|
On March 08 2011 11:32 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Nice  See guys, Blizzard may take a while, but they always get things right. This is so much better than the 1 GSL map they were hinting at. Also this is quite nice to see such thought into the pool, the way they split up the maps into 3 categories and you have 3 thumbs down. Even cooler is that, although close positions aren't that good, "macro" maps like Shattered Temple will probably be Intermediate, while even more macro maps will be the GSL ones. There is however a problem I see. Although Zerg can be aggressive, usually they play reactive. If all Zergs thumbs down the aggressive maps, then Zergs will be having quite a lot of ZvZs. Likewise, Terran rushers may end up having many TvT in the aggressive maps. Perhaps they can restrict the way you spend thumbs down votes? For example, 1 for each category or such. Edit: Nevermind this probably won't be much of a problem; like others said, while a macro game on an aggressive map will be almost impossible, but rush and macro styles are viable on macro maps and somewhat on the intermediate maps. Meaning, the aggressive maps will sort of be like the ones the lower leagues may like; higher level players may tend to ban all 3 aggressive maps, leaving 3 intermediate and 3 macro in which all kinds of styles fare decently well. Likewise, a lower league player may want to ban the 3 macro maps because they'll just turtle for like an hour and make a billion Carriers xD
The system will choose the player first, then the map.
As a result, everyone might tend to play on intermediate maps more.
|
|
|
Hooray! Actually a pretty good incentive for me to ladder more.
|
The system will choose the player first, then the map.
As a result, everyone might tend to play on intermediate maps more.
Ah really. Well in that case, I guess that fits quite well; intermediate maps are the mid-ground maps that all players will be OK with, while the rarer macro/aggressive maps will be maps both players like.
|
This news made my awful day much better! Thanks Blizzard!
|
|
|
On March 08 2011 11:35 Eknoid4 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 11:31 PBJ wrote:On March 08 2011 11:21 Eknoid4 wrote:On March 08 2011 11:18 Gentso wrote:
You know, I still don't get why Blizzard is so insistent on actually having maps designed for rushing. the same reason they have maps designed for macro. if you can only do one thing well you're not just worse for it, you're a thousand times more boring The difference is that on a so-called "rush map" you don't have the option to go for a macro-centric game because you are forced into one type of strategy. On a so-called "macro map" you aren't stopped from rushing - both rushing and playing for the long game are possible on the map, only going for a rush and failing is much more punishing, like it should be. If it weren't possible to rush on huge maps with lots of expansions, how do you explain all the cheesing in BW and the roach rushes against FEing protosses in this GSL? Good thing there has never been a maxed army vs maxed army war on steppes of war, otherwise your example would have a hole in it.
If you were to analyze all the games played of Steppes of course there would be long macro-styled games. However, the percentage of games that turned out that way would be a lot smaller than the games that ended with the first timing push. There is no hole in the example - a "rush map" forces the game into one direction and a "macro map" opens up the possibilities. Just because a macro game can occur occasionally on a "rush map" or a rush can occur on a "macro map" doesn't nullify what happens in general on a certain map type.
|
So from what I have read they are gonna have 9 maps total and 8 has been already set in place. That means we are only gonna get one gsl map?
I was hoping more than one. 3 I thought would be unlikey, but at least two...
On one more note they have Backwater Gulch listed as Macro Map.. Is this true? I vetoed after playing once on this map..
|
FUCK YES!!!
This has really made me want to get stuck into ladder again, time to work off my 800 bonus pool 0_0
|
Are we sure if this is on all servers an not just korean server
|
Huzzah! GSL Meets Ladder Meets Kyo meets 70% w/r :D
Props to blizzard!
|
That's it, I'm laddering again. If I can ladder on Tal'Darim Altar ... oh hell yes.
Cannot WAIT for this. I just hope the patch comes soon.
|
Still a bit confused that they want "3 aggressive maps". Don't they realize that Zerg basically HAVE to downvote these because we don't want to fight an uphill battle every time we play on that map. I'm really not trying to QQ but blizzard has to realize that these maps are terrible for Zerg and they are throwing 3 maps in the pool that Zerg will definitely want to downvote. I just don't understand why they can't put in maps that are good for all races.
I would argue that these "macro maps" aren't necessarily Zerg favored, so why do they have to put in "aggressive maps" that are extremely hard for Zerg to play on.
|
Victory has been achieved.
|
Still a bit confused that they want "3 aggressive maps". Don't they realize that Zerg basically HAVE to downvote these because we don't want to fight an uphill battle every time we play on that map. I'm really not trying to QQ but blizzard has to realize that these maps are terrible for Zerg and they are throwing 3 maps in the pool that Zerg will definitely want to downvote. I just don't understand why they can't put in maps that are good for all races.
I would argue that these "macro maps" aren't necessarily Zerg favored, so why do they have to put in "aggressive maps" that are extremely hard for Zerg to play on.
Zerg players can be aggressive too, although it is risky. But it's the same with the other races, especially Terran; a failed early push will usually be gg.
A rush Terran may not want to play on the "macro" maps and rushes will be riskier; likewise, a macro Zerg may not want to play on the "aggressive" maps because macro will be riskier.
Also, a rush Terran on a macro map trying to macro may fail; likewise, a macro Zerg on an aggressive map trying to rush may fail.
|
On March 08 2011 07:50 Mercury- wrote:
As a top Gold player I am opposed to this change, I prefer smaller maps. Not everyone has time for 40 minute games.
Most casual players will probably agree with me.
The average SC2 game reaches late game in 15 minutes.
|
On March 08 2011 07:50 Mercury- wrote:
As a top Gold player I am opposed to this change, I prefer smaller maps. Not everyone has time for 40 minute games.
Most casual players will probably agree with me.
The average SC2 game reaches late game in 15 minutes.
Average for higher leveled players you mean? Gold isn't very high so that's probably why.
Anyways, just thumbs down those maps then?
|
On March 08 2011 07:50 Mercury- wrote:
As a top Gold player I am opposed to this change, I prefer smaller maps. Not everyone has time for 40 minute games.
Most casual players will probably agree with me
I wonder if you know that you can can veto the maps assuming your not just trolling.
If you don't like the new maps that are going to be added because they create good games then just veto them nobody's going to stop you ^_^
|
so we know the gsl maps are the 3 macro maps, I'm guessing the 3 intermediate maps are:
xel naga
shattered temple
slag pits!? maybe, or possibly Scrap Station
Aggressive maps, now what could those be?
will they bring back steppes?
Delta Quadrant is probably one of them
back water gulch? so far it seems like expanding is really risky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
