EPTGSL Maps on Ladder SOON™ - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
CuSToM
United States1478 Posts
| ||
|
DirtYLOu
575 Posts
| ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
| ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
On March 08 2011 08:19 Sixer wrote: i'm stupid and still trying to figure this out ;o Bomb the United States, upset somebody. Or, alternatively, it's a butchered translation in Zero Wing. I'm not sure if Chill's reaction was feigned but this certainly got me. | ||
|
sawedust
United States506 Posts
On March 08 2011 08:10 hugman wrote: Well if you read it backwards you CAN guess it, forwards it makes little sense Try reading "somebody set up us the bomb" backwards though  Mind blown  As far as the maps being added to the pool, that is absolutely amazing. Good for Blizzard, they're redeeming themselves with the GSL maps. I'd love it if Crevasse was added. That's probably my most favorite map as far as the GSL maps go (outside of the standard maps such as XNC, Metal, and Shakuras). | ||
|
Bergys
Sweden337 Posts
On March 08 2011 08:14 Starshaped wrote: I remember on a map like Kulas Ravine I could almost never 3rax all-in zergs. I don't want Blizzard to favour macroers over micro/strategy-oriented players with huge boring maps. Bad troll is bad. | ||
|
GriMeR
United States148 Posts
| ||
|
YunhOLee
Canada2470 Posts
| ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On March 08 2011 07:39 Xeph wrote: We're going to maintain the number of ladder maps to 9 with 3 macro-oriented, 3 aggresive and 3 intermediate maps, so that a player can thumb down based on the player's preference. GSL maps(soon) are macro-oriented. That is such a good decision by them. It seems like the obvious compromise that keeps everybody satisfied. | ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On March 08 2011 08:20 Starshaped wrote: Look, Starcraft 2 is a Real Time STRATEGY game. I think it's reasonable for a micro/strategy player such as myself to want to fight on fair terms against macro players. If not then why call it an RTS? If you can't beat a macro player on a macro map, then you're not doing enough. I have seen micro/strategy players like you beat macro players on macro maps several times already. It's not the map, it's you. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
 | ||
|
imareaver3
United States906 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + 아래가 현재 저희가 각각의 지도들을 구분하는 방식입니다. - 델타 사분면: 공격형 - 무너진 사원: 시작 위치에 따라 공격형, 중간형 또는 운영형으로 구분 - 금속 도시: 시작 위치에 따라 공격형, 중간형 또는 운영형으로 구분 - 폐광석 처리장: 시작 위치에 따라 공격형, 중간형 또는 운영형으로 구분 - 젤나가 동굴: 중간형 - 고철 처리장: 운영형에 가까운 중간형 - 티폰 봉우리: 중간형에서 운영형 사이 - 백워터 협곡: 운영형 - GSL 지도(추가 예정): 운영형 Because the Google translate (Which only gets every other word) makes me feel like it's really important to understanding Blizzard's actual intention. | ||
|
.Enigma.
Sweden1461 Posts
| ||
|
butter
United States785 Posts
On March 08 2011 08:04 Blisse wrote: We were currently under way to identify them is a map. - Delta Quadrant: Attacking - Ruined temple: the offensive at the beginning, intermediate, or operations classified as - Metal cities depending on where you start attacking, classified as intermediate or operational - Pyegwangseok treatment: the offensive at the beginning, intermediate, or operations classified as - Jelnaga Cave: NPH - Scrap metal plant: operating inch closer to the intermediate - Typhon Peaks: The middle brother, unyounghyeong forty-two - Backwater Canyon: unyounghyeong - GSL Map (coming soon): unyounghyeong "Delta Quadrant: Attacking" is clear enough at least, but I'd be interested to see a proper translation of what Blizzard thinks of their own maps. | ||
|
wimbowaia
Norway20 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On March 08 2011 08:19 PartyBiscuit wrote: Don't think Crossfire is one of the new maps coming up, so that means either Metal or Scrap would ideally be left on the pool. The only way I can see them doing the 3/3/3 split of aggression, intermediate, and macro is if they consider that the possibility of close spawn makes the map more aggro, with that logic: Shattered Temple (aggro) Slag Pits (aggro - despite what the original Blizz explanation was) Typhon Peaks (inter) Backwater Gulch (inter or aggro) Scrap Station or Metal >>probably Scrap for an Intermediate? Xel'Naga Caverns (inter) Tal'Darim Altar (macro) Crevasse (macro) Terminus RE (macro) That's kind of a sensible way to be splitting the pool. 3 downvotes means we can downvote all the aggro maps. And the aggro maps are only aggro on close spawns (as opposed to, say, Steppes, which is always aggro). I don't see any of the newer Blizz maps being killed so fast. If Shattered Temple, Backwater Gultch, and Slag Pits are the "aggro" maps, then Metalopolis is certainly gone. And the plus side, this is another nail in Delta Quadrant's coffin, because it's also a rush map. Tal'Darim, Crevasse, and Terminus (why no Crossfire RE?) are the macro, of course. That leaves 3 intermediate maps. Typhon is an intermediate, so I guess the other two maps are Scrap Station and Xel'Naga? That means the ladder map lineup is going to be Shattered Temple Slag Pits Backwater Gultch Typhon Peaks Xel'Naga Caverns Scrap Station Tal'Darim Altar Crevasse Terminus RE With Metalopolis and Delta Quadrant (and Shakuras) as the removed maps. That makes sense, I guess. I certainly like that lineup a lot more than I like any Ladder Pool we've yet had. | ||
|
Miragee
8552 Posts
On March 08 2011 08:20 Starshaped wrote: Look, Starcraft 2 is a Real Time STRATEGY game. I think it's reasonable for a micro/strategy player such as myself to want to fight on fair terms against macro players. If not then why call it an RTS? Because it's kinda boring to have one fight and all is over before the 10 minute mark is reached. Compare this to a 30 minutes long game full of agression and mutiple attacks everywhere on the map. No discussion which is the more interessting way to play and watch. Note: Makroplay isn't about turtling all the time. Also amazing news though. The "downvotesystem" by blizzard matched with the 3 macro, 3 intermediate and 3 aggressive mappool seems to be pretty cool for everyone. | ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
What I would like to see them do is remove DQ, Scrap, and Slag and then modify Gulch so that the ramp going up to the main was instead off to the side and is accessed through the natural. You could still have those two mini-chokes entering the natural as well, but the entrance to the main would come down in front of the natural making it defendable. Scrap station on its face and statisically is the most imbalanced map in the pool and actually has been almost the entire time after release. DQ ... that map just sucks... I dont think I even know terrans that like that map anymore... really uninteresting map. | ||
|
Starshaped
Sweden575 Posts
If you can't beat a macro player on a macro map, then you're not doing enough. I have seen micro/strategy players like you beat macro players on macro maps several times already. It's not the map, it's you. Look, you clearly don't understand how SC2 works. The maps like Steppes and Blistering etc. allowed for EQUAL FOOTING for both types of players, that is the creative/strategic/micro player and the macro or 'unstrategic' player. But these new maps FAVOUR MACROERS and that is not balanced. Can creative micro strategists beat macroers on new maps? Yes, but in order to do so they have to outplay them by a lot! | ||
|
TUski
United States1258 Posts
 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. On March 08 2011 08:03 Starshaped wrote: I'm am pretty good (top 20 silver) and I don't like these maps at all. I think most people want maps like Steppes of War and Blistering Sands. They are intense and 'funky' and not as boring and cold as most of the 'Korean' maps, if you catch my drift. I mean what if my opponent is good at macro? I want strategic options that work against every type of player and these new maps don't supply that, and again I'm saying this is a strong player, not some bronze noob. Is it just me or are there an excessive amount of trolls in this thread? :/ | ||
| ||
