If they were considering Terminus, I'd have expected them to say "A Blizzard-made map modified by players". I'm thinking it's going to be Tal'Darim.


I have not played many games on it but the ones i have i really enjoyed. Plus the games that come out f GSL on that map are very fun to watch, i really hope thats the map they go with
blade55555
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States17423 Posts
March 03 2011 04:05 GMT
#6
On March 03 2011 13:01 Wolf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2011 13:00 KevinIX wrote:
we also have a few more maps in the works to add to the ladder pool, including a player-created map currently being featured in the GSL.



!!! Blizzard is moving in the right direction.


I'm surprised they're talking about this one, and not Terminus RE. If they were considering Terminus, I'd have expected them to say "A Blizzard-made map modified by players". I'm thinking it's going to be Tal'Darim.


I'm hoping so that would be awesome ^_^
When I think of something else, something will go here
krok(obs)
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany264 Posts
March 03 2011 04:06 GMT
#7
very interesting,especially the part about lost temple. not once do they mention the cliff, neither as a reason why the map was taken out/changed nor the lack thereof in the new version(shattered temple). while i perceive this as one of the main reasons why people were aversed to it it is not mentioned a single time, almost as if blizzard doesnt want to admit to having made an error by introducing its oh-so traditional map into sc2 ;-)

that and a number of seemingly non-sensical explanations as to why the new maps were introduced as well as everybodys darling shakuras plateau being taken out. excuse me? too bland? too boring? not interesting enough? come on!!! did it not have enough destructible rocks yet?
http://www.sc2ranks.com/eu/481074/krok
eviltomahawk
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States11135 Posts
March 03 2011 04:06 GMT
#8
On March 03 2011 13:01 Wolf wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2011 13:00 KevinIX wrote:
we also have a few more maps in the works to add to the ladder pool, including a player-created map currently being featured in the GSL.



!!! Blizzard is moving in the right direction.


I'm surprised they're talking about this one, and not Terminus RE. If they were considering Terminus, I'd have expected them to say "A Blizzard-made map modified by players". I'm thinking it's going to be Tal'Darim.

Well, Terminus Re is a VERY heavily modified version of the original Blizzard map Terminus.
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


I wouldn't be surprised to see them use Terminus instead of Tal'Darim or Crevasse. All are great maps, and it's a shame that not all of them can be included in the map pool.

Considering that they are saying "player-created," I also don't think they will use GSL Crossfire since that's technically a slightly modified Blizzard-made Crossfire.
ㅇㅅㅌㅅ
GinDo
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
3327 Posts
March 03 2011 04:07 GMT
#9
On March 03 2011 13:00 KevinIX wrote:
Show nested quote +
we also have a few more maps in the works to add to the ladder pool, including a player-created map currently being featured in the GSL.



!!! Blizzard is moving in the right direction.


Cervasse PLZ
ⱩŦ ƑⱠẬ$Ħ / ƩǤ ɈƩẬƉØƝǤ [ɌȻ] / ȊṂ.ṂṼⱣ / ẬȻƩɌ.ȊƝƝØṼẬŦȊØƝ / ẬȻƩɌ.ϟȻẬɌⱠƩŦŦ ϟⱠẬɎƩɌϟ ȻⱠẬƝ
knyttym
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
United States5797 Posts
March 03 2011 04:09 GMT
#10
SHakuras description makes me uggggg. Really what kind of reason is that
Sworn
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada920 Posts
March 03 2011 04:09 GMT
#11
I hope they add Crossfire and Tal'Darim honestly.
"Duty is heavy as a mountain, death is light as a feather." CJ Entus Fighting! <3 Effort
Arcanne
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1519 Posts
March 03 2011 04:10 GMT
#12
Blah only 1 GSL map *
Professional tech investor, part time DotA scrub | Follow @AllMeasures on Twitter
hmsrenown
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada1263 Posts
March 03 2011 04:10 GMT
#13
It's either Crevasse or Tal'Darim Altar at this point, both maps I like very, very, very much.
Ratel
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada184 Posts
March 03 2011 04:10 GMT
#14
wait wait wait, so they replaced shakuras with slag pits? and they assuming that slag pits is similar to metalopolis?
really blizzard? really?
SiegeFlank
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States410 Posts
March 03 2011 04:10 GMT
#15
(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).

Bird up
Meta
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States6225 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 04:13:53
March 03 2011 04:12 GMT
#16
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.
good vibes only
Irave
Profile Joined October 2010
United States9965 Posts
March 03 2011 04:12 GMT
#17
I'm shocked that they are removing lost temple, as that has been a premiere map in many of their games. However they are making great strides into the right direction, really looking forward to this.
Dommk
Profile Joined May 2010
Australia4865 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 04:16:11
March 03 2011 04:13 GMT
#18
On March 03 2011 13:00 KevinIX wrote:
Show nested quote +
we also have a few more maps in the works to add to the ladder pool, including a player-created map currently being featured in the GSL.



!!! Blizzard is moving in the right direction.

That is what you would think, but then it all changes when you read the why they removed Shakuras (too plain apparently) and their description for slug 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. 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.


They fucking took out Shakuras and added in Slug pits in its place, which is also apparently supposed to be even more macro heavy Meta.


Slug pits. More macro heavy than Meta. Let that sink in for a bit.


Pretty sure whatever GSL map they add in is going to be gutted from what it is currently if they think Slug pits is a successor to Shakuras/Meta
Noev
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
United States1105 Posts
March 03 2011 04:13 GMT
#19
On March 03 2011 13:09 kNyTTyM wrote:
SHakuras description makes me uggggg. Really what kind of reason is that


Yeah there logic seems kinda winged, yeah its a good map no real problems or anything but you know its kinda dull watching games on it lets remove it. I wish they had just decided to keep it or at least give a better reason then they wanted to spice things up. But thats just my opinion and i don't get to see the numbers like blizzard does.
Caphe
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
Vietnam10817 Posts
March 03 2011 04:14 GMT
#20
Its good to know that they start to consider GSL map. And its also sad to see that the reason they remove Shakuras was because " Its a very plain macro map" What? Blizzard must be high on something.
Terran
N3rV[Green]
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
United States1935 Posts
March 03 2011 04:14 GMT
#21
I brought this up in an old thread, but it got buried quickly, so I'll try to sum up my main points again.

Mostly about the map design philosophy and their wording regarding the comparison of slag pits and metal.

"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."

This is their justification, and it really scares me what the implications of this statement are. Slag pits is a "more macro heavy" map than metal O.o? Slag has two less expansions overall, a very difficult (depending on race neigh impossible) to take third base, and close positions give a rush distance even worse than steppes.

This is the kinda stuff from blizzard that really makes me nervous ya know?
Never fear the darkness, Bran. The strongest trees are rooted in the dark places of the earth. Darkness will be your cloak, your shield, your mother's milk. Darkness will make you strong.
altered
Profile Joined March 2008
Switzerland646 Posts
March 03 2011 04:15 GMT
#22
I hope its Terminus or Tal'Darim i like them better than Crossfire or Crevasse but thats just personal preference. All the new GSL maps are better than the Blizz maps (old and new).
Does Flash dream of electric Romeo?
eviltomahawk
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States11135 Posts
March 03 2011 04:17 GMT
#23
On March 03 2011 13:12 Irave wrote:
I'm shocked that they are removing lost temple, as that has been a premiere map in many of their games. However they are making great strides into the right direction, really looking forward to this.

Well, Lost Temple still exists in 1.3, though it has been modified and reincarnated as "The Shattered Temple," which is just Lost Temple modified with "balance changes."

Shattered Temple is a better map, IMO, since there it no longer has the characteristic cliff abuse or island bases that have been exploited since the first iteration of Lost Temple back during the BW days.
ㅇㅅㅌㅅ
MadCow911
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada31 Posts
March 03 2011 04:17 GMT
#24
I love the new map pool ! especially The Shattered Temple.
LT was a great map but I always feel like the two expansion were lost. I played a few games in Shatteres temple and i love the new attack path
KevinIX
Profile Joined October 2009
United States2472 Posts
March 03 2011 04:17 GMT
#25
I'll be happy with any GSL map, but my favorite is Tal'Darim and Crevasse.
Liquid FIGHTING!!!
ch33psh33p
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
7650 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 04:32:43
March 03 2011 04:18 GMT
#26
Notice how they never mentioned the cliff imbalance in LT?

They got rid of it by total accident.

Edit: Ninja'd
secret - never again
mprs
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada2933 Posts
March 03 2011 04:18 GMT
#27
On March 03 2011 13:12 Irave wrote:
I'm shocked that they are removing lost temple, as that has been a premiere map in many of their games. However they are making great strides into the right direction, really looking forward to this.


Shattered Temple is Lost Temple.

I'm surprised they changed the name, however.
We talkin about PRACTICE
Barca
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States418 Posts
March 03 2011 04:19 GMT
#28
What I actually read:

(4) Shakuras Plateau
This map we decided to remove for different reasons. There isn't a huge problem with this map, but we feel that this map isn't flashy enough. Like, no gold bases? Only two pathways to your base? That's a bit ridiculous. It's super easy to take your natural, but why would you want an easy-to-take natural? What if your natural had destructible rocks and a neutral army defending it? For a change, we wanted to replace a proven, great macro map with a silly one we made with fancy features.
- I hate threads that end with "Thoughts?" -
teamsolid
Profile Joined October 2007
Canada3668 Posts
March 03 2011 04:24 GMT
#29
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.
frequency
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Australia1901 Posts
March 03 2011 04:26 GMT
#30
Reading the slag pits description makes me lose faith in Blizzard.
www.twitter.com/marconofrio | marconofrio.tumblr.com
bokchoi
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Korea (South)9498 Posts
March 03 2011 04:29 GMT
#31
Slag Pits is terrible and not more macro-oriented than Metalopolis.. can't believe this is the map they chose to replace Shakuras, lol. Why does Blizzard insist on keeping Delta too.. :[
Dommk
Profile Joined May 2010
Australia4865 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 04:32:37
March 03 2011 04:30 GMT
#32
On March 03 2011 13:19 Barca wrote:
What I actually read:

(4) Shakuras Plateau
This map we decided to remove for different reasons. There isn't a huge problem with this map, but we feel that this map isn't flashy enough. Like, no gold bases? Only two pathways to your base? That's a bit ridiculous. It's super easy to take your natural, but why would you want an easy-to-take natural? What if your natural had destructible rocks and a neutral army defending it? For a change, we wanted to replace a proven, great macro map with a silly one we made with fancy features.


"Not only that, we made your natural super open and also gave it a backdoor, do you really want to be able to defend it? I mean c'mon. Also Protoss, your third base is either on the opposite side of the map or in a low ground area with a ramp that allows easy access for speedlings, actually, no matter what expansion you take after your natural, you are probably going to lose half your probes to speedlings unless you want to put more cannons on that base than there are minerals in the patches, problem?"
Mastermind
Profile Blog Joined April 2008
Canada7096 Posts
March 03 2011 04:30 GMT
#33
(4) Backwater Gulch

Backwater Gulch has a familiar main to first expansion layout.

Is that suppose to be a joke?
imJealous
Profile Joined July 2010
United States1382 Posts
March 03 2011 04:32 GMT
#34
On March 03 2011 13:06 krok(obs) wrote:
very interesting,especially the part about lost temple. not once do they mention the cliff, neither as a reason why the map was taken out/changed nor the lack thereof in the new version(shattered temple). while i perceive this as one of the main reasons why people were aversed to it it is not mentioned a single time, almost as if blizzard doesnt want to admit to having made an error by introducing its oh-so traditional map into sc2 ;-)

I think its more like they didn't need to bother explaining the issues with the cliffs that everyone is aware of, better to spend the little space they have available explaining some of the less obvious changes.
... In life very little goes right. "Right" meaning the way one expected and the way one wanted it. One has no right to want or expect anything.
Megaliskuu
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5123 Posts
March 03 2011 04:32 GMT
#35
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.


Uhhhhh
|BW>Everything|Add me on star2 KR server TheMuTaL.675 for practice games :)|NEX clan| https://www.dotabuff.com/players/183104694
universalwill
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States654 Posts
March 03 2011 04:33 GMT
#36
of all the problems they mention in lost temple, they conveniently left out the cliff issue

i almost think that they don't want to admit that they're such bad mapmakers that they made a map that was literally impossible for zerg to win on

and then they call islands "expansions that never got attacked, and we didn't want that" and proceed to not remove the planetary fortress from the game
Cider
Profile Joined July 2010
United States198 Posts
March 03 2011 04:34 GMT
#37
I may not agree with all of their reasoning, but at the very least I'm glad that they're explaining themselves. It's nice to know that they at least have reasoning behind what they're doing.
You can't spell Courage without Rage
Yoshi Kirishima
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States10366 Posts
March 03 2011 04:34 GMT
#38
Sorry but wasn't there a thread on this already?
Mid-master streaming MECH ONLY + commentary www.twitch.tv/yoshikirishima +++ "If all-in fails, all-in again."
Mastermind
Profile Blog Joined April 2008
Canada7096 Posts
March 03 2011 04:34 GMT
#39
On March 03 2011 13:32 Megaliskuu wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


Uhhhhh

lol, they call a map with a harder to take nat and less total expansions 'more macro heavy'. It isnt april fools yet is it?
Ribbon
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5278 Posts
March 03 2011 04:35 GMT
#40
I'd be surprised if it's Tal'Darim. Crevasse is a much more "interesting" and Blizzard-y map (i.e., Rocks). Tal'Darim's big trait is just that it's huge. Which is boss for GSL-level play, but with most SC2 players in Bronze or silver, most ladder games on Tal'Darim would go on for over an hour of nothing because people would be more passive and not know what do to, so they'd just turtle.

It's interesting to me that, with the exception of Shakuras, Blizzard's analysis of why their maps have problems are all pretty accurate. I bet that they rolled out the new maps just because they were running way late on a map rotation, and they're not done making the maps they think are good (Which may or may not be maps we think are good). Weren't all the new maps shown at Blizzcons and stuff before?

I think they're trying to figure out how to make a map that's good for all their players, not just the casuals and not just us entitled tourney-types, and are bringing out these maps in the hopes one takes off (as shattered temple seems to have, with lukewarm responses to Typhon and Slag). Maybe that's hopeful of me, but I like to stay positive. The fact that Blizzard cited "It's OP on GSL-sized maps" as a reason to remove amulet is probably a good sign that Blizz is reevaluating it's initial decisions that big maps were super-OP for Zerg (back with 1-supply 2-armor free-speed super-regen roaches), and is now willing to take baby steps in a GSLier direction.
Wolf
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Korea (South)3290 Posts
March 03 2011 04:43 GMT
#41
On March 03 2011 13:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Sorry but wasn't there a thread on this already?


Couldn't find one. This is their official post from today about the maps, why they were removed/added. The other post just showed the new maps.
Commentatorhttp://twitter.com/proxywolf
TL+ Member
DreamChaser
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
1649 Posts
March 03 2011 04:44 GMT
#42
You know what i'm not going to cry over the removal of Shakuras i had no problems with it, im just more happy about the removal of Steppes, blistering and LT. Alot of people are complaining and not everyone will ever be happy. so im just glad blizzard is at least listening to some of the communities complaints. I doubt they will ever take just the communities opinions cause it would probably just be terrible.
Plays against every MU with nexus first.
Frenzy175
Profile Joined January 2010
Australia42 Posts
March 03 2011 04:44 GMT
#43
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.
LilClinkin
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
Australia667 Posts
March 03 2011 04:46 GMT
#44
lol slag-pits macro heavy? When I first saw it, I thought of Blood Bath from sc1.
SeeDLiNg
Profile Joined January 2010
United States690 Posts
March 03 2011 04:48 GMT
#45
I wasn't very peeved about shakuras until reading their reasoning. That is complete garbage. they say they're listening but that's obviously bullshit or they'd know the lack of rocks at every damn expo isn't bland, its smart map design. Seriously disappointed.
Ribbon
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5278 Posts
March 03 2011 04:50 GMT
#46
On March 03 2011 13:33 universalwill wrote:
of all the problems they mention in lost temple, they conveniently left out the cliff issue

i almost think that they don't want to admit that they're such bad mapmakers that they made a map that was literally impossible for zerg to win on

and then they call islands "expansions that never got attacked, and we didn't want that" and proceed to not remove the planetary fortress from the game


Lost Temple GSL Map Statistics

PvT: 28.6%
PvZ: 42.9%
TvZ: 57.9%

Jeez, look at those 100% win rates for P and T against Z. Literally impossible ;_;

Let's tone down the hyperbole, please. Just a little?

That said, it is interesting they didn't mention the cliff, no? They clearly knew about it, because I don't think they accidentally removed one of the biggest balance complaints of the map. I wonder why they didn't bring it up. I guess it would raise some interesting questions about Delta Quadrant, and they don't want to say or imply Delta is a bad map until they remove it. I imagine Delta'll be the one to get replaced with the GSL map, though. It's the least popular map in the pool on battle net polls, and no major tourney uses it now.
Amui
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
Canada10567 Posts
March 03 2011 04:59 GMT
#47
We took out Shakuras Plateau, which was a very plain macro map, and added this map instead


uhhhh WHAT? What is wrong with pure unadulterated macro once in a while? This game was by no means boring as if you look at GSL, out of all the great games, probably half or more have occured on this map.

Backwater Gulch has a familiar main to first expansion layout. 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.


So... 3x attack paths into nat, can't defend nat while defending main, and without a mobile/very defense oriented army, almost impossible to take the natural in the first place.

Out of the 4 new maps, the only map I think is actually an improvement is typhon peaks.
Porouscloud - NA LoL
hidiliho
Profile Joined September 2004
Canada685 Posts
March 03 2011 05:28 GMT
#48
At least they explained it
I have a dream, that some day I wouldn't see any imba comments in GSL threads.
GagnarTheUnruly
Profile Joined July 2010
United States655 Posts
March 03 2011 05:31 GMT
#49
1 GSL map is better than none. Give them positive feedback on it and it's the start of something beautiful.
Saracen
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
United States5139 Posts
March 03 2011 05:33 GMT
#50
This is very nice information
ixi.genocide
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States981 Posts
March 03 2011 05:35 GMT
#51
TP is a sweet map, hopefully it will be a welcome addition to tournaments and we won't see too much abuse on it.

Slag pits should be cross pos imo. atm this map has a really wide open nat and is very hard to take a third which makes it almost as bad as bs

Backwater gulch will be interesting. At first sight it is a bad map but we will see how that plays out.

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.
CortoMontez
Profile Joined October 2010
Australia608 Posts
March 03 2011 05:36 GMT
#52
Frankly, I'm most annoyed that Quicksand has remained in the FFA map pool, the positional imbalance on that map is almost as bad as ProdiG's Labrynth of Wonders....
"Creator was doing a really good job trying to win without storm but it was like eating spaghetti with a screwdriver." -Severian
bkrow
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Australia8532 Posts
March 03 2011 05:40 GMT
#53
Good OP it's a bit strange to see this much transparency from Blizzard; actually explaining the reasoning behind their map choices..

It's nice to see them taking steps to please the community.. improved maps are better for all

Awesome.
In The Rear With The Gear .. *giggle* /////////// cobra-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!!
Ichabod
Profile Joined May 2010
United States1659 Posts
March 03 2011 05:42 GMT
#54
Some of their reasoning seems suspect but it's really nice to see them giving us some insight on their thought patterns, even if they think Slag Pits is a macro map and Backwater Gulch has a defendable expansion.
I suppose they thought it was too easy to fast expand on LT, so they made the natural less defendable, but traded that for a nice 3rd and a pretty easy expanding path. Close positions on that map certainly will be interesting in the late game, similar to shakuras.
Yoshi Kirishima
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States10366 Posts
March 03 2011 05:46 GMT
#55
Couldn't find one. This is their official post from today about the maps, why they were removed/added. The other post just showed the new maps.


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.
Mid-master streaming MECH ONLY + commentary www.twitch.tv/yoshikirishima +++ "If all-in fails, all-in again."
infinity21 *
Profile Blog Joined October 2006
Canada6683 Posts
March 03 2011 05:56 GMT
#56
I would've liked to know why they decided to keep DQ lol
Their justification of removing Shakuras makes it sound like they had no better maps to remove, i.e. DQ was a somewhat balanced map with less cheese than blistering sands or steppes.
Official Entusman #21
Elwar
Profile Joined August 2010
953 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 06:10:09
March 03 2011 06:07 GMT
#57
I would be shocked if Shakuras wasn't in actuality removed because of oft-mentioned imbalances in the closer-spawn positions, and that they didn't want to make it cross-map only.

Edit: Also I think Typhon is the only new map thats encourages macro-based games more than the maps they're replacing. I'll echo everyone elses sentiments than Slag Pits (in particular) and Backwater Gulch are ridiculous maps to try and defend expansions on.
slipperymess
Profile Joined February 2011
14 Posts
March 03 2011 06:13 GMT
#58
Good that Blizzard is changing their maps up, but I really don't like their reasoning for Shakuras. Even if it was kind of bland it still produced some of the most exciting games I've seen in so far (The IdrA v MVP game that Artosis casted for example).

Well, I guess we'll just see how the replacement maps fare as substitutes for it.... Hopefully will bring us games on the same caliber.
dcemuser
Profile Joined August 2010
United States3248 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 06:25:00
March 03 2011 06:16 GMT
#59
On March 03 2011 14:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Show nested quote +
Couldn't find one. This is their official post from today about the maps, why they were removed/added. The other post just showed the new maps.


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're probably getting it confused with the thread a day or two ago about a Blizzard interview discussing maps, where the developer talked about adding GSL maps.

As for all of the Shakuras complaints... I'm fine with it. The game gets stale and boring if they use the same maps for a long time, and Blizzard is right in this case - Shakuras was really boring in terms of limited attack paths. There were interesting games on it, sure, but I think there are better maps (most of the new GSL ones are better than Shakuras).

Didn't they change maps really frequently in Brood War for the same reason... to add variety (and for balance reasons)?

Edit: Before I get bashed on... I'm not agreeing with everything Blizzard did here. Delta Quadrant should be removed too, and Slag Pits isn't the greatest map ever. That said, I don't see why they shouldn't remove Shakuras.
Sein
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States1811 Posts
March 03 2011 06:18 GMT
#60
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.


Yea, I'm really sad about this as well.
DaCruise
Profile Joined July 2010
Denmark2457 Posts
March 03 2011 06:19 GMT
#61
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.
bokeevboke
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Singapore1674 Posts
March 03 2011 06:22 GMT
#62
Agree on everything.
they didn't mention changes in DQ.
Its grack
Froadac
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States6733 Posts
March 03 2011 06:25 GMT
#63
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
Profile Joined February 2010
Germany606 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 06:26:38
March 03 2011 06:26 GMT
#64
On March 03 2011 14:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Show nested quote +
Couldn't find one. This is their official post from today about the maps, why they were removed/added. The other post just showed the new maps.


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
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5278 Posts
March 03 2011 06:28 GMT
#65
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
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5278 Posts
March 03 2011 06:33 GMT
#66
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
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 06:40:11
March 03 2011 06:37 GMT
#67
If these are their reasons for why maps were changed than I'd love to hear their reasons why I'm still stuck playing close metal and close ST almost 15% of my games (40%-50% of my games are metal/LT and 33% of those are close positions). Spawning close ST/Metal 6/7 games in a set is not enjoyable in the slightest.
Logo
Zerokaiser
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Canada885 Posts
March 03 2011 06:41 GMT
#68
How fucking dare a game be decided by a straight-up macro war instead of exploitation of map gimmicks. That'll teach you, Shakuras!
Lanaia is love.
Terranium
Profile Joined February 2004
Turkmenistan144 Posts
March 03 2011 06:45 GMT
#69
Slag Pits more macro heavy than Metal!!
Seriously WTF?!!? I hope the blizzard guy who wrote this crap gets fired.
netherDrake
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Singapore1831 Posts
March 03 2011 06:47 GMT
#70
IMO all the new maps are terrible except Shattered Temple and maybe Typhon Peaks.

They should reinstate Shakuras, remove Delta/Backwater/Slag and add in 3 GSL maps.
SC2 player for Flash eSports. twitch.tv/nether_drake, https://twitter.com/bryan_sum, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bryan-Drake-Sum/468389706519567
Dental Floss
Profile Joined September 2009
United States1015 Posts
March 03 2011 06:47 GMT
#71
The shakuras reason really makes me wonder if blizzard is watching these games from the same perspective as I am. I watch the games to see the interesting decisions that players make while facing each-other. I thought that was what a strategy game was. Maps don't have to be a playground of gimmicks; too many map features can actually force players to use a particular strategy which destroys huge numbers of possible decisions.
Kim Tae Gyun.... never forget Perfectman RIP
a_flayer
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands2826 Posts
March 03 2011 06:50 GMT
#72
Hmm... So they're adding a GSL map, eh? I wonder which GSL map has the most amount of rocks on it?
When you came along so righteous with a new national hate, so convincing is the ardor of war and of men, it's harder to breathe than to believe you're a friend. The wars at home, the wars abroad, all soaked in blood and lies and fraud.
Neverplay
Profile Joined May 2010
Austria532 Posts
March 03 2011 06:51 GMT
#73
i like their explanation of the new mappool. didnt play much on the new maps so far, but shattered temple looks very nice
Better light a candle than curse the darkness
Natt
Profile Joined August 2010
France253 Posts
March 03 2011 07:45 GMT
#74
YES ! Blizzard's ego dropped !! At last !
Malkavian183
Profile Joined February 2011
Turkey227 Posts
March 03 2011 07:46 GMT
#75
Well I haven't been able to play in the new map pool but Backwater Gulch doesn't seem.. how to put it.. it just doesn't look good. Feels odd to play in and look at it. Other than that it doesn't feel that bad. Although far away naturals will be hard to defend from 4 gate rushes seems like. Other than that change is good. Who isn't sick of same LT, Steppes of War and (to some degree) Metalopolis after playing 100th game in them? I just hope instead of 8-9 maps they will have like 15-20 maps in the map pool in the future.
Inject Bitch!
wimbowaia
Profile Joined March 2010
Norway20 Posts
March 03 2011 07:49 GMT
#76
"We decided to introduce a very similar map, but slightly more macro heavy."
Hahahahaha... /fail
zhurai
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States5660 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 07:53:02
March 03 2011 07:51 GMT
#77

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;
Twitter: @zhurai | Site: http://zhurai.com
Yoshi Kirishima
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States10366 Posts
March 03 2011 07:51 GMT
#78
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...
Mid-master streaming MECH ONLY + commentary www.twitch.tv/yoshikirishima +++ "If all-in fails, all-in again."
wimbowaia
Profile Joined March 2010
Norway20 Posts
March 03 2011 07:55 GMT
#79
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
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Sweden665 Posts
March 03 2011 08:01 GMT
#80
+ Show Spoiler +
On March 03 2011 16:55 wimbowaia wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.. ^^

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.
Yes I am
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 08:08:45
March 03 2011 08:04 GMT
#81
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.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
Xeteh
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States589 Posts
March 03 2011 08:07 GMT
#82
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.
Alexj
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Ukraine440 Posts
March 03 2011 08:08 GMT
#83
Clearly Blizzard doesn't want you to expand, ever. Especially if you're a protoss
More GGs, more skill
Torte de Lini
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Germany38463 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 08:17:45
March 03 2011 08:16 GMT
#84
(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
https://twitter.com/#!/TorteDeLini (@TorteDeLini)
i_am_immure
Profile Joined February 2011
United States67 Posts
March 03 2011 08:18 GMT
#85
I like how blizzard is finally adding new maps. However the spawns on slag pits seem a little close.
Goibon
Profile Joined May 2010
New Zealand8185 Posts
March 03 2011 08:19 GMT
#86
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.
Leenock =^_^= Ryung =^_^= Parting =^_^= herO =^_^= Guilty
NeoLearner
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Belgium1847 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 08:58:45
March 03 2011 08:58 GMT
#87
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.
Bankai - Correlation does not imply causation
wimbowaia
Profile Joined March 2010
Norway20 Posts
March 03 2011 09:22 GMT
#88
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
Velr
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Switzerland10809 Posts
March 03 2011 09:40 GMT
#89
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.
YunhOLee
Profile Blog Joined April 2005
Canada2470 Posts
March 03 2011 09:41 GMT
#90
do we know yet which GSL map they're looking at to add to the map pool?
Live it, love it, play it, kill it. JulyZerg and IPXZerg greatest TL.net fan
thesauceishot
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada333 Posts
March 03 2011 09:53 GMT
#91
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.
Geo.Rion
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
7377 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 09:59:42
March 03 2011 09:55 GMT
#92
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.
"Protoss is a joke" Liquid`Jinro Okt.1. 2011
Lucius22
Profile Joined February 2011
172 Posts
March 03 2011 09:57 GMT
#93
these are the same retarded reasonings which were posted a week ago. i thought they changed sth
MavercK
Profile Joined March 2010
Australia2181 Posts
March 03 2011 09:59 GMT
#94
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?

Brood War Remake - SC2BW - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=145316
Valikyr
Profile Joined June 2010
Sweden2653 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 10:00:45
March 03 2011 09:59 GMT
#95
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.
Dezire
Profile Joined December 2010
Netherlands640 Posts
March 03 2011 10:01 GMT
#96
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]
BoxeR, HuK, IdrA, Minigun, MVP <3
sleepingdog
Profile Joined August 2008
Austria6145 Posts
March 03 2011 10:03 GMT
#97
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.
"You see....YOU SEE..." © 2010 Sen
sluggaslamoo
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
Australia4494 Posts
March 03 2011 10:04 GMT
#98
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.
Come play Android Netrunner - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=409008
sleepingdog
Profile Joined August 2008
Austria6145 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 10:08:21
March 03 2011 10:08 GMT
#99
(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.
"You see....YOU SEE..." © 2010 Sen
kidleader
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Korea (South)233 Posts
March 03 2011 10:16 GMT
#100
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.
Tokyo Seoul London New York \\ SlayerS, KT
Speake
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States494 Posts
March 03 2011 10:18 GMT
#101
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them
tQ.Speake
Salvarias
Profile Joined May 2010
Denmark231 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 10:51:25
March 03 2011 10:50 GMT
#102
I feel so sick after reading that slag pits is supose to be a "heavy macro" version of metalopolis ? it has less exspansions and shorter close position rush distance ? and shakuras was replaced with it ? where in the world where things are supose to be logic and make sense, is this even a choice that have a decent sense behind it?
wimbowaia
Profile Joined March 2010
Norway20 Posts
March 03 2011 11:12 GMT
#103
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

Thats another thing. They are actually doing that on purpose. Blizzard don't want naturals to be easily blocked off/defended. But at the same time they have mentioned that they want more macro maps and less all ins. Do they not understand that those 2 things are related? Naturals with huge undefendable entrances or even no entrance at all, just cause people to all in even more. But blizzard just don't understand this. It makes no sense at all, and proves once again that blizzard don't understand how the game works and therefor should not be the ones making maps for competitive play. Its ok that blizzard is just not good enough to make good maps, but its NOT ok to still force the community to play the terrible maps they make, when theres clearly better alternatives for maps available. It makes me so furious.
The KY
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom6252 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 11:17:09
March 03 2011 11:16 GMT
#104
On March 03 2011 17:07 Xeteh wrote:
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.


No, they said they wanted to cut down on rush maps. Not remove them. The reason they took out Shakuras is they thought it was a 'plain' macro map, and I totally agree. Whether they were right to replace it with Slag Pits...well I doubt that's a good choice. But I guess we'll see.

Personally I've had nothing but macro games on all the new maps. I don't like Gulch, just the layout, the attack paths...I don't like it at all. That's my only problem, although I'd like to see at least a couple of GOM maps making it in to the ladder pool. But I think everyone enthusiastically Blizzard bashing is being really harsh; they're obviously trying, and I don't think these maps are as awful as everyone is making out. You can go on about destructible rocks and open naturals all you like, but in my opinion Slag Pits is the only map that could be considered objectively awful. And even that's questionable.
Candles
Profile Joined February 2011
United Kingdom103 Posts
March 03 2011 11:28 GMT
#105
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?


ALPINA
Profile Joined May 2010
3791 Posts
March 03 2011 11:41 GMT
#106
I just hope that GSL map is not a crossfire.
You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
DominicxD
Profile Joined December 2010
20 Posts
March 03 2011 11:52 GMT
#107
I don't see why they feel the need to delete a fan favorite just because they don't like it.
dvide
Profile Joined March 2010
United Kingdom287 Posts
March 03 2011 12:23 GMT
#108
Blizzard don't seem to understand what makes their own game enjoyable. It's just weird reading this.
BeMannerDuPenner
Profile Blog Joined April 2004
Germany5638 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 12:29:05
March 03 2011 12:26 GMT
#109
as usual the reasoning hurts the most. its just so obvious that blizzards map team has no clue at all of the game or maps.

sad considering they are so many talented people out there that do MUCh better job in their free time then those guys getting paid for it.


btw my personal favourite is

Backdoor Gulch has a familiar main to first expansion layout. 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



evrybody one base in blizzard world?
life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
ovion
Profile Joined September 2010
United Kingdom74 Posts
March 03 2011 12:27 GMT
#110
wasn't all this posted in this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196358 ?

anyway shakuras reason seems... strange. then again i guess blizzard wants to make the game as fun and balanced as possible and they didn't think shakuras was very fun it sounds like.
good to get their reasons for the change tho
Sqq
Profile Joined August 2010
Norway2023 Posts
March 03 2011 12:30 GMT
#111
Slagpit, a macro map ? It has the shortest rush distance in the game! They really have no clue what they are doing.
Dead girls don't say no.
limonovich
Profile Joined September 2010
England226 Posts
March 03 2011 12:31 GMT
#112
i actually like backwater gulch :/
dunno why dq & scrap are still in map pool though and the reasoning behind shakuras removal is ridiculous >_>
trololo
MavercK
Profile Joined March 2010
Australia2181 Posts
March 03 2011 12:34 GMT
#113
if you look at brood war maps they were mostly a very closed off, 1 ramp main into 2-3 building wide choke natural into a blizzard style natural as the 3rd (ergo the 3rd is very wide open. but at that stage in the game you have a large army and tech to deal with it)

i know sc2 isn't the same game. but whats wrong with this formula. it works wonders.
as you get more units and greater tech the bases become more exposed and vulnerable.
these huge wide open naturals blizzard makes are terrible. they aren't balanced according to what stage of the game the players are currently in.
Brood War Remake - SC2BW - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=145316
Roggay
Profile Joined April 2010
Switzerland6320 Posts
March 03 2011 12:41 GMT
#114
This official post about the maps really confirmed for me that Blizzard has no clue about how to make a map. Most of the reasons given were really strange, and not the right ones.
Pajegetc
Profile Joined February 2011
United States3158 Posts
March 03 2011 12:44 GMT
#115
After playing a bit on the new maps I think the only bad one is Slag Pits. That map is no where near being a macro map and the control tower in the center serves no purpose at all. Not to mention close position rush distance.

Backwater Gulch? I think it's called to be very good macro maps. You can grab a pretty easy third if you break your own rocks. Only thing I would change is getting rid of the random "plateau areas" in front cause it leaves your possible third a very cramped for little room to micro.

Typhoon Peaks is becoming my new favorite map cause of all the easy bases when it's cross positions.

They only need to get rid of Delta and bring back Shakuras to make it a very good map pool imho.
Lose Early game - Cheese. Lose Mid Game - All Ined. Lose Late Game - OMG IMBALANCE. My Guide to Zerg LR.
iGX
Profile Joined June 2010
Australia414 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 12:49:24
March 03 2011 12:48 GMT
#116
this is great news. i reckon they should just add crossfire SE along with another GSL map (any will do)

yes, keep metalopolis and xelnaga caverns. as for delta and scrap...occasionally they can be quite one sided =\
When your bases are ashes...then you have my permission to "GG".
eloist
Profile Joined September 2010
United States1017 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 13:12:36
March 03 2011 13:03 GMT
#117
On March 03 2011 20:12 wimbowaia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

Thats another thing. They are actually doing that on purpose. Blizzard don't want naturals to be easily blocked off/defended. But at the same time they have mentioned that they want more macro maps and less all ins. Do they not understand that those 2 things are related? Naturals with huge undefendable entrances or even no entrance at all, just cause people to all in even more. But blizzard just don't understand this. It makes no sense at all, and proves once again that blizzard don't understand how the game works and therefor should not be the ones making maps for competitive play. Its ok that blizzard is just not good enough to make good maps, but its NOT ok to still force the community to play the terrible maps they make, when theres clearly better alternatives for maps available. It makes me so furious.

I am going to argue that they understand this game better than you do and have more foresight. A narrow choke natural is never going to be balanced and Zerg will suffer the most from it in the long run and we are already seeing this develop. No one seems to have really found a reliable way to deal with forge fast expand into 1 stargate with phoenix void ray into colossus and this will not get any better. The only thing we've seen are do or die roach all ins which are a coin flip at best. Games coming from this will just get increasingly worse because the skill ceiling for defense is just higher than for offense and people will get better at it.

The reason that they took out shakuras is not that it made for bad games but because it will make for increasingly stale games as we go forward and the game develops. The map just always plays out in at max one of three ways.

Having played a few games on Typhon made me realize this because I effectively got owned because my opponents played the map way better than I did and it was immeditately obvious to me that this is what happened. And by this I don't mean doom push through rocks, I just got outmaneuvered.

So I would give Blizz the benefit of the doubt here and see how these maps play out first. For me at least, it's clear that I need a few games on these to figure out how to play them best whereas shakuras it was just really straight forward.

EDIT: Additional point is that a two base all in is not much different from a one base all in in terms of appeal of the resulting game and I wouldn't call those macro games.
sleepingdog
Profile Joined August 2008
Austria6145 Posts
March 03 2011 13:04 GMT
#118
After a couple more games on backwater, I really dislike how differently this map plays position wise.

Take cross positions. If players spawn bottom left and upper right it becomes a split map with each side controlling "their" xel naga watchtower. Though tanks are really annoying. But if players spawn upper left and bottom right, both towers don't really "belong" to a side, it's much more like on xel naga caverns where one tower is closer but both are easy to control once you get the upper hand. I don't like maps whose "image" changes depending on spawns because it's getting unpredictable when you want to choose maps in tournaments.
"You see....YOU SEE..." © 2010 Sen
FeyFey
Profile Joined September 2010
Germany10114 Posts
March 03 2011 13:09 GMT
#119
awww shakuras had nice features too, but people only started to abuse them just recently. Probably because everyone voted it down after having to much boring macro games, that are common on this map. (every game looked the same on this map)

Like the explaination why the removed lost temple, its still sad but correct and glad they made it because of the cliff drop, which is even for a zerg easy to defend. (or they simply didn't mentioned it to not make the people think they are right, because they could start to want more)
Rialz
Profile Joined October 2010
Brazil177 Posts
March 03 2011 13:10 GMT
#120
I completely lost faith in Blizzard when they said that they added slag pits because they liked macro maps and that slag pits was more macro heavy than metalopolis.

But it is a step in the right direction though, it's good to see they care and are trying to improve.
sleepingdog
Profile Joined August 2008
Austria6145 Posts
March 03 2011 14:02 GMT
#121
On March 03 2011 22:10 Rialz wrote:
I completely lost faith in Blizzard when they said that they added slag pits because they liked macro maps and that slag pits was more macro heavy than metalopolis.

But it is a step in the right direction though, it's good to see they care and are trying to improve.


Well, you could say that they are at least "trying" to create macro maps....failing, but trying. It's better than nothing I guess
"You see....YOU SEE..." © 2010 Sen
Treemonkeys
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2082 Posts
March 03 2011 15:01 GMT
#122
Loving the new map pool, the new maps are good, the new lost temple is good. The only map I have veto'ed is delta quadrant right now. I might end up veto'ing more as people get better at abusing certain maps, who knows. Hands down it is a huge improvement over the old map pool, definitely much more macro friendly than the old pool, but all-ins and one base play are still possible. Personally I prefer to have macro friendly rather than "guaranteed macro" maps. I used to love shakuras but it got really annoying when the terran hallway became so popular, it's really pretty stupid for the difficulty in a matchup to drastically change based on spawning positions, really just as bad as close positions on metal if not worse. I mean when standard play becomes sack your main and counter attack I kind of think that implies it's a bad map, but that's just IMO.
http://shroomspiration.blogspot.com/
Sm3agol
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States2055 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 15:23:02
March 03 2011 15:21 GMT
#123
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.
Timerly
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Germany511 Posts
March 03 2011 15:29 GMT
#124
Well you can always 4gate...lol

Seriously though, a natural should not be under super heavy siege all the time. It's ok that it's riskier to take the 2nd base than to just camp on top of your ramp but then again, having it exposed to any kind of aggression from everywhere is just very silly and promotes playing the "safe" bet 1base all in. The expo by design costs quite some money and has to pay for itself over time, that weakness is what should make expoing risky, not the fact, that any push from any random side can never be defended if you didn't guess correctly with your army or are unlucky with his angle and your static defense.
fabiano
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Brazil4644 Posts
March 03 2011 15:34 GMT
#125

(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. 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.


This was the joke of the month, seriously.

hahahaaha, Blizzard so funny nowadays.
"When the geyser died, a probe came out" - SirJolt
seph`
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
Austria329 Posts
March 03 2011 15:38 GMT
#126
as a 2v2-player (AT), im really happy to see arid wastes, tarsonis assault and warzone kicked out of the mappool.
unfortunately twilight fortress istn in the pool anymore , dont see the problem on macro-heavy maps/longer games.
butter
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States785 Posts
March 03 2011 15:45 GMT
#127
For the ladder map changes, the rush-possible maps we’ll have will be four-player maps only.

Fascinating. I wonder which maps they think those are?
TL should have a minigame where you have to destroy some rocks before you can make a new post – DentalFloss
eloist
Profile Joined September 2010
United States1017 Posts
March 03 2011 15:45 GMT
#128
So isn't a larger ramp still easier to defend than an exposed expo as on xel naga or metalopolis?
sleepingdog
Profile Joined August 2008
Austria6145 Posts
March 03 2011 15:49 GMT
#129
On March 04 2011 00:45 butter wrote:
Show nested quote +
For the ladder map changes, the rush-possible maps we’ll have will be four-player maps only.

Fascinating. I wonder which maps they think those are?


Probably Typhon Peaks as it has "destructible rocks that open alternative attack paths".
"You see....YOU SEE..." © 2010 Sen
Kralic
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Canada2628 Posts
March 03 2011 16:09 GMT
#130
I like the new maps. They are fresh and seem to be enjoyable for the most part. DQ is an iffy map and hopefully it is rotated out sooner or later. Guess that is what a veto can be used for.

There is a lot of crying in this thread and forums though, I guess I am just sick of reading Terran this Terran that, tanks are too good, any map with a cliff is a Terran favoured map, I can't expand 3 times before I build a unit producing structure(this one a bit exaggerated)!

Blizzard's explanaitons seem odd, but remember they are at least trying to explain stuff. I'd rather have some sort of explanation than nothing at all.
Brood War forever!
wimbowaia
Profile Joined March 2010
Norway20 Posts
March 03 2011 16:16 GMT
#131
On March 03 2011 22:03 eloist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2011 20:12 wimbowaia wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

Thats another thing. They are actually doing that on purpose. Blizzard don't want naturals to be easily blocked off/defended. But at the same time they have mentioned that they want more macro maps and less all ins. Do they not understand that those 2 things are related? Naturals with huge undefendable entrances or even no entrance at all, just cause people to all in even more. But blizzard just don't understand this. It makes no sense at all, and proves once again that blizzard don't understand how the game works and therefor should not be the ones making maps for competitive play. Its ok that blizzard is just not good enough to make good maps, but its NOT ok to still force the community to play the terrible maps they make, when theres clearly better alternatives for maps available. It makes me so furious.

I am going to argue that they understand this game better than you do and have more foresight. A narrow choke natural is never going to be balanced and Zerg will suffer the most from it in the long run and we are already seeing this develop. No one seems to have really found a reliable way to deal with forge fast expand into 1 stargate with phoenix void ray into colossus and this will not get any better. The only thing we've seen are do or die roach all ins which are a coin flip at best. Games coming from this will just get increasingly worse because the skill ceiling for defense is just higher than for offense and people will get better at it.

The reason that they took out shakuras is not that it made for bad games but because it will make for increasingly stale games as we go forward and the game develops. The map just always plays out in at max one of three ways.

Having played a few games on Typhon made me realize this because I effectively got owned because my opponents played the map way better than I did and it was immeditately obvious to me that this is what happened. And by this I don't mean doom push through rocks, I just got outmaneuvered.

So I would give Blizz the benefit of the doubt here and see how these maps play out first. For me at least, it's clear that I need a few games on these to figure out how to play them best whereas shakuras it was just really straight forward.

EDIT: Additional point is that a two base all in is not much different from a one base all in in terms of appeal of the resulting game and I wouldn't call those macro games.

First of all your saying we can't have narrow chokes, because they lead to macro games, which leads to protoss getting an unkillable army for zerg. Now if thats the case, thats a race balance issue, not a map issue. You can't argue that we can't have macro maps because a race gets to strong in the late game, cause clearly, then its one of the races that needs a buff/nerf. And its is no secret that zerg is in need of something like that.
And no, people who think slag pits is a replacement for shakuras, and an equal to metalopolis, does NOT understand the game better then me, thats outrageous.
And your justifying removing shakuras because "it will make for increasingly stale games as we go forward and the game develops". How about worrying about the present, and removing some of the god awful small shit maps we currently have, before removing the best map in the pool because of the future?? It was indeed the best map, and that statement is certainly not only my own opinion. There is just no justification for removing shakuras at this point in time.
I respect your patience in waiting to see how these maps plays out, but sorry, the maps just arent good enough. The average map size is still to small, and with undefendable naturals, they just encourage more all ins and rushing. And I totally agree with you, two base all ins are not much better than one base all ins, but how can you use that as an argument for defending the current maps, when they actually encourage all ins? Thats exactly why we need bigger maps, with reasonably defendable naturals.
drcatellino
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Canada346 Posts
March 03 2011 16:21 GMT
#132
After testing them out for a while, I think Backwater is pretty horrible (natural is so weird. 3 ramps ? ramp to base not even in line with the natural ?).

But I actually like the rest. I think Slag Pits should be cross position only, but besides that it's not as bad as people say. Typhon Peaks is actually a pretty good map; similar to Xel Naga in a few ways.
quote unquote
McKTenor13
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States1383 Posts
March 03 2011 16:21 GMT
#133
I think this is a step in the right direction. Not a big one though. The GSL maps are far superior in design than the new Blizzard maps. I think they should've considered some of those first. Given they probably will be switching through maps frequently until people find the ones they like, this isn't that big of an issue.

I do not like them taking out shakura's plateau though =( I completely understand the reasoning but shakuras has given some incredible games. I think it's just a little bit early to take it out, maybe if they waited until the rest of the maps were proven and satisfactory could they take out shakuras.
If you can chill. chill. - Liquid'Tyler
Neo.NEt
Profile Joined August 2010
United States785 Posts
March 03 2011 16:21 GMT
#134
I'm not sure how slag spits is more macro heavy than Metal... but hey the GSL map is incredible news so props to Blizz. Any thoughts which GSL map it is? I'm thinking Crevasse.
Apologize.
Jayrod
Profile Joined August 2010
1820 Posts
March 03 2011 16:22 GMT
#135
On March 03 2011 13:14 Caphe wrote:
Its good to know that they start to consider GSL map. And its also sad to see that the reason they remove Shakuras was because " Its a very plain macro map" What? Blizzard must be high on something.

Their reasoning makes perfect sense and I agree with that. I liked playing on shakuras but only because it was different from the other maps. The single viable attack path and easy to defend mains were a problem though and made alot of games boring. Then again, I find the games on terminus boring and everyone else seems to love that map...

I hope if they choose crevasse that they add a 2nd gas at the in-base natural. Right now in GSL people are downvoting it because 1 gas at the natural heavily favors terran. If they put the 2nd gas back in it would be alot more balanced for ladder

Tal'darim's too big, I hope that doesn't end up in the pool. People in master league already barely know how to attack. Its gonna be another 200 food army vs 200 food army map that drags on forever. Its fun to watch in GSL but average players are going to make that map a drag
Leeto
Profile Joined August 2007
United States1320 Posts
March 03 2011 16:23 GMT
#136
There aren't enough "interesting features" on Shakuras? Does every map have to have tons of gold bases and destructible rocks to be "interesting"?
Overpowered
Profile Joined January 2011
Czech Republic764 Posts
March 03 2011 16:29 GMT
#137
What the hell. I dont understand their logic.
Just another gold Protoss...
SwizzY
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States1549 Posts
March 03 2011 16:31 GMT
#138
On March 03 2011 23:02 sleepingdog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2011 22:10 Rialz wrote:
I completely lost faith in Blizzard when they said that they added slag pits because they liked macro maps and that slag pits was more macro heavy than metalopolis.

But it is a step in the right direction though, it's good to see they care and are trying to improve.


Well, you could say that they are at least "trying" to create macro maps....failing, but trying. It's better than nothing I guess


It really is better than nothing as I'm sure Blizz could hardly stand to hear another whine about the sucky map pool. There's no way for Blizz to straight up make a large macro map like the ones in BW because they already stated that Zerg was straight up OP on large maps with 4+ bases all on the edges.

I just wish people would drop the fallacious comparisons to BW and allow sc2 to make its own path in terms of maps, units, gameplay, etc.

(I personally really like all the maps. )
All that glitters is not gold, all that wander are not lost, the old that is strong does not wither, deep roots are not reached by frost.
Offhand
Profile Joined June 2010
United States1869 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 16:35:13
March 03 2011 16:33 GMT
#139
On March 03 2011 13:09 kNyTTyM wrote:
SHakuras description makes me uggggg. Really what kind of reason is that


It's a bullshit PR excuse to avoid admitting that Blizzard maps need to force encounters.

At least 3 votes is enough to veto most of the shitty maps in 1v1 now. It sucks that they're only removing one of the terrible 3v3 maps (admittedly it is the worst one).
Dont Panic
Profile Joined October 2010
United States194 Posts
March 03 2011 16:34 GMT
#140
ughh there comment about shakuras made my head hurt. Look and mvp vs idra there is a ton of opportunity for harassment and just because it doesnt have destructible rocks at every base its plain?
I am order. I am logic. I know exactly who I am.
pAzand
Profile Joined May 2010
Sweden539 Posts
March 03 2011 16:38 GMT
#141
Blizzard makes me wanna kill myself.
If you can chill.. Chill!
Thallis
Profile Joined September 2010
United States314 Posts
March 03 2011 16:40 GMT
#142
New maps are still terrible. If they add in more blizzard maps they better give us more vetos, I've completely lost faith in the map team after slag and gulch.
/)*(\
MuteZephyr
Profile Joined August 2010
Lithuania448 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 16:49:28
March 03 2011 16:43 GMT
#143
I don't know why everybody scoffs at the Metalopolis/Slag Pits comparison, they're quite similar IMO. Close rush distance is very close while cross positions result in pretty long games. I tend to experience similar dynamics on the two. (EDIT: Even the shape is similar, with an oval shaped loop going around the map. Close air positions results in me getting fast dropped or something too, just like metal.)

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.
I don't Micro, I FEMTO. That's 9 orders of magnitude more extreme.
Jayrod
Profile Joined August 2010
1820 Posts
March 03 2011 16:45 GMT
#144
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...
Offhand
Profile Joined June 2010
United States1869 Posts
March 03 2011 16:48 GMT
#145
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
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
999 Posts
March 03 2011 16:55 GMT
#146
finally blizzard shows us some common sense which is using the huge resources besides their developement department.

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.

"Successful people don't talk much. They listen and take action."
ccHaZaRd
Profile Joined February 2009
Canada1024 Posts
March 03 2011 17:01 GMT
#147
the new maps are pretty good except typhon peaks, that map it way too big with a huge natural expansion and really boring. I think slag pits is a really good map although close position can be hard for zerg if they don't get a third up in time. They are moving pretty fast in the right direction and i feel people just keep hating blizzard because there still bitter!
deathserv
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States228 Posts
March 03 2011 17:01 GMT
#148
For the 1v1, I think all of the reasoning is good (except for Shakuras, which was fine) but I am shocked they didn't consider cliff dropping as part of the reasoning to remove LT. They did not even mention the lack of cliffs in Shattered Temple, either. In my opinion this is the best improvement in Shattered Temple, because Zerg was just so weak on the old map.

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
Profile Joined January 2010
United States3427 Posts
March 03 2011 17:11 GMT
#149
Only 1 GSL map :-(

Honestly the new GSL maps are awesome. Really well done and fun to play.
Your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others -Heart of Darkness
Playguuu
Profile Joined April 2010
United States926 Posts
March 03 2011 17:14 GMT
#150
Really wish I knew what they were thinking when they made Gulch.
I used to be just like you, then I took a sweetroll to the knee.
p1cKLes
Profile Joined November 2010
United States342 Posts
March 03 2011 17:19 GMT
#151
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
Profile Joined July 2010
Canada1263 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 17:22:37
March 03 2011 17:20 GMT
#152
Typhon Peaks was conveniently forgotten by the posters here as well. So I don't see how most posters are doing better than blizzard. At least they provide a very flawed opinion on every change.
Bagi
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6799 Posts
March 03 2011 17:21 GMT
#153
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Germany1406 Posts
March 03 2011 17:23 GMT
#154
so they removed shakuras because there are likely to happen straight up macro games? am i just different or why do i want to see more maps of that kind and not less ...
Gigaudas
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Sweden1213 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 17:45:10
March 03 2011 17:37 GMT
#155
No I didn't read the thread and I'm sure someone pointed this out BUT:

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.
I
theqat
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
United States2856 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 17:45:45
March 03 2011 17:42 GMT
#156
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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
Profile Joined August 2010
United States821 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 17:59:54
March 03 2011 17:52 GMT
#157
wtf do they think makes a tiny map with tiny rush distances and undefendable expansions a "metalopolis style macro map?"

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.
"I like to tape my thumbs to my hands to see what it would be like to be a dinosaur."
Ponyo
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States1231 Posts
March 03 2011 18:02 GMT
#158
they really should use more GSL maps, thats where the future of Esc2 is.
ponyo.848
Bagi
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6799 Posts
March 03 2011 18:09 GMT
#159
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States2055 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 18:26:54
March 03 2011 18:18 GMT
#160
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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.
ALPINA
Profile Joined May 2010
3791 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 18:30:33
March 03 2011 18:29 GMT
#161
On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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.


You talk like cheese and all ins are non existant on big map, but that's not true. Especially with mechanics like warpin toss does not really suffer from distance penalty. In BW maps were huge and you want to say there weren't any cheese/allins?

And what do you mean 99% players won't have good games? Are you kidding? So you mean that those people have good games on crappy maps like steppes or delta? Most people hate those small allinish maps and everyone want bigger maps. I seriously doubt that someone will downvote map like Tal'Darim Altar, I mean what would be the point of downvoting such map?

And even if there is a part of people who hates huge maps (those people who can't macro), then you can always downvote them. I don't see the reason why we can't have several GSL maps in the ladder.
You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
HaruHaru
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
United States988 Posts
March 03 2011 18:32 GMT
#162
i'm glad they're starting to remove gold mineral patches in the map
Long live BroodWar!
eloist
Profile Joined September 2010
United States1017 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 18:40:37
March 03 2011 18:39 GMT
#163
I don't really know what people's problem with backwater gulch is. Those 2 small funnels are not good places for a couple of marines to be attacking a natural early when there are drones and zerglings spawning on two hatches, one of which leading to each entrance of the funnel.

Likewise there are a ton of interesting ways for the other races to constrain access here and maximizing the defender's advantage while not outright being able to wall of the main and nat with 2-3 buildings.

Depending on positions it also has well acessible thirds for each spawning constellation.
Sm3agol
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States2055 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 18:48:31
March 03 2011 18:46 GMT
#164
On March 04 2011 03:29 Alpina wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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.


You talk like cheese and all ins are non existant on big map, but that's not true. Especially with mechanics like warpin toss does not really suffer from distance penalty. In BW maps were huge and you want to say there weren't any cheese/allins?

And what do you mean 99% players won't have good games? Are you kidding? So you mean that those people have good games on crappy maps like steppes or delta? Most people hate those small allinish maps and everyone want bigger maps. I seriously doubt that someone will downvote map like Tal'Darim Altar, I mean what would be the point of downvoting such map?

And even if there is a part of people who hates huge maps (those people who can't macro), then you can always downvote them. I don't see the reason why we can't have several GSL maps in the ladder.


Ignoring the first paragraph since, again, this isn't BW.

And by 99% I mean 99% of SC2 players, not 99% of TL. Typical silver/bronze/gold nubs don't ever want to expand past 1 base, much less have to walk over 9000 miles across the map to their opponents base. In the future? Maybe, but moving directly from Steppes to Tal'Darim is not the correct transition. Baby steps, this is ladder we're talking about. The first season of ladder. I'm guessing you're diamond/masters, probably play at a very high level, and watch professional matches all the time. You have no problem with huge macro maps. Your typical "wtf do you mean expand before 15 minutes" silver player is going to downvote Tal'Darim the first time he has to play it vs a macro player. It's too much, too soon.

Sure, but there needs to be enough downvotes to keep them off. Put simply there are still too many map problems in the pool to start putting very n00b unfriendly maps out there. Save most of them for the next map pool. Put one, MAYBE two GSL maps in. They are massively bigger than the current ladder maps. And your "(those people who can't macro)" comment. You realize that is 90% of ladder right? If they could macro....they'd be >diamond, and would be all in favor of bigger maps.
ALPINA
Profile Joined May 2010
3791 Posts
March 03 2011 18:57 GMT
#165
On March 04 2011 03:46 Sm3agol wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 03:29 Alpina wrote:
On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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.


You talk like cheese and all ins are non existant on big map, but that's not true. Especially with mechanics like warpin toss does not really suffer from distance penalty. In BW maps were huge and you want to say there weren't any cheese/allins?

And what do you mean 99% players won't have good games? Are you kidding? So you mean that those people have good games on crappy maps like steppes or delta? Most people hate those small allinish maps and everyone want bigger maps. I seriously doubt that someone will downvote map like Tal'Darim Altar, I mean what would be the point of downvoting such map?

And even if there is a part of people who hates huge maps (those people who can't macro), then you can always downvote them. I don't see the reason why we can't have several GSL maps in the ladder.


Ignoring the first paragraph since, again, this isn't BW.

And by 99% I mean 99% of SC2 players, not 99% of TL. Typical silver/bronze/gold nubs don't ever want to expand past 1 base, much less have to walk over 9000 miles across the map to their opponents base. In the future? Maybe, but moving directly from Steppes to Tal'Darim is not the correct transition. Baby steps, this is ladder we're talking about. The first season of ladder. I'm guessing you're diamond/masters, probably play at a very high level, and watch professional matches all the time. You have no problem with huge macro maps. Your typical "wtf do you mean expand before 15 minutes" silver player is going to downvote Tal'Darim the first time he has to play it vs a macro player. It's too much, too soon.

Sure, but there needs to be enough downvotes to keep them off. Put simply there are still too many map problems in the pool to start putting very n00b unfriendly maps out there. Save most of them for the next map pool. Put one, MAYBE two GSL maps in. They are massively bigger than the current ladder maps. And your "(those people who can't macro)" comment. You realize that is 90% of ladder right? If they could macro....they'd be >diamond, and would be all in favor of bigger maps.


Typical silver/bronze/gold nubs don't ever want to expand past 1 base


It's not like they don't want, they just can't or don't know how to take advantage of expanding etc.

You know I would really like to see opinion of those low level players about big maps. I doubt that they like being rushed in every second game. I remember when I was big noob in RTS I loved huge maps so much because you have a lot of free time and you can play relaxed, max your huge army and just enjoy playing. Bronze players loves turtling and maxing 200/200 of carriers.

much less have to walk over 9000 miles across


Well those your 9000 miles are just 10-15 seconds longer attack path than any other standart ladder map, it's not like you can't attack until 20mins into the game.
You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
kasumimi
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
Greece460 Posts
March 03 2011 19:07 GMT
#166
I've linked the "Blizzard explanation on map changes" in several threads with map discussion, I thought everyone was aware of their point of view on what is "interesting" and "fun".

Nice too see there are so many people who don't like their views and find many of the points made on the Blizzard blog invalid and on the verge of trolling.

While GSL and MLG blatantly ignore the bad maps created by Blizzard in their tournaments (or even modify them to produce better games) the company almost intentionally ignores the signals given to them.
The new maps are bad and the explanation Blizzard gives makes them even worse, demoralizing and hurting the player's faith in them.
Sm3agol
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States2055 Posts
March 03 2011 19:12 GMT
#167
On March 04 2011 03:57 Alpina wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 03:46 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 04 2011 03:29 Alpina wrote:
On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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.


You talk like cheese and all ins are non existant on big map, but that's not true. Especially with mechanics like warpin toss does not really suffer from distance penalty. In BW maps were huge and you want to say there weren't any cheese/allins?

And what do you mean 99% players won't have good games? Are you kidding? So you mean that those people have good games on crappy maps like steppes or delta? Most people hate those small allinish maps and everyone want bigger maps. I seriously doubt that someone will downvote map like Tal'Darim Altar, I mean what would be the point of downvoting such map?

And even if there is a part of people who hates huge maps (those people who can't macro), then you can always downvote them. I don't see the reason why we can't have several GSL maps in the ladder.


Ignoring the first paragraph since, again, this isn't BW.

And by 99% I mean 99% of SC2 players, not 99% of TL. Typical silver/bronze/gold nubs don't ever want to expand past 1 base, much less have to walk over 9000 miles across the map to their opponents base. In the future? Maybe, but moving directly from Steppes to Tal'Darim is not the correct transition. Baby steps, this is ladder we're talking about. The first season of ladder. I'm guessing you're diamond/masters, probably play at a very high level, and watch professional matches all the time. You have no problem with huge macro maps. Your typical "wtf do you mean expand before 15 minutes" silver player is going to downvote Tal'Darim the first time he has to play it vs a macro player. It's too much, too soon.

Sure, but there needs to be enough downvotes to keep them off. Put simply there are still too many map problems in the pool to start putting very n00b unfriendly maps out there. Save most of them for the next map pool. Put one, MAYBE two GSL maps in. They are massively bigger than the current ladder maps. And your "(those people who can't macro)" comment. You realize that is 90% of ladder right? If they could macro....they'd be >diamond, and would be all in favor of bigger maps.


Show nested quote +
Typical silver/bronze/gold nubs don't ever want to expand past 1 base


It's not like they don't want, they just can't or don't know how to take advantage of expanding etc.

You know I would really like to see opinion of those low level players about big maps. I doubt that they like being rushed in every second game. I remember when I was big noob in RTS I loved huge maps so much because you have a lot of free time and you can play relaxed, max your huge army and just enjoy playing. Bronze players loves turtling and maxing 200/200 of carriers.

Show nested quote +
much less have to walk over 9000 miles across


Well those your 9000 miles are just 10-15 seconds longer attack path than any other standart ladder map, it's not like you can't attack until 20mins into the game.



Try walking across Tal'Darim. I agree we need big macro maps, but just dumping these HUGE maps on people when the farthest rush distance is probably cross-position metal is a little drastic. As i said baby steps. Sure, eliminate the 5 second rush distance maps, and start transitioning to macro maps. But don't jump from Steppes to Tal'Darim. That's not a logical transition.
RivalryRedux
Profile Joined July 2009
United States173 Posts
March 03 2011 19:32 GMT
#168

Try walking across Tal'Darim. I agree we need big macro maps, but just dumping these HUGE maps on people when the farthest rush distance is probably cross-position metal is a little drastic. As i said baby steps. Sure, eliminate the 5 second rush distance maps, and start transitioning to macro maps. But don't jump from Steppes to Tal'Darim. That's not a logical transition.


While I don't agree with your earlier statements about macro games being 20 minute ball clashes (at least at higher levels) I do sort of agree with this. I think in all the games I played on GSL maps/BW remakes my opponents were TL members in the highest league. I would not be surprised at all to see a huge thumbs down % for lower level players on those maps because they are pretty intimidating. I think more maps like Xel'Naga or Destination (Easy nat but 2 player macro) would be a good intermediate.
jinorazi
Profile Joined October 2004
Korea (South)4948 Posts
March 03 2011 19:35 GMT
#169
i'm still waiting for hunters. make it happen blizzard.
age: 84 | location: california | sex: 잘함
hitman133
Profile Joined October 2010
United States1425 Posts
March 03 2011 19:38 GMT
#170
Any reason why they still keep Delta Quadran ?
RoosterSamurai
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Japan2108 Posts
March 03 2011 19:39 GMT
#171
I'm glad steppes and blistering sands are gone, but I am going to kind of miss lost temple.... I'm sure it'll be back, though. It's lost temple!
In any case, I haven't played all of the new maps yet. Backwater gulch is not bad though...
eugen1225
Profile Joined February 2008
Yugoslavia134 Posts
March 03 2011 19:44 GMT
#172
I'm so glad they removed the maps they did, they promoted gimmicky play, what i don't understand is why they left delta quadrant in, mby they are going to replace it with something else next map add-in.
As for the new maps;
[4] Backwater Gulch
-i like this one the most, the xel naga towers dont give you a lot of vision except for the center so you can sneak drops by and armies if you dont have mapcontrol, 3rds are easy to take yet also accessible to attack.
[4] Slag Pits
- i dont really like this map, its supposed to be a new metalopolis but its nowhere close. Side expos are gold and in a depression which makes them a bit harder to defend and the 3rd is not close for the defending race and also its almost always accessible to attack ( even in cross positions it seems like you are expanding towards you opponent in a weird way. I think over time we will see a lot of 2 base pushes and allins against the map controling 3rd.
[4] Typhon
- i feel like the main is to constrained and doesnt give you a lot of building space, bases are cramped and a few times i didnt have room for my production buildings in longer games, could be just a bit bigger. other than that this is the map i played the least so i cant really cast judgement.

Overall i like that they are bigger, they eliminate some coinflip allins, and it feels nicer playing on them. We will see more macro games and in a few patches even some balance changes, i think, to even out the late game that is a bit 'unexplored'.
+ Show Spoiler +
w00t new maps finally!!!!1!!! ^^
MangoTango
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States3670 Posts
March 03 2011 19:47 GMT
#173
GSL maps on ladder? Oh god oh god yes! Please please please!
"One fish, two fish, red fish, BLUE TANK!" - Artosis
fabiano
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Brazil4644 Posts
March 03 2011 19:55 GMT
#174
On March 04 2011 03:32 HaruHaru wrote:
i'm glad they're starting to remove gold mineral patches in the map


I think you are dreaming man.

They are more likely to add more rocks, sneaky backdoor paths, golds and towers in the future maps if the current trend keeps on.

If things keep like they are, I think SC2 ladder will be a huge fail and die in the long term.

Were not for MLG, GSL, GSTL, TSL and so many other events that use custom map pools, I would've lost all the will to watch a game of SC2 by now.

And I'm growing everyday more tired of playing this game that, for me, the main competitive enviroment is the goddamn blizzard ladder., and occasionally some CW that unfortunately use the stupid ladder maps... and I'm region locked.
"When the geyser died, a probe came out" - SirJolt
Ribbon
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5278 Posts
March 03 2011 20:02 GMT
#175
Remember everyone, Steppes was a popular map. TL != The Starcraft Community as a whole.

Tal'Darim would be bad as a ladder map. Even at the pro level, it's hard for a Zerg to beat a turtling toss who just builds a deathball. How are Mid-Masters and below (i.e., literally 99% of players) going to deal with that? Contrary to popular belief on TL, Bronze and Silver players watch the GSL.

Do you guys really want the standard Zerg experience to be "I can't multitask well, so I sit on my ass for 40-odd minutes until my Silver opponent macros a deathball and kills me"? As least Steppes was over quick.

And don't tell me "Well, they should be in Masters". A game shouldn't require a degree in Starcraftology just to be fun at a basic level. Tal'Darim is a tournament map and does well there.
terranghost
Profile Joined May 2010
United States980 Posts
March 03 2011 20:15 GMT
#176
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).




Not saying I don't like SP, I fucking loved it. But me and you are just 2 votes. Not everybody liked SP I know a lot of people from every race that despised it.
"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." - Thomas Sowell
Offhand
Profile Joined June 2010
United States1869 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 20:19:51
March 03 2011 20:18 GMT
#177
The game cannot be balanced around two players sitting in their bases until they have 200/200 armies and then pushing out to see which one is better, the game simply doesn't work like that, and if that's how low level players play, then too bad. This is, of course, assuming that bronze level deathballs are actually deathballs, which is doubtful.

The ladder should contain fun, competitive maps.If this is "unfair" for low level players, change the low level map pool. They can play on novice steppes and shit.
infinity2k9
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
United Kingdom2397 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 20:33:54
March 03 2011 20:24 GMT
#178
Why do they think maps have to have 'features'? I think it's kind of funny ideas like breakable rocks are taken from KeSPA mapmakers using stacked temples, now they are apparently essential to Blizzards maps.

Also i don't understand peoples reactions that its a good thing... the core of SC2's race balance is similar to BW, and from 11 years of pro BW we can determine that having easily defendable naturals is pretty essential. There's been plenty of experiments changing that up and by and large they made it unfair. Protoss especially had a tough time with certain maps and Zerg always has a tough time with certain 3rd base positions. Just because SC2 is new doesn't mean some of the same principles don't apply, infact maybe they do even moreso than before. Zerg is fundamentally designed to need an early expansion for a start, that much is clear. So their map pool having maps where it's extremely difficult to defend natural is ridiculous, considering they have designed the races so 1base Zerg is clearly weaker. If they want 1 base to always be viable they need to change unit balance, but i think we'd all agree it's better to fix maps before unit stats.

Plus, keep in mind the most popular BW maps were playable by any level of players and still were fun. Saying that less bases possible is better because low level players can't macro is very silly, especially considering macro is much easier in SC2.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 20:36:18
March 03 2011 20:33 GMT
#179
I know everyone loves to talk mostly about 1v1 but what about this little gem?

(4) Ruins of Tarsonis

Ruins of Tarsonis is a more balanced version of War Zone, which is being removed from the map pool. The biggest downside of War Zone was that it was nearly impossible to assist your ally if you didn't have a mobile army. However, with the shared choke points on this map, it's now possible to play as any race combination without obvious disadvantages. In the mid/late game, however, there are back-door attack paths leading to your second expansion areas, so be sure to defend those locations as well.


I have no idea how to describe how many things are wrong with this. War Zone was probably one of the most defensive-minded maps in the entire map pool. Rush-distance was long, and you had a good setup of bases (including a free 3rd expansion for one of you). The only time it would be hard to defend is if you were trying to turtle on one base. Yes there were two backdoors into your naturals, but by they were easy to defend and allowed for more attack paths. What the hell are they talking about?

Ruins of Tarsonis is a "balanced version of War Zone"??!! Ruins of Tarsonis is the craziest map in the map pool by far. The rush distance is shorter than Steppes. I think tanks can actually shoot from the base of the naturals to the base of the other naturals as long as they have vision. The ramps are huuuuuge, begging people to attack you. It has backdoors into both the naturals AND the main, not that you would ever use them because the rush distance is so tiny. Zerg nightmare.
infinity2k9
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
United Kingdom2397 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-03 20:48:44
March 03 2011 20:36 GMT
#180
Yeah the obsession with multiple entrances to the base is weird; It's also at odds with people saying they are trying to make it better for lower level players, because really it just makes it harder for everyone. If anything a simple straight-forward map design is better all around for difficultly. I'm guessing they believe it creates more opportunities for 'strategy' by simply adding a choice of routes into the opponents base.

Edit: just saw this post

On March 03 2011 17:04 WhiteDog wrote:
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.


I think it should be noted the same was true for BW. It would take significant re-design of the game to change that high level 2v2 amounts to all low level units, because there's always the possibility of pushing the game to a 1v2 situation if someone techs or expands. I suppose having backdoor bases and very tight chokes would somewhat help but as you said, when you have an ability to move units around immediately regardless of map size; It's not possible to balance for 2v2 to allow games to progress to mid-late game with many bases.
insolentrus
Profile Joined January 2011
Russian Federation304 Posts
March 03 2011 20:39 GMT
#181
i dont like all new maps, except typhon peaks
Dromar
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States2145 Posts
March 03 2011 20:47 GMT
#182
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.
ApBuLLet
Profile Joined September 2010
United States604 Posts
March 03 2011 20:55 GMT
#183
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

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.


Personally I think this would encourage more 1 base all in abusive type strategies simply because taking an expansion would be even less rewarding then it is now. Imagine ZvT, zerg could NEVER fast expand on a map like that because a 2 rax all in would crush zerg every single time.
Ownos
Profile Joined July 2010
United States2147 Posts
March 03 2011 20:55 GMT
#184
I think Blizzard will be waiting to see which of the GSL maps is the most balanced and add that. That's why they cannot say yet. The GSL maps aren't perfect afterall. That's right. The pros in the GSL and other tournaments are essentially play testing these maps for us.
...deeper and deeper into the bowels of El Diablo
Ownos
Profile Joined July 2010
United States2147 Posts
March 03 2011 21:09 GMT
#185
On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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.


Yes, exactly. People are just using the "it's GSL therefore it's perfect" card and cramming it down our throats. Yes, were players/spectators are relieved something was done about maps. That's all. But doesn't mean the maps are perfect.

Maps like Tal'darim are TOO big. Nothing happens for the first 15 minutes and after that it's endless harassment. The map completely ignores the early/mid-game dynamics and tension. The games are boring to watch. Remember how much shit Desert Oasis took because of the long ground distance? And here we are with people praising a map much larger than that.
...deeper and deeper into the bowels of El Diablo
regulator_mk
Profile Joined June 2010
United States127 Posts
March 03 2011 21:24 GMT
#186
The main piece of information I hoped to find that I felt was glaringly missing from their explanations is why they don't want main ramps close to the natural. All 4 of the removed ramps had ramps in a position that zerg's creep from their natural hatch would reach the ramp. This really helped queens/roaches/spines defend early hatches vs speedlings or hellions. All of the new maps (including temple, where they pushed the ramp out to fit a second gas so it's not cliff-able from the non-existent cliff) lack this feature. The worst is backwater gulch, which allegedly has a "familiar main to first expansion layout" despite the fact that the natural is nowhere near the main by ground...
Dromar
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States2145 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-04 02:03:40
March 04 2011 02:02 GMT
#187
On March 04 2011 05:55 ApBuLLet 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

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.


Personally I think this would encourage more 1 base all in abusive type strategies simply because taking an expansion would be even less rewarding then it is now. Imagine ZvT, zerg could NEVER fast expand on a map like that because a 2 rax all in would crush zerg every single time.


In case I didn't make it clear, I meant for the mains to still have the 8mins/2gas layout. It would make no difference at all for a zerg defending a 2rax all-in, as there's no way zerg would need be using those last 2 mineral patches or gas from the nat at that point in the game.

If the mains were switched to 6min/1gas layout, I would totally agree. The power of one base terran supported by a mule would be absurd in that case.
MindRush
Profile Joined April 2010
Romania916 Posts
March 04 2011 02:09 GMT
#188
Metalopolis = HighLander
maps keep dieing while this one remains
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
da_head
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
Canada3350 Posts
March 04 2011 02:13 GMT
#189
On March 04 2011 06:09 Ownos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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.


Yes, exactly. People are just using the "it's GSL therefore it's perfect" card and cramming it down our throats. Yes, were players/spectators are relieved something was done about maps. That's all. But doesn't mean the maps are perfect.

Maps like Tal'darim are TOO big. Nothing happens for the first 15 minutes and after that it's endless harassment. The map completely ignores the early/mid-game dynamics and tension. The games are boring to watch. Remember how much shit Desert Oasis took because of the long ground distance? And here we are with people praising a map much larger than that.

Lol. desert oasis wasn't terrible because it was a big map. Way to pull something out of context. It had large walking distance, but short air distance (hello air play), two different attack paths (coupled with the long walking distance, made counter attacks a bitch), and a retardedly wide open and faraway natural.
When they see MC Probe, all the ladies disrobe.
sluggaslamoo
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
Australia4494 Posts
March 04 2011 04:36 GMT
#190
On March 03 2011 20:28 Candles wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
Come play Android Netrunner - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=409008
RodrigoX
Profile Joined November 2009
United States645 Posts
March 04 2011 04:42 GMT
#191
"Shakuras is boring"? What the hell?

Id rather have a boring map, which shakuras is not, thats actually balanced, than one of these stupid new maps with no third, or a nat a million miles away. So sad, blizz stop taking out freaking shakuras!

GSL Maps though, awesome news, get them in asap!
We were all raised on televion that made us believe we'd all be Millionairs, Movie gods, and Rockstars..... But we won't.... We are slowly learning that fact. And we are very, very pissed off.
Serpico
Profile Joined May 2010
4285 Posts
March 04 2011 04:46 GMT
#192
I dont see how it matters if its boring as long as it's balanced and not completely devoid of any interesting terrain.
TheRPGAddict
Profile Joined October 2010
United States1403 Posts
March 04 2011 04:47 GMT
#193
This is great news and all but until I see Delta Quadrant off that list and more GSL maps or at least Shakuras Plateau, I will not be fully satisfied. I mean, what is stopping them? I know I sound like a spoiled beetch but idc.
Draconicfire
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada2562 Posts
March 04 2011 04:47 GMT
#194
Shakuras is definatly not a boring map. Some of the best games ever played were played on that map. Yea, not a lot of "interesting" features, but its good enough that their reason for removing it is kinda lame.

However, still glad that Blizz is putting out some more information on new maps. Any of the new GSL maps would be good tbh.
@Drayxs | Drayxs.221 | Drayxs#1802
sAfuRos
Profile Joined March 2009
United States743 Posts
March 04 2011 05:03 GMT
#195
I wanna see Hearbreak Ridge, Python, Destination, Colosseum, and Fighting Spirit make returns ^^
sAfuRos // twitch.tv/sAfuRos // contact for coaching
RHMVNovus
Profile Joined October 2010
United States738 Posts
March 04 2011 05:12 GMT
#196
On March 04 2011 06:09 Ownos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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.


Yes, exactly. People are just using the "it's GSL therefore it's perfect" card and cramming it down our throats. Yes, were players/spectators are relieved something was done about maps. That's all. But doesn't mean the maps are perfect.

Maps like Tal'darim are TOO big. Nothing happens for the first 15 minutes and after that it's endless harassment. The map completely ignores the early/mid-game dynamics and tension. The games are boring to watch. Remember how much shit Desert Oasis took because of the long ground distance? And here we are with people praising a map much larger than that.


Jinro didn't actually get 4-gated. He actually went 5CC before Barracks. MKP didn't banshee rush and didn't pay for the rush's failure by a brutal counterattack. Instead, he took all the bases and massed Medivacs.

Have you actually watched the GSL?
Droning his sorrows in massive amounts of macro
Wolf
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Korea (South)3290 Posts
March 04 2011 12:16 GMT
#197
What is economic cheese? Hahaha.
Commentatorhttp://twitter.com/proxywolf
TL+ Member
Sm3agol
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States2055 Posts
March 04 2011 13:06 GMT
#198
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.
fabiano
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Brazil4644 Posts
March 04 2011 13:34 GMT
#199
On March 04 2011 22:06 Sm3agol wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


And you need to chill.
"When the geyser died, a probe came out" - SirJolt
Furycrab
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada456 Posts
March 04 2011 14:00 GMT
#200
On March 04 2011 14:12 RHMVNovus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2011 06:09 Ownos wrote:
On March 04 2011 03:18 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:42 theqat wrote:
On March 04 2011 02:21 Bagi wrote:
On March 04 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:
On March 03 2011 19:18 unSpeake wrote:
Getting really tired of these natural bases with 2-3 wide ass entrances. Makes it really hard to get a legitimate game on them

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.


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.


Yes, exactly. People are just using the "it's GSL therefore it's perfect" card and cramming it down our throats. Yes, were players/spectators are relieved something was done about maps. That's all. But doesn't mean the maps are perfect.

Maps like Tal'darim are TOO big. Nothing happens for the first 15 minutes and after that it's endless harassment. The map completely ignores the early/mid-game dynamics and tension. The games are boring to watch. Remember how much shit Desert Oasis took because of the long ground distance? And here we are with people praising a map much larger than that.


Jinro didn't actually get 4-gated. He actually went 5CC before Barracks. MKP didn't banshee rush and didn't pay for the rush's failure by a brutal counterattack. Instead, he took all the bases and massed Medivacs.

Have you actually watched the GSL?


A lot of people have watched the team leagues. What we saw was "some" good games on the new maps. Which doesn't mean the maps are terrible, but like many people have pointed out in this thread, when a map is too big, fast expand builds become way too safe. Once people figure out just how far greedy they can get, we end up with games where the entire early game tension is gone.
Too tired to come up with something witty.
GinDo
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
3327 Posts
March 04 2011 14:03 GMT
#201
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.
ⱩŦ ƑⱠẬ$Ħ / ƩǤ ɈƩẬƉØƝǤ [ɌȻ] / ȊṂ.ṂṼⱣ / ẬȻƩɌ.ȊƝƝØṼẬŦȊØƝ / ẬȻƩɌ.ϟȻẬɌⱠƩŦŦ ϟⱠẬɎƩɌϟ ȻⱠẬƝ
GinDo
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
3327 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-04 14:11:22
March 04 2011 14:06 GMT
#202
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.
ⱩŦ ƑⱠẬ$Ħ / ƩǤ ɈƩẬƉØƝǤ [ɌȻ] / ȊṂ.ṂṼⱣ / ẬȻƩɌ.ȊƝƝØṼẬŦȊØƝ / ẬȻƩɌ.ϟȻẬɌⱠƩŦŦ ϟⱠẬɎƩɌϟ ȻⱠẬƝ
Dommk
Profile Joined May 2010
Australia4865 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-04 14:10:37
March 04 2011 14:08 GMT
#203
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...
CounterOrder
Profile Joined August 2010
Canada457 Posts
March 04 2011 14:09 GMT
#204
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.

GinDo
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
3327 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-04 14:15:35
March 04 2011 14:13 GMT
#205
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
ⱩŦ ƑⱠẬ$Ħ / ƩǤ ɈƩẬƉØƝǤ [ɌȻ] / ȊṂ.ṂṼⱣ / ẬȻƩɌ.ȊƝƝØṼẬŦȊØƝ / ẬȻƩɌ.ϟȻẬɌⱠƩŦŦ ϟⱠẬɎƩɌϟ ȻⱠẬƝ
Dommk
Profile Joined May 2010
Australia4865 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-04 14:15:44
March 04 2011 14:14 GMT
#206
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
Sm3agol
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States2055 Posts
March 04 2011 14:21 GMT
#207
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.

Dommk
Profile Joined May 2010
Australia4865 Posts
March 04 2011 15:14 GMT
#208
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.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
March 04 2011 15:31 GMT
#209
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.
Furycrab
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada456 Posts
March 04 2011 15:44 GMT
#210
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.
Too tired to come up with something witty.
Sm3agol
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States2055 Posts
March 04 2011 15:49 GMT
#211
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.
Furycrab
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada456 Posts
March 04 2011 16:01 GMT
#212
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.
Too tired to come up with something witty.
cuppatea
Profile Joined April 2010
United Kingdom1401 Posts
March 04 2011 16:05 GMT
#213
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).
sCuMBaG
Profile Joined August 2006
United Kingdom1144 Posts
March 04 2011 16:08 GMT
#214
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
Feb
Profile Joined December 2010
98 Posts
March 04 2011 16:14 GMT
#215
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.

Furycrab
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada456 Posts
March 04 2011 16:18 GMT
#216
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.
Too tired to come up with something witty.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-04 16:31:05
March 04 2011 16:21 GMT
#217
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.
cuppatea
Profile Joined April 2010
United Kingdom1401 Posts
March 04 2011 16:32 GMT
#218
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).
Furycrab
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada456 Posts
March 04 2011 18:02 GMT
#219
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"
Too tired to come up with something witty.
AzurewinD
Profile Joined November 2010
United States569 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-04 18:18:15
March 04 2011 18:15 GMT
#220
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.
"...I want more people to be in that state more often, to see things not through the limited and rigid mind or the fearful ego, but through a heart that loves to express and create" - Xiaonan "Glider" Sun
Wolf
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Korea (South)3290 Posts
March 04 2011 18:18 GMT
#221
On March 04 2011 22:06 Sm3agol wrote:
Show nested quote +
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?
Commentatorhttp://twitter.com/proxywolf
TL+ Member
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
March 04 2011 18:34 GMT
#222
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.
cuppatea
Profile Joined April 2010
United Kingdom1401 Posts
March 04 2011 19:36 GMT
#223
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).
Ex_Matt
Profile Joined January 2011
Canada84 Posts
March 04 2011 19:44 GMT
#224
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.
Fear the reaper man
tealc
Profile Joined October 2010
109 Posts
March 04 2011 19:46 GMT
#225
I wish blizzard gave us the ability to veto five maps.
Ownos
Profile Joined July 2010
United States2147 Posts
March 04 2011 20:12 GMT
#226
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?
...deeper and deeper into the bowels of El Diablo
Phantom09
Profile Joined February 2011
United States73 Posts
March 04 2011 20:24 GMT
#227
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.
Day[9] made me do it.
MethodSC
Profile Joined December 2010
United States928 Posts
March 04 2011 20:28 GMT
#228
Why leave in Delta Quadrant? WTF?!
Chill
Profile Blog Joined January 2005
Calgary25988 Posts
March 04 2011 20:33 GMT
#229
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.
Moderator
Argoneus
Profile Joined July 2009
Czech Republic283 Posts
March 04 2011 20:58 GMT
#230
I wish blizzard let us thumb up maps instead of thumbing down. And the pool should be every blizz/iccup/gsl map.
Terran OP
turdburgler
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
England6749 Posts
March 04 2011 21:04 GMT
#231
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.
Dommk
Profile Joined May 2010
Australia4865 Posts
March 04 2011 21:07 GMT
#232
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
CarachAngren
Profile Joined January 2011
United States84 Posts
March 04 2011 21:12 GMT
#233
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...
fabiano
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Brazil4644 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-04 21:22:26
March 04 2011 21:21 GMT
#234
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
"When the geyser died, a probe came out" - SirJolt
Ex_Matt
Profile Joined January 2011
Canada84 Posts
March 04 2011 21:44 GMT
#235
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.
Fear the reaper man
Sek-Kuar
Profile Joined November 2010
Czech Republic593 Posts
March 04 2011 21:58 GMT
#236
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.
Scientists finally discovered what's wrong with the female brain: On the left side, there is nothing right, and on the right side, there's nothing left. [http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/213948/1/DJVibrejtr/]
rycho
Profile Joined July 2010
United States360 Posts
March 04 2011 22:05 GMT
#237
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.
Meta
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States6225 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-04 22:11:50
March 04 2011 22:11 GMT
#238
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=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).


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.
good vibes only
Furycrab
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada456 Posts
March 04 2011 23:01 GMT
#239
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=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).



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...
Too tired to come up with something witty.
Schnullerbacke13
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany1199 Posts
March 04 2011 23:35 GMT
#240
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 ..
21 is half the truth
Schnullerbacke13
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany1199 Posts
March 04 2011 23:39 GMT
#241
On March 05 2011 05:33 Chill wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 05 2011 03:18 Wolf wrote:
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.


economic cheese is a Z pumping drones blindly hoping he will not get attacked before 7'00 .. which actually is retarded and stupid ;-)
21 is half the truth
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
March 05 2011 04:26 GMT
#242
On March 05 2011 08:39 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 05 2011 05:33 Chill wrote:
On March 05 2011 03:18 Wolf wrote:
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.


economic cheese is a Z pumping drones blindly hoping he will not get attacked before 7'00 .. which actually is retarded and stupid ;-)


So does this mean we can immediately call anyone who uses the term econ cheese an idiot? Moderator approval??!!
sylverfyre
Profile Joined May 2010
United States8298 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-05 08:49:26
March 05 2011 08:48 GMT
#243
What's the rush distance on slag pits natural-to-natural in close positions? I find it interesting that the nat is actually more distant than the ramp, but still within good reach of the ramp, unlike metal.

I haven't been having problems ZVT Hatch-firsting on slag even in close positions so far, anyway. Maybe T's aren't familiar with it yet so they aren't punishing it as hard as they could? But there's also no PARTICULARLY great spot to try to drop a bunker.

On March 05 2011 08:39 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 05 2011 05:33 Chill wrote:
On March 05 2011 03:18 Wolf wrote:
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.


economic cheese is a Z pumping drones blindly hoping he will not get attacked before 7'00 .. which actually is retarded and stupid ;-)

Double expand before gateway/pool/rax imo. I've done it in 4v4s!
flexy
Profile Joined February 2011
United States182 Posts
March 05 2011 08:51 GMT
#244
All blizzard needs to to is balance out the late game of Protoss better. Zerg vs Terran seems very close, but honestly when I watch ZvP or TvP, I always think that its a race for time to kill the toss player before they get their deathball
o_o
BetterFasterStronger
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States604 Posts
March 05 2011 08:56 GMT
#245
-i have a HUGE problem with them Removing shakura's and keeping in Delta. Honestly keep the map that is Imbalanced even in mirror match-ups.
-And then adding a map that has close spawn positions that is a shorter rush distance then Steps...
-Then the desert map which is impossible for any race to take the gold vs Terran.

I do like the changes to Lost Temple though but honestly seems like the same crappy map pool with different names. Very Terran favored.

Just put the GSL maps in the ladder
(I am a terran player for those of you who think i am being bias'd)
Top 200 as Protoss - Switched to Terran. 0-30 against EGiNcontroL... God damnet
terranghost
Profile Joined May 2010
United States980 Posts
March 06 2011 18:39 GMT
#246
On March 05 2011 13:26 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 05 2011 08:39 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
On March 05 2011 05:33 Chill wrote:
On March 05 2011 03:18 Wolf wrote:
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.


economic cheese is a Z pumping drones blindly hoping he will not get attacked before 7'00 .. which actually is retarded and stupid ;-)


So does this mean we can immediately call anyone who uses the term econ cheese an idiot? Moderator approval??!!


cheese
If a cheese supposed to be something if scouted is easy to stop how the hell do you have an eco cheese after a FE? By the time you have the production going after this "FE" if you don't have the ability for potential consistent scouting then IMO you are doing something wrong. By the time you have 2 bases saturated enough to be beneficial to you all 3 races should have the ability to have speedy or durable mobile scouting.
"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." - Thomas Sowell
wolfe
Profile Joined March 2010
United States761 Posts
March 06 2011 19:07 GMT
#247
There really is no economic cheese. People may think of it as stupidly overdroning but honestly that's not cheese. Why? Because cheese is something more active in which the player is the aggressor that uses his BO to dictate the terms of the game (Initially at least until he either succeeds or fails)(If I proxy 2 gate you I'm pretty sure I'm controlling what you do).

Economic cheese isn't active at all rather it relies on our opponent to mess up and not punish you for it (There are a variety of ways to do this; for example, double expo, rush him, or tech and get cloaked banshees etc. (nydus)). In that case it's called being out played when the shittier player sits in his base and is inflexible. The player that doesn't overdrone can be (if he's any good) the active player for the rest of the game.
Swift as the wind, felt before noticed.
brain_
Profile Joined June 2010
United States812 Posts
March 06 2011 21:20 GMT
#248
Remove Shakuras but not Delta Quadrant? I want to have faith guys, I really do, but shit like this...
Miragee
Profile Joined December 2009
8594 Posts
March 06 2011 21:31 GMT
#249
On March 07 2011 04:07 wolfe wrote:
There really is no economic cheese. People may think of it as stupidly overdroning but honestly that's not cheese. Why? Because cheese is something more active in which the player is the aggressor that uses his BO to dictate the terms of the game (Initially at least until he either succeeds or fails)(If I proxy 2 gate you I'm pretty sure I'm controlling what you do).

Economic cheese isn't active at all rather it relies on our opponent to mess up and not punish you for it (There are a variety of ways to do this; for example, double expo, rush him, or tech and get cloaked banshees etc. (nydus)). In that case it's called being out played when the shittier player sits in his base and is inflexible. The player that doesn't overdrone can be (if he's any good) the active player for the rest of the game.


So an agressive Expo isn't active? I wouldn't call 15 Hatch economic cheese/all in. Even I won't 15 Nexus/CC because it isn't stated in the current state of the game. But in my opinion eco allin exists. The definition for that term is: You cannot hold it if your oponent plays standard, scouts late and that starts to make units to attack instead of double expanding or something. For example: Protoss goes for Double Nexus first on Xel'Naga or something against zerg and zerg goes for 15 Hatch or 14 Gas/14 Pool and scouts with the first lings. It's just impossible to hold if the zerg isn't retarded.
IAttackYou
Profile Joined August 2010
United States330 Posts
March 06 2011 21:51 GMT
#250
Is it just me or do you feel that Typhon is pretty P favored in mid to late game? I feel that the small walk ways are pretty easy for toss to FF off and colossus to deal optimal splash damage to everything.
I'm not a nub, I'm gosu of tomorrow
Ribbon
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5278 Posts
March 06 2011 21:52 GMT
#251
FE = Usually safe.
Double FE in response to FE = Pretty safe
Blind Double FE = Dangerous.

However, the term "economic cheese" should not be used to refer to this. We already have a word for this kind of build, and it's greedy.

As a vague general rule of thumb, aggression beats greed beats turtling beats aggression, and you need good scouting (or luck) to determine when to switch from one "stance" to another.
hmunkey
Profile Joined August 2010
United Kingdom1973 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-06 21:56:04
March 06 2011 21:54 GMT
#252
As a Zerg, I absolutely abhor Slag and Blackwater. They both make it incredibly difficult to take a third, and honestly, that puts me on 2 base vs. 2 base unless I take that risk.

Of course a good opponent exploits that because there's no way for me to have that kind of mobility and I lose.

Edit: And it's so damn hard to fight Protoss now that it's ridiculous IMO. Once they hit that critical mass I autolose and because it's so easy for them to turtle that's been happening so often.
Ribbon
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5278 Posts
March 06 2011 22:23 GMT
#253
On March 07 2011 06:54 hmunkey wrote:
As a Zerg, I absolutely abhor Slag and Blackwater. They both make it incredibly difficult to take a third, and honestly, that puts me on 2 base vs. 2 base unless I take that risk.

Of course a good opponent exploits that because there's no way for me to have that kind of mobility and I lose.

Edit: And it's so damn hard to fight Protoss now that it's ridiculous IMO. Once they hit that critical mass I autolose and because it's so easy for them to turtle that's been happening so often.


What build are you going for? Backwater is a bad map, but Slag is extremely Zerg-favored according to Catz, provided that you play the map properly. I think the goal of a Z on Slag should be to deny the Protoss his natural as long as possible, so that he can't even afford the deathball.
jalstar
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States8198 Posts
March 06 2011 22:29 GMT
#254
On March 05 2011 05:33 Chill wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 05 2011 03:18 Wolf wrote:
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.


Didn't it start with 12 Nexus in BW? Terrans would bunker rush in response to a 12 Nexus and Protosses would call it cheese, but Terrans responded saying that the 12 Nexus was economic cheese.

I wouldn't say a fast expansion is cheese, and I wouldn't say a bunker rush in response to a fast expansion is cheese, since neither rely on your opponent not being prepared.
brain_
Profile Joined June 2010
United States812 Posts
March 06 2011 22:58 GMT
#255
On March 07 2011 07:23 Ribbon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 07 2011 06:54 hmunkey wrote:
As a Zerg, I absolutely abhor Slag and Blackwater. They both make it incredibly difficult to take a third, and honestly, that puts me on 2 base vs. 2 base unless I take that risk.

Of course a good opponent exploits that because there's no way for me to have that kind of mobility and I lose.

Edit: And it's so damn hard to fight Protoss now that it's ridiculous IMO. Once they hit that critical mass I autolose and because it's so easy for them to turtle that's been happening so often.


What build are you going for? Backwater is a bad map, but Slag is extremely Zerg-favored according to Catz, provided that you play the map properly. I think the goal of a Z on Slag should be to deny the Protoss his natural as long as possible, so that he can't even afford the deathball.



I agree- Slag is really difficult for me (Protoss). The Zerg can keep you on one base if he plays it right.
eloist
Profile Joined September 2010
United States1017 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-06 23:42:03
March 06 2011 23:40 GMT
#256
I think a lot of people have tunnelvision regarding these maps and play them on auto pilot as if they were like any other.

I have had really good games on these so far where the maps made for interesting and unique dynamics. None of my games have gone either way because of a rush distance induced all in. I think we're kind of over that phase in the game now. Except 4 gate which is as annoying as always.

I kind of wish that we had a thread per map to discuss specifics. It all gets kind of lost in here.
Ribbon
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5278 Posts
March 07 2011 23:24 GMT
#257
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=199322

Blizzard is adding GSL maps to the ladder.

This is probably something they had in mind when they made these ladder changes. Suddenly, the removal of Shakuras makes sense: They had to make room for the new influx of giant maps (because there are people who like the smaller maps, after all), but they couldn't say why. Therefore, Blizzard's official reasonings are in fact dastardly lies. These aren't the new macro maps. They're the new micro maps!

Suddenly, we have a map pool of the 4 new maps, the 4 GSL maps, and probably one other Blizz map (my money's on Xelnaga). That's....a pretty good pool. I have 3 downvotes, and I only hate one map!
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 6h 30m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RuFF_SC2 160
NeuroSwarm 157
Nina 43
StarCraft: Brood War
Shuttle 1105
Larva 191
NaDa 53
Sexy 44
PianO 37
Bale 20
Noble 9
Icarus 7
Dota 2
monkeys_forever331
LuMiX1
League of Legends
JimRising 518
Counter-Strike
fl0m1927
Super Smash Bros
C9.Mang0314
Other Games
summit1g14743
gofns4552
ViBE161
Maynarde100
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick811
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 67
• Sammyuel 50
• davetesta26
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Migwel
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota21790
League of Legends
• Stunt209
Other Games
• Scarra651
• Shiphtur103
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
6h 30m
RSL Revival
6h 30m
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
8h 30m
Cure vs Reynor
Classic vs herO
IPSL
13h 30m
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
OSC
15h 30m
BSL 21
16h 30m
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 6h
RSL Revival
1d 6h
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
1d 8h
WardiTV Korean Royale
1d 8h
[ Show More ]
BSL 21
1d 16h
JDConan vs Semih
Dragon vs Dienmax
Tech vs NewOcean
TerrOr vs Artosis
IPSL
1d 16h
Dewalt vs WolFix
eOnzErG vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
1d 19h
Wardi Open
2 days
Monday Night Weeklies
2 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
3 days
BSL: GosuLeague
3 days
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
BSL: GosuLeague
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-11-07
Stellar Fest: Constellation Cup
Eternal Conflict S1

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
SOOP Univ League 2025
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
CSCL: Masked Kings S3
SLON Tour Season 2
RSL Revival: Season 3
META Madness #9
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025

Upcoming

BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXVIII
RSL Offline Finals
WardiTV 2025
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026: Closed Qualifier
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.