LSPrime and JackyPrime were working with Blizzard from a month ago to add Crevasse, Tal'Darim Altar, Terminus RE on ladder map pool, and now it is announced on Korean Blizzard community forum: http://kr.battle.net/sc2/ko/forum/topic/607720827#15
The blue post linked above includes Blizzard's thoughts on ladder map pool, but it's not worth to translate all the words and I don't have enough time to translate that right now. GSL maps are only mentioned once on that post; GSL maps(soon): Macro-oriented.
Here's short translation: 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.
The news is what I said on my stream a month ago; PMLTAWMGN.
P: Pool M: Map L: Ladder T: To A: Added W: Will (be) M: Maps G: GSL N: New
Updated 1 22:29 8 March KST I just talked with reliable source and he said Terminus RE is going to be added first.
Upcomming patch looks pretty cool actually. I might start playing again. It's been too long.. good news Better maps are always welcome and should make for some interesting game on ladder.
Wow!! Blizzard really came through. Much kudos to the Prime clan mapmakers, GSL for spotlighting and using them, and Blizzard for introducing them into ladder. Woot!
There is no chance at all that they would add these maps to only the Korean ladder right? Just getting all doubt out of the way before I get really excited haha.
no crossfire? THIS IS TERRIBLE BLIZZARD DOESNT LISTEN AT ALL!
Unfortunately there will be someone who thinks that.. Finally decent maps. Wonder how it's going to affect the current map situation, if they'll take more out or just have a bigger pool in general. Looking forward to this :3
No wonder the maps suddenly got like 8x better. Thanks Blizzard, LS and Jacky! When the GSL maps first came out, they needed a LOT of work-- Then suddenly, they were put in the GSL, all fixed! It's like a dream come true. Blizz has been slowly announcing this over time, but now we know it's happening! Woo.
Now it would be absolutely perfect if DQ was chucked and Shakuras added back in. Also Crossfire instead of one of the other god awful new ones. But I should not complain. This is great news!
I'd like to know if this means the removal of some more maps in the current pool though, if these THREE maps are added globally the map rotation would be a lot bigger than it currently is (unless they remove...DQ, Slag, and Backwater )
On March 08 2011 07:50 PartyBiscuit wrote: I'd like to know if this means the removal of some more maps in the current pool though, if these THREE maps are added globally the map rotation would be a lot bigger than it currently is (unless they remove...DQ, Slag, and Backwater )
Or institute a up-vote system for their map pool whereby maps can be picked depending on what you want. Or if you're a professional what tournament you're participating on so practice can be specifically tailored to the maps that you want to play.
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.
It gives you the option of having long macro games, but if you want to finish a game in 15 minutes, you can easily do so.
On March 08 2011 07:47 SmoKim wrote: no incineration zone ?
Yeah when i didn't see Incineration i was like "way to go Blizz screwed it up again". We need more destructible rocks between mains Blizz. Make it happen.
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.
It gives you the option of having long macro games, but if you want to finish a game in 15 minutes, you can easily do so.
Rushes and early timing attacks still work. They just aren't gonna be un-beatable and will require more Micro to keep you units alive. Further more they will be more all in.
Learn some timing pushes and games will be overall shorter.
The post only mentions that one GSL map will be introduced, and that they are trying to split the map pool into three rush maps, three intermediate maps and three macro maps.
I thought from the original post that you were saying all three GSL maps were going to be introduced to the ladder pool.
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.
You can still 4 gate ezpz
In all seriousness though, if you feel like cheesing or 1basing on the larger maps, they are still perfectly doable (i.e. Rain still can dish that out on GSL), it will just likely be less effective. Also, we don't know what maps are being replaced in the map pool yet with the GSL ones etc.
Thats awesome news! I hate backwater gulch personally just because its so weird, so I have to vote it away. GSL maps are masterpieces. Wish they will be added to EU ladder asap when they hit KR and US.
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.
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
During the StarCraft II community forums and other maps are more diverse in the ladder and, I hope that when the adjustment would the common opinion. Team lead in improving the overall balance, making the ladder more attractive to new jobs have been talking for a little while ago the ladder maps have been updated list.
Refer to the list if there were any changes hope the sight, try a direct play on Battle.net. And through the forums and tell you I hope you have opinions.
1 a Map Excluded Map: Heat wave desert, jungle basin, grasslands war, lost temples, syakuraseu Plateau Maintained Map: scrap metal plant, jelnaga cave, the Delta Quadrant, Metal City New Map: Backwater Canyon, pyegwangseok plant, collapsed temples, Typhon peaks
2 vs 2 map Map of the excluded: the dry desert, tasoniseu raids, dark fortresses, war zones, dissonance IV Maintained Map: gogwedo, monriseu floor, ashes home, storm the battlefield New Map: The Biggest Loser giant satellite, cable bark cave, Omega Zone, tasoniseu ruins, Redstone Canyon
3 3 maps Excluded Map: moraeneup Maintained Map: 426 residences, the monsoon zone, balgulji, Zone Change, Biological Laboratories, Fort Arakan, ulranui abyss, Typhon New maps: -
4 4 Map Map of Excluded: - Map persisted: the highlands, dokjidae, megatons, sandy canyons, lava flows and outposts, extinction New Map: 10th district
Individual Combat Excluded Map: Lost Temple, kulraseu Gorge Map persisted: Metal City, moraeneup, perception crack, abyss New Map: pyegwangseok plants, fallen four won
Excluded Map: Heat wave desert, jungle basin, grasslands war, lost temples, syakuraseu Plateau Maintained Map: scrap metal plant, jelnaga cave, the Delta Quadrant, Metal City New Map: Backwater Canyon, pyegwangseok plant, collapsed temples, Typhon peaks
Or essentially, the maps on the PTR.
EDIT: Yes, this was posted when PTR became available. Sorry guys.
Why you're reading the opening post and not the blue post that was directly linked by Xeph is beyond me. The post in question says nothing of the sort and was posted only a few hours ago.
During the StarCraft II community forums and other maps are more diverse in the ladder and, I hope that when the adjustment would the common opinion. Team lead in improving the overall balance, making the ladder more attractive to new jobs have been talking for a little while ago the ladder maps have been updated list.
Refer to the list if there were any changes hope the sight, try a direct play on Battle.net. And through the forums and tell you I hope you have opinions.
1 a Map Excluded Map: Heat wave desert, jungle basin, grasslands war, lost temples, syakuraseu Plateau Maintained Map: scrap metal plant, jelnaga cave, the Delta Quadrant, Metal City New Map: Backwater Canyon, pyegwangseok plant, collapsed temples, Typhon peaks
2 vs 2 map Map of the excluded: the dry desert, tasoniseu raids, dark fortresses, war zones, dissonance IV Maintained Map: gogwedo, monriseu floor, ashes home, storm the battlefield New Map: The Biggest Loser giant satellite, cable bark cave, Omega Zone, tasoniseu ruins, Redstone Canyon
3 3 maps Excluded Map: moraeneup Maintained Map: 426 residences, the monsoon zone, balgulji, Zone Change, Biological Laboratories, Fort Arakan, ulranui abyss, Typhon New maps: -
4 4 Map Map of Excluded: - Map persisted: the highlands, dokjidae, megatons, sandy canyons, lava flows and outposts, extinction New Map: 10th district
Individual Combat Excluded Map: Lost Temple, kulraseu Gorge Map persisted: Metal City, moraeneup, perception crack, abyss New Map: pyegwangseok plants, fallen four won
Excluded Map: Heat wave desert, jungle basin, grasslands war, lost temples, syakuraseu Plateau Maintained Map: scrap metal plant, jelnaga cave, the Delta Quadrant, Metal City New Map: Backwater Canyon, pyegwangseok plant, collapsed temples, Typhon peaks
Or essentially, the maps on the PTR.
EDIT: Yes, this was posted when PTR became available. Sorry guys. Could have verified before hyping it up though lmao.
No I think the OP had inside information. He wasn't talking about the Blizz post.
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.
I totally get this, Blistering Sand was, and is, a really interesting map. Steppes of War is really intensive. I can't agree on the point of there should be strategies that works against everything, that just ruins the fun, but I do like some variety when it comes to maps. Some big, some small, some oddly shaped, some not.
If all maps is one big grey field it will get boring pretty fast.
On March 08 2011 07:39 Xeph wrote: Here's short translation: We're going to maintain the number of ladder maps to 9 with 3 macro-oriented, 3 aggresive and 3 normal maps, so that a player can thumb down based on the player's preference. GSL maps(soon) are macro-oriented.
With 3 downvotes that gives people a lot of freedom in what type of maps they want to play (even having the option to elimate a complete specific type of map). Sounds awesome! Can't wait!
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.
I'm startled Blizz is doing this, but I fully support and endorse it.
On March 08 2011 07:50 PartyBiscuit wrote: I'd like to know if this means the removal of some more maps in the current pool though, if these THREE maps are added globally the map rotation would be a lot bigger than it currently is (unless they remove...DQ, Slag, and Backwater )
I'd be befuddled if DQ doesn't get removed. It was designed to be a macro map (and was apparently popular when it first came out, according to Destiny's stream), but tourney players hate it, and casual players hate it, really...no one likes DQ.
Interestingly, if Blizzard was planning to do this all along, then the removal of Shakuras suddenly makes sense. They need some micro maps because a decent subset of the player base likes them, and they're about to inject 4 huge maps in the pool. They got rid of a macro map not because they hated macro maps, but because they were about to introduce 4 more to the ladder and wanted to make room. Lesson learned: Never trust Blizzard when they explain a decision, because they are expert trolls.
Probably Metal will be removed, because a.) It's old, b.) They don't want the whole ladder being tourney-friendly maps and c.) the people who like Metal the most won't really mind because GSL Maps are awesome. I don't think there's any four maps that could be taken out that TL would complain about, if they were replaced with GSL maps.
So, the Ladder Pool would be...
Shattered Temple Slag Pits Typhon Peaks Backwater Gulch (I don't see them removing this so soon after rolling it out) Scrap Station Xel'Naga Caverns Tal'Darim Altar Crevasse Crossfire SE Terminus RE
Possibly with...I'd say Scrap Station being removed to bring us to 9 maps, which seems to be the number Blizzard is happy with. Given that you can downvote 3 of them, most of TL would be playing on a map pool of:
Shattered Temple Typhon Peaks Xel'Naga Caverns Tal'Darim Altar Crevasse Crossfire SE Terminus RE
With a downvote to spare if Scrap Station does end up getting the axe. Can anyone, even on Team Liquid, really complain about that map lineup?
i hope gsl keeps working with blizz so that as soon as there are new gsl maps, blizz ladder updates with them on the same day, so we don't have to wait like this again. Thanks blizz, im looking forward to playing on them on ladder.
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.
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.
You can still 4 gate ezpz
In all seriousness though, if you feel like cheesing or 1basing on the larger maps, they are still perfectly doable (i.e. Rain still can dish that out on GSL), it will just likely be less effective. Also, we don't know what maps are being replaced in the map pool yet with the GSL ones etc.
First of all I like playing Terrans, Terrans can't 4gate. If I want to do my favorite strategy on one of the new maps (4 Rax and SCV Rush) they will have enough units to hold it off. That's total bullshit.
On March 08 2011 08:15 Ribbon wrote: So, the Ladder Pool would be...
Shattered Temple Slag Pits Typhon Peaks Backwater Gulch (I don't see them removing this so soon after rolling it out) Scrap Station Xel'Naga Caverns Tal'Darim Altar Crevasse Crossfire SE Terminus RE
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)
I like how Blizzard is going to divide the maps into categories. A lot of people on TL want to play on macro maps, but there are a lot of people who would be intimidated by some of the large GSL maps, especially low level people (who make up a large population of players). So giving people a choice like this is a smart move on Blizzard's part.
Soooooooooo happy, good solution. Blizzard doesn't have to worry about the noobs and more experienced players or those who are interested in playing on GSL maps can do so.
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?
I like the new maps being added. I do think it will be a shame if we lose Scrap Station though. I feel the map pool is better for having a map with close air positions.
I understand we might still get close air on Shattered Temple, Metalopolis and Slag pits but it's still a shame to not have the map with the most different feel.
On March 08 2011 07:50 PartyBiscuit wrote: I'd like to know if this means the removal of some more maps in the current pool though, if these THREE maps are added globally the map rotation would be a lot bigger than it currently is (unless they remove...DQ, Slag, and Backwater )
I'd be befuddled if DQ doesn't get removed. It was designed to be a macro map (and was apparently popular when it first came out, according to Destiny's stream), but tourney players hate it, and casual players hate it, really...no one likes DQ.
Interestingly, if Blizzard was planning to do this all along, then the removal of Shakuras suddenly makes sense. They need some micro maps because a decent subset of the player base likes them, and they're about to inject 4 huge maps in the pool. They got rid of a macro map not because they hated macro maps, but because they were about to introduce 4 more to the ladder and wanted to make room. Lesson learned: Never trust Blizzard when they explain a decision, because they are expert trolls.
Probably Metal will be removed, because a.) It's old, b.) They don't want the whole ladder being tourney-friendly maps and c.) the people who like Metal the most won't really mind because GSL Maps are awesome. I don't think there's any four maps that could be taken out that TL would complain about, if they were replaced with GSL maps.
So, the Ladder Pool would be...
Shattered Temple Slag Pits Typhon Peaks Backwater Gulch (I don't see them removing this so soon after rolling it out) Scrap Station Xel'Naga Caverns Tal'Darim Altar Crevasse Crossfire SE Terminus RE
Possibly with...I'd say Scrap Station being removed to bring us to 9 maps, which seems to be the number Blizzard is happy with. Given that you can downvote 3 of them, most of TL would be playing on a map pool of:
Shattered Temple Typhon Peaks Xel'Naga Caverns Tal'Darim Altar Crevasse Crossfire SE Terminus RE
With a downvote to spare if Scrap Station does end up getting the axe. Can anyone, even on Team Liquid, really complain about that map lineup?
Praying they get rid of scrap station. That map is so awkward and literally i have a 0% win rate against Toss on that map. And TvT on that map is just annoying-> Kill all your workers Opener, Undefendable drop play, And a Natural you can't take because of 4 Gate and Blink Stalker Collosi.
On March 08 2011 07:57 Chill wrote: lol that "teaser acronym" is bullshit. You might as well just mashed the keyboard.
Read it bottom-to-top.
Try to make sense out of "PMLTAWMGN" without having any other information :o
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
YES YES YES! Finally some progress within the map pool. It would be so awesome if these maps actually made it into the map pool. But I don't believe it before i see it.
On March 08 2011 08:15 Ribbon wrote: So, the Ladder Pool would be...
Shattered Temple Slag Pits Typhon Peaks Backwater Gulch (I don't see them removing this so soon after rolling it out) Scrap Station Xel'Naga Caverns Tal'Darim Altar Crevasse Crossfire SE Terminus RE
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.
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.
I think they remove DQ, Scrap, and either Slag or Gulch. Gulch is actually a really interesting map IMO, but that natural is so hard to defend I could see them removing it for that alone. I really don't care for slag pits at all. It doesn't promote any unique playstyles, its unecessarily difficult to come up with an expansion patterns, and its unecessarily difficult to defend expansions once said pattern is actually realized.
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.
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!
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? :/
This is very, very good news indeed. And now, hopefully some people will realize that Blizzard indeed DOES listen, and does not work/balance in a vaacum.
On March 08 2011 08:38 Qwantz wrote: They shouldn't remove Metalopolis, and there are some new maps that suck (Typhon / Backwater / Slag Pits, specially this last one) I think more like:
Aggresive maps: - Xel'Naga Caverns - Scrap Station - ??? (GSL Crossfire would be cool)
Macro maps: - Crevasse - Terminus RE - Tal'Darim Altar
Typhoon is actually pretty good map at least compared to Backwater and Slag. Metal is probably gonna be replaced its old and its boring so will Scrap. Not only that but Backwater and Slag are Aggro maps while Xel and Scrap are more intermediate. Crossfire isn't that aggro either.
I think you confusing 2 plaer maps with aggression. That isn't always the case.
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!
Its funny how unbelievably correct you are and how unbelievably unlikely it is for anyone to agree with you. I think Crevasse is the closest of the GSL maps listed in the OP to strike a balance between strategy based vs. macro based gameplay.
On March 08 2011 08:38 Qwantz wrote: They shouldn't remove Metalopolis, and there are some new maps that suck (Typhon / Backwater / Slag Pits, specially this last one) I think more like:
Aggresive maps: - Xel'Naga Caverns - Scrap Station - ??? (GSL Crossfire would be cool)
Macro maps: - Crevasse - Terminus RE - Tal'Darim Altar
By what logic is Crossfire an aggro map? Blizzard said that close rush positions are imba on 2-player maps (agree) but acceptable as possible spawns on 4-player maps (Can kind of see the logic, but disagree)
Thus, the rush maps are 4-player maps with close spawns: Slag, Backwater, and Shattered. This means Metal and Delta are likely to get removed. They fit the same niche as Slag and Backwater, are older, and one of them is really unpopular among all skill levels.
The macro maps are the GSL maps. Duh. The intermediate maps are thus Xel'Naga, Scrap, and Typhon.
This means that if you downvote Slag, Backwater, and Typhon, 5 of the remaining 6 maps are in the GSL, and Shattered Temple is in MLG (with close spawns disabled). That makes the ladder for for tournament practice. With Slag, Backwater, and Typhon downvoted, there is a 1-in-6 chance you will roll a map with a 1-in-3 chance of spawns that aren't in a tournament.
In other words, on the new map pool, with proper downvoting, there's a 94%* percent chance you will roll a map and set on spawn positions used by MLG or the GSL, with only Shattered Temple on close spawns being useless for tournament practice.
*Assuming I'm good at math. 5/6 chance of good map, + 2/3rds of 1/6th chance of Shattered Temple on non-close spawns
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!
Its funny how unbelievably correct you are and how unbelievably unlikely it is for anyone to agree with you. I think Crevasse is the closest of the GSL maps listed in the OP to strike a balance between strategy based vs. macro based gameplay.
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!
Its funny how unbelievably correct you are and how unbelievably unlikely it is for anyone to agree with you. I think Crevasse is the closest of the GSL maps listed in the OP to strike a balance between strategy based vs. macro based gameplay.
You're getting trolled bro.
You say that as I wave goodbye to creative strategy. I like the maps so dont get me wrong, but even if he is trolling he has a point.
awesome I mean you can't have maps that aren't use by tournaments Players get better by imitating pros by using their style/builds. You start with this and build your own style later on
Hey, we get 3 thumbs-downs. So we can thumbs down all the aggressive (bad) maps, and finally send a message to blizzard that no, they are in fact fucking retarded and don't know what a good map is.
I'm going to laugh pretty hard if in a months time if people are crying that it's impossible to kill a protoss on Terminus if they just turtle on the totally free 3 bases.
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!
Maybe SC2 just isn't your game if you are really that against macro focused maps and strategies.
I would also say you are completely wrong about macro being "unstrategic." There is always strategy to gaining economy advantages, thinking of ways of always having more units, and executing your plan basing on your strengths. The maps you want to see back didn't allow for much strategic depth because the map forced players to play in a very narrow way. I think it is a very big mistake to call maps that force such narrow ways more strategic over GSL maps have encompass many playing styles.
And because you already admitted you are a silver player, map changes simply don't affect your skill level as greatly as at the professional level.
On March 08 2011 09:00 Jayrod wrote: The real question now is how long after the maps release before people hide behind racial imbalance as the reason they are losing?
They were already doing it earlier this very thread.
I'm sure the GSL maps will suddenly become terrible once people start losing on them ^_^
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!
Its funny how unbelievably correct you are and how unbelievably unlikely it is for anyone to agree with you. I think Crevasse is the closest of the GSL maps listed in the OP to strike a balance between strategy based vs. macro based gameplay.
I don't see how steppes or blistering were examples of a balance in between the two. You didn't need to be creative to win on those maps, you just needed to rush your opponent (and if your on blistering you would break down their rocks) and if they expanded you'd have an advantage; this because of the small map size and the fact that the distance between the rocks and your natural on blistering are shorter for the attacking player than the defending--player this makes aggression very hard to hold on that map, and it makes the aggressor always at an advantage. The only time I saw macro games on that map, was when the two players didn't decided to abuse that obvious weakness in the map design. So I truly don't think that Blistering and Steppes are a good balance of anything; not to mention, it takes plenty of strategy, planning, knowledge, experience and skill to play in long games; the Blizzard maps don't allow you to do expand or do macro builds without being subject to a fast loss by some sort of aggression. These new GSL maps allow creative and skilled play to be unhindered by small map size and gimmicky map design.
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!
Its funny how unbelievably correct you are and how unbelievably unlikely it is for anyone to agree with you. I think Crevasse is the closest of the GSL maps listed in the OP to strike a balance between strategy based vs. macro based gameplay.
Well thats why they are keeping some of the close position maps so that microers have a chance to beat macroers. The OP even says 3 rush, 3 intermediate and 3 macro. The reason most of us are unhappy with the current pool is because we (as macro players) are forced to play on maps which blizzard believes are the three "macro maps", but they really arnt.
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!
Its funny how unbelievably correct you are and how unbelievably unlikely it is for anyone to agree with you. I think Crevasse is the closest of the GSL maps listed in the OP to strike a balance between strategy based vs. macro based gameplay.
I don't see how steppes or blistering were examples of a balance in between the two. You didn't need to be creative to win on those maps, you just needed to rush your opponent (and if your on blistering you would break down their rocks) and if they expanded you'd have an advantage; this because of the small map size and the fact that the distance between the rocks and your natural on blistering are shorter for the attacking player than the defending--player this makes aggression very hard to hold on that map, and it makes the aggressor always at an advantage. The only time I saw macro games on that map, was when the two players didn't decided to abuse that obvious weakness in the map design. So I truly don't think that Blistering and Steppes are a good balance of anything; not to mention, it takes plenty of strategy, planning, knowledge, experience and skill to play in long games; the Blizzard maps don't allow you to do expand or do macro builds without being subject to a fast loss by some sort of aggression. These new GSL maps allow creative and skilled play to be unhindered by small map size and gimmicky map design.
I don't think those maps are a good balance either. I think Xel naga caverns is a pretty good balance. I think if they moved the ramp on Gulch it COULD be, but not with the way the ramp is now.
yay for having the gsl maps in the ladder. i'm worried about what maps they remove though... if some combination of delta, slag, scrap and backwater are removed :D If metal or Xel'naga are removed it will be proof Blizzard has no fucking clue what they are doing
On March 08 2011 08:28 imareaver3 wrote: Can someone please translate this Korean? + 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.
I wish someone who really knew korean could come in and clear this up, but it appears to me (someone who really knows no korean, but can understand sounds and match characters) that it says something like: DQ: attacking shattered temple: attacking, intermediate or macro, depending on position metal: attacking, intermediate or macro, depending on position slag: attacking, intermediate or macro, depending on position xelnaga: intermediate scrap: macro/intermediate typhon: intermediate/macro backwater: macro GSL: macro
the words "intermediate"(중간형) and "macro"(운영형) I totally made up, based on the fact that they are the single words used to describe xelnaga and the GSL map, respectively...
On March 08 2011 09:12 Imposta wrote: I think you guys might be a little disappointed expecting 3 GSL maps.
1. They want to have 9 maps - there are currently 8 2. They have stated in another blog post that ONE GSL map will be added.
TLDR: 8+1 GSL maps = current ladder map pool + 1 GSL map (?).
I hope I am wrong though.
From OP:
LSPrime and JackyPrime were working with Blizzard from a month ago to add Crevasse, Tal'Darim Altar, Terminus RE on ladder map pool, and now it is announced on Korean Blizzard community forum
So two maps will be removed in the next rotation. I'm pretty sure they'll be Metal and Delta.
On March 08 2011 09:29 TORTOISE wrote: Am i the only person here seriously disappointed with this?
Can't comprehend .... 3 rush, 3 intermediate, 3 macro. It appeases everyone, except MAYBE the hardcore cheeser who depends on cheesing macro players. Is that you?
On March 08 2011 09:28 Ulfsark wrote: Sounds good though I am not sure how I feel about labeling maps strictly as macro/aggressive/intermediate.
Maps should not be made to be played a certain way, How a map plays out is up to the players to decide.
Good new nonetheless
I don't think it's going to be explicitly labeled, that's just how Blizzard is thinking of it.
I suppose it's possible that some of the older Blizzard maps (Scrap) might be replaced by newer similar-styled maps (Return of fixed DO? :3), but I'd be mildly surprised.
Come on guys, was there really ever a question of this happening? I have more faith in Blizzard than that. Sure, they take a while to do their thing, but only because they care. <3
This is awesome news. I really hope that add them to the NA server soon. "Aggressive Maps" make for really short, boring games. Does anyone really like seeing a handful of marines and marauders go up against a handful of gateway units?
On March 08 2011 09:17 shakenbake wrote: maybe this will end zerg QQ forever!!
lol, Zergs are QQing about Protoss have been turtling too much on 3 base in these new maps, and when Toss deathballs show up, nothing can stop it.
Actually I think it will rather help zerg since they will be able to engage with maxed force when toss moves out, and again with a remaxed army when toss arrives at zerg base.
On March 08 2011 10:08 elmizzt wrote: Come on guys, was there really ever a question of this happening? I have more faith in Blizzard than that. Sure, they take a while to do their thing, but only because they care. <3
Thou art quite unique in this regard. Still, it seems you're justified in this situation. Well done.
This is very good news. Would have probably better news had I not switched to Terran. Meh. Still, very glad they're not using awful maps.
On March 08 2011 09:17 shakenbake wrote: maybe this will end zerg QQ forever!!
lol, Zergs are QQing about Protoss have been turtling too much on 3 base in these new maps, and when Toss deathballs show up, nothing can stop it.
Actually I think it will rather help zerg since they will be able to engage with maxed force when toss moves out, and again with a remaxed army when toss arrives at zerg base.
A 200 / 200 Protoss deathball could kill a 400/400 food army with good force fields...that's not the problem.
Sounds good to me, I can downvote those pesky "aggressive" maps and hopefully get to ladder without getting cheesed quite so much.
Are they actually going to implement all three maps though? I remember reading previously that they were planning to add just one GSL map, how do we know which is correct?
Either way, I love the GSL maps and look forward to seeing them on ladder, even if it's just one.
I wonder what maps they'll replace these with. They SHOULD get rid of DQ, gulch and slagpits. But judging by how they managed to remove shakuras, they'll probably just remove xnc, meta and typhon...
It doesn't seem immediately clear in the OP, are they definitely adding all three of those GSL maps or just one like previously stated? I sure hope it's three, but adding one to the map pool would make a total of nine, and they've already said that they consider Slag Pits and Metalopolis to be "macro" maps.
I really really hope they add three GSL maps and can the other new ones.
Blizzard never listens to the community they don't care about us at all. MARK MY WORDS I GUARANTEE that they will never even CARE or NOTICE that there are be-OH MY GOD HEHEHEHE COOL LADDER MAPS :D:D:D:D
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?
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
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.
Also, disappointed Crossfire SE won't be in there. Although it is quite an uncomfortable map to play in, it's interesting because it makes the game more chaotic for both players and allows for many different, but unique, situations. Macro maps don't all have to be 4 players maps right ? Would have liked Crossfire SE over Tal'Darim Altar, but not like they won't change map pool and rotate etc. :D
I think aggression based maps are cool, but steppes of war is defs too small. If it were a bit bigger it would probably be a pretty cool high stakes game.
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
Macro is the basis of the entire game, even Blizzard admits it. Rushing is fine, but imbalanced maps are not.
Actually, they're just saying the macro play isn't bad.
They have rush maps because a decent subset of their player base likes them. Just because those people don't post here doesn't mean they don't exist.
Blizzard is being very nice in allowing us not to ever have to play on a rush map if we don't want to. They're being very nice in allowing non-tourney types to never have to play on a big macro map if they don't want to. With the new map changes, you can use your downvotes to never play a rush map again. Isn't that cool? Everyone gets to play the types of maps they like. How baller.
We hated rush maps because they were overabundant on the ladder. Now we can choose to never see them, and only play on big macro maps or smaller but still good maps like XNC. No one ever has a need to complain about rush maps, because no one ever needs to play them on the ladder. That's almost even bigger than the GSL maps.
By the way, everyone who said we should have better maps for Masters and rush maps for the "casuals", Blizzard has kind of done this in a way that doesn't punish lower-ranked macro-hungry players. They did it better than people on TL were asking for! Everyone can play on maps they like, regardless of league!
I'm actually really impressed with how Blizzard is doing this. Yeah, it took them forever, but it's Blizzard. I'm used to that from them.
Thank you SO MUCH BLIZZARD. I hope the relationship between the GSL map makers and Blizzard gets even better, so that the maps we play on the ladder are the same maps we watch our favorite pros duke it out. Great step in the right direction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ^_^
On March 08 2011 13:03 emc wrote: 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
They won't bring back Steppes, or make any Steppesy maps. Blizzard has said that they won't make two-player maps that don't have long rush distances (though the same interview also said they were removing Shakuras because you could expand safely, which we now know was just trolling). They consider a "good" rush map to be a 4-player map with the possibility of close spawns. So the rush maps are Slag, Shattered, and Backwater. Metal and Delta also fall under this definition, which is why I think they're on the way out.
On March 08 2011 15:03 joshboy42 wrote: I don't wanna get my hopes up until I hear this from an official source. If it's true, it's great news. Fingers crossed
On March 08 2011 13:20 sluggaslamoo wrote: YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
"It looks like someone went for a swim..." (puts on sunglasses) "in the GSL Map Pool"
YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
All jokes aside, I expect the more terrible of the new maps to stay in the pool, they'll probably bench Metalopolis and Shattered Temple because "they dont have enough interesting features," or whatever ridiculous reason they gave for removing Shakuras Plateau.
On March 08 2011 15:25 Dommk wrote: Yeah, just an FYI, the google translate says that there will be only be 1 GSL map, whilst the other two Macro maps are Typhoon and Backwater(lol).
Xeph is pretty "in the know" with these things, but I'm not going to get my hopes up
That's sorta what I'm worried about. Everything I've heard from blizzard sources has pointed towards 1 GSL map
"It looks like someone went for a swim..." (puts on sunglasses) "in the GSL Map Pool"
YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
All jokes aside, I expect the more terrible of the new maps to stay in the pool, they'll probably bench Metalopolis and Shattered Temple because "they dont have enough interesting features," or whatever ridiculous reason they gave for removing Shakuras Plateau.
The removed Shakuras Plateau because the GSL maps were inbound. They were trolling when they said they were removing it because the nat was safe, because they didn't want to prematurely reveal that the GSL maps were coming. They want three big macro maps, three 4-player maps with close spawns that are very close ("aggro" maps), and three in-betweenish maps like XNC. Three GSL maps + Shakuras = Four big macro maps. One had to go to get this even split.
Typhon, XNC, and Scrap are three intermediate maps, so they're all safe.
Backwater, Slag, Shattered, Metal, and Delta = 5 aggro maps. So two of them have to go. DQ is A.) Old, and B.) The least popular map in the pool at all levels, so I wouldn't bet on them keeping that. I doubt they'd add a new map knowing they were going to remove it right away, so Shattered, Slag, and Backwater are probably safe. That leaves Metal. I will bite my hat if they do otherwise. (But not eat it. Not that sure!).
On March 08 2011 13:04 12D3 wrote: Okay, so the OP claimed that 3 maps were being implemented but I didn't see anything in that blue post about 3 maps. It mentions adding 1. They even lay it out as such when they list all the maps.
The only proof we have right now is 1 map will be added, which was already announced a bit ago.
A few people have already pointed this out, but everyone just keeps ignoring it without checking the blue post.
Yeah I am wondering too maybe they will just add 1 GSL so there will be 3 macro maps according to blizzard: matalopolis, slag pits and GSL map.
Xeph, are you sure they are planing to add 3 GSL maps?
The removed Shakuras Plateau because the GSL maps were inbound. They were trolling when they said they were removing it because the nat was safe, because they didn't want to prematurely reveal that the GSL maps were coming. They want three big macro maps, three 4-player maps with close spawns that are very close ("aggro" maps), and three in-betweenish maps like XN
On March 08 2011 07:39 Xeph wrote: Here's short translation: 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.
I'm not sure how I feel about the GSL maps, but this is excellent news because congruency between GSL and BNet is a great thing, and the quote (wanting a balance of 3/3/3) I think is excellent (I would personally hate if, for example, all the maps were macro oriented)
The removed Shakuras Plateau because the GSL maps were inbound. They were trolling when they said they were removing it because the nat was safe, because they didn't want to prematurely reveal that the GSL maps were coming. They want three big macro maps, three 4-player maps with close spawns that are very close ("aggro" maps), and three in-betweenish maps like XN
??? Haha they were? Or are you guessing? It makes sense I guess, but idk if Blizzard would go so far to be like that.
On March 08 2011 15:32 branflakes14 wrote: Looks like I'll be un-vetoing all of my current choices for these.
Wasn't sure if you were serious,but i realized all you do is troll the other map/game balance threads, post stupid one liners, so you probably are stupid enough to veto GSL maps over slag and company.
Anyways its a welcome change, looking forward to some good games all around when they are released. Was convinced they were not going to follow through with it for awhile because of the new maps and the press releases on their decision making and the map pool.
The removed Shakuras Plateau because the GSL maps were inbound. They were trolling when they said they were removing it because the nat was safe, because they didn't want to prematurely reveal that the GSL maps were coming. They want three big macro maps, three 4-player maps with close spawns that are very close ("aggro" maps), and three in-betweenish maps like XN
??? Haha they were? Or are you guessing? It makes sense I guess, but idk if Blizzard would go so far to be like that.
Guessing, but saying they removed Shakuras because they don't like maps with safe expansions, and then the very next week announcing GSL maps? I suppose it could be a pretty epic communication mishap, though.
The amulet change was made because HT energy upgrade was too strong on GSL-sized maps, right? I think we'll see the GSL maps when patch 1.3 comes out.
So looking forward to the map pool Hopefuly {Crevasse, Tal'Daream Altar ,Terminus} - Large {Shattered Temple, Metal, Shakuras} - Mid {Scrap Station, Xel'Naga Caverns, Jungle Basin} - Small
On March 08 2011 16:56 gosuMalicE wrote: So looking forward to the map pool Hopefuly {Crevasse, Tal'Daream Altar ,Terminus} - Large {Shattered Temple, Metal, Shakuras} - Mid {Scrap Station, Xel'Naga Caverns, Jungle Basin} - Small
jungle basin is out and its no wonder seeing how it's the worst map ever from Blizzard.
On March 08 2011 13:04 12D3 wrote: Okay, so the OP claimed that 3 maps were being implemented but I didn't see anything in that blue post about 3 maps. It mentions adding 1. They even lay it out as such when they list all the maps.
The only proof we have right now is 1 map will be added, which was already announced a bit ago.
A few people have already pointed this out, but everyone just keeps ignoring it without checking the blue post.
Yeah I am wondering too maybe they will just add 1 GSL so there will be 3 macro maps according to blizzard: matalopolis, slag pits and GSL map.
Xeph, are you sure they are planing to add 3 GSL maps?
As far as I know, yes, three GSL maps to be added on ladder map pool.
On March 08 2011 13:04 12D3 wrote: Okay, so the OP claimed that 3 maps were being implemented but I didn't see anything in that blue post about 3 maps. It mentions adding 1. They even lay it out as such when they list all the maps.
The only proof we have right now is 1 map will be added, which was already announced a bit ago.
A few people have already pointed this out, but everyone just keeps ignoring it without checking the blue post.
Yeah I am wondering too maybe they will just add 1 GSL so there will be 3 macro maps according to blizzard: matalopolis, slag pits and GSL map.
Is Meta and Slag Pits (?!) two of the macro friendly maps? :s Both Shattered temple and Typhon are a lot more macro friendly than Slag Pits, and I'd even prefer close positions on those maps over close on metalopolis.
All this 'intermediate maps' and 'aggresive maps' just feels like an excuse for adding bad maps to the pool.
"Hey Blizzard, wtf you can't expand at all the natural is way too open and the other bases are too far a part?!" ... "Lol, don't expand then. It's called aggresive maps [img]Trollface.jpeg[img]"
On March 08 2011 13:04 12D3 wrote: Okay, so the OP claimed that 3 maps were being implemented but I didn't see anything in that blue post about 3 maps. It mentions adding 1. They even lay it out as such when they list all the maps.
The only proof we have right now is 1 map will be added, which was already announced a bit ago.
A few people have already pointed this out, but everyone just keeps ignoring it without checking the blue post.
Yeah I am wondering too maybe they will just add 1 GSL so there will be 3 macro maps according to blizzard: matalopolis, slag pits and GSL map.
Is Meta and Slag Pits (?!) two of the macro friendly maps? :s Both Shattered temple and Typhon are a lot more macro friendly than Slag Pits, and I'd even prefer close positions on those maps over close on metalopolis.
All this 'intermediate maps' and 'aggresive maps' just feels like an excuse for adding bad maps to the pool.
"Hey Blizzard, wtf you can't expand at all the natural is way too open and the other bases are too far a part?!" ... "Lol, don't expand then. It's called aggresive maps [img]Trollface.jpeg[img]"
Blizzard stated that Slag Pits was a more macro orientated version of Metalopolis. God knows how they came up with that statement.
On March 08 2011 13:04 12D3 wrote: Okay, so the OP claimed that 3 maps were being implemented but I didn't see anything in that blue post about 3 maps. It mentions adding 1. They even lay it out as such when they list all the maps.
The only proof we have right now is 1 map will be added, which was already announced a bit ago.
A few people have already pointed this out, but everyone just keeps ignoring it without checking the blue post.
Yeah I am wondering too maybe they will just add 1 GSL so there will be 3 macro maps according to blizzard: matalopolis, slag pits and GSL map.
Is Meta and Slag Pits (?!) two of the macro friendly maps? :s Both Shattered temple and Typhon are a lot more macro friendly than Slag Pits, and I'd even prefer close positions on those maps over close on metalopolis.
All this 'intermediate maps' and 'aggresive maps' just feels like an excuse for adding bad maps to the pool.
"Hey Blizzard, wtf you can't expand at all the natural is way too open and the other bases are too far a part?!" ... "Lol, don't expand then. It's called aggresive maps [img]Trollface.jpeg[img]"
Blizzard stated that Slag Pits was a more macro orientated version of Metalopolis. God knows how they came up with that statement.
Rush distances shorter than Steppes and extremely hard to take third bases. Labeling it a macro maps makes perfect sense right?
At least Blizzard knows what they are doing. Wait what? :s
On March 08 2011 08:23 KevinIX wrote: I think Blizzard should implement a map of the week. Rotate out 1-3 maps a week so the maps don't get stale.
love that idea. That would be too smart for Blizzard though. They'll probably get rid of Xel' Naga -_-
Ideally I'd like to see Delta go, that map has some positionally imbalances for certain races. I'm not sure if they plan on removing close positions from metalopolis, but I think that would be great too. If not they could drop that too.
I'd really like to see Terminus, Tal darim, and Crevasse.
Edit: I predict this:
Delta Quadrant Slag Pits Backwater Gultch
Typhon Peaks Shattered Temple Scrap Station
Tal'Darim Altar Crevasse Terminus RE
But I could see scrap taken out in favour of metalopolis, or typhon being shunted to macro map, and only 2 gsl maps making it.
On March 08 2011 08:23 KevinIX wrote: I think Blizzard should implement a map of the week. Rotate out 1-3 maps a week so the maps don't get stale.
love that idea. That would be too smart for Blizzard though. They'll probably get rid of Xel' Naga -_-
Ideally I'd like to see Delta go, that map has some positionally imbalances for certain races. I'm not sure if they plan on removing close positions from metalopolis, but I think that would be great too. If not they could drop that too.
I'd really like to see Terminus, Tal darim, and Crevasse.
Edit: I predict this:
Delta Quadrant Slag Pits Backwater Gultch
Typhon Peaks Shattered Temple Scrap Station
Tal'Darim Altar Crevasse Terminus RE
But I could see scrap taken out in favour of metalopolis, or typhon being shunted to macro map, and only 2 gsl maps making it.
Don't know if it was found bevor but I just seeing NaDa vs. July on Meta in GSL and it seems that GSL is using the old version of MEta without that full smoke sourround in the Mainbases..
Any thought on that??
Slag Pits isnt a macro map at all... It has a shorter distances then Steppes and the Nat is harder to take and hold at least for P. So dont like that map at all.
Could someone please link pictures of the maps to be added, I only know them by how they look, and it'd be nice for appreciating trends between old-pool and new-skool maps, TY
On March 08 2011 19:54 bITt.mAN wrote: Could someone please link pictures of the maps to be added, I only know them by how they look, and it'd be nice for appreciating trends between old-pool and new-skool maps, TY
Love this. Though I haven't played on those maps yet, all I heard is that they are great and they certainly look so. Good move if this is really going to happen.
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!
Look, you clearly don't understand how SC2 works. With close positions terran has a huge advantage due to scv all-ins and bunkers, not to mention how siege tanks become that much more powerful.Try playing vs a terran on close-close position LT, that'll make you realize that both toss and zerg are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to smaller maps.
So you're incorrect, the new maps will put the races on equal footings, the smaller maps are unfair vs toss and zerg.
But don't worry, you can still do your "strategic" bunker rushes and scv all-ins on the new maps. The only difference is that your opponent will have a fair chance to fend it off. But I realize that sounds unfair to you, lol.
so they wont add all 3 of them. Or they will remove some macro maps. They say 9 maps, 3 of which will be agressive, so probably the horrible Delta, Slagpit duo remains
]This is good news indeed. Blizzard are trying to make the game appealing to everyone and we should really encourage these guys. If the GSL maps make it to the NA and EU ladder there will be only scenes of happiness and unicorns dancing from the community . Just to throw that out - I LOVE PAWN RE !!!
On March 08 2011 20:07 Xadar wrote: Yeah, i will be able to play ladder again as Zerg, great move from Blizz
The map pool is just find for zergs. And I say that playing zerg myself.
Xel'Naga, Scrap, Metalopolis, Slag Pits and Shattered temple is the best map pool there has ever been on the blizzard ladder. Close position on the 4 players maps is obviously a bitch but overall the map is certainly not unfair towards zerg players.
On March 08 2011 22:29 Xeph wrote: I just talked with reliable source and he said Terminus RE is going to be added first.
Absolutely fantastic.
I, for one, am looking forward to having my own Squirtle vs MVP kind of games on that map. Playing Terminus Re is like playing BW, and that is awesome. It's a solid, straightforward, well-made map that has great potential in creating some great macro games.
On March 08 2011 22:29 Xeph wrote: I just talked with reliable source and he said Terminus RE is going to be added first.
Talk to him again and ask him when.
He'll just say "Soon".
Better ask him if this is for all servers or just the korean one? I guess it wouldn't make any sense to not have it on all servers but you never know with blizz, and it's a bit odd it's on the Korean forums but there is nothing anywhere else.
On March 08 2011 22:53 Cosmos wrote: It's a very good idea from blizzard to use GSL maps but GSL made a total bullshit picking those maps which are totally protoss favored....
I'm guessing your basing this on one season where protoss are winning and have the highest numbers where the best players from terran and zerg got knocked out very early. Yeah ... great argument. The stats show that based off 1 season where the best players were knocked out early protoss were beating the worser players that snuck in to the ro16. + oGsMC not like hes good or anything.
I'm VERY WORRIED by what Blizzard means by Intermediate maps and Aggressive maps. Because it looks like from how it was translated that we are going to have 3 really good maps and 6 that we wan't to thumbs down but have to sick with 2 of them to total out to 5.
On March 08 2011 22:53 Cosmos wrote: It's a very good idea from blizzard to use GSL maps but GSL made a total bullshit picking those maps which are totally protoss favored....
I'm guessing your basing this on one season where protoss are winning and have the highest numbers where the best players from terran and zerg got knocked out very early. Yeah ... great argument. The stats show that based off 1 season where the best players were knocked out early protoss were beating the worser players that snuck in to the ro16. + oGsMC not like hes good or anything.
I'm VERY WORRIED by what Blizzard means by Intermediate maps and Aggressive maps. Because it looks like from how it was translated that we are going to have 3 really good maps and 6 that we wan't to thumbs down but have to sick with 2 of them to total out to 5.
Intermediate could also mean Shattered Temple, Xel Naga Caverns, and/or Scrap Station, all of which are decent maps.
Not all of the map pool is bad. IMO, only Delta Quadrant, Slag Pits, and Backwater Gulch are definite thumb downs. The rest of the maps should be fine.
Aggressive maps: -Delta Quadrant -The Shattered Temple (depending on spawn) -Metalopolis (depending on spawn)
Intermediate maps: -"Treatment"? I assume it's slag pits, dunno -Xel'Naga Caverns -Scrap Station
Macro maps: -Typhon Peaks -Backwater Gulch -Terminus RE
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
"This way, you can thumb down the style of maps you don't like". Don't like big maps? Thumb them down. Don't like small maps? Thumb them down, etc.
This is how I understood it. Terminus RE will be the only GSL map to be added into ladder, for now, but more later?
Well unlike meta cross and shakuras cross it (prob only positions that are z favored in tvz) GSL maps are actually balanced in tvz, as the terran player can relatively easy get take 3 bases, while it wont make a huge difference for the zerg. The same thing applies for protoss in pvz and pvt, and since protoss has the strongest late game units I believe protoss will be pretty imbalanced. Right now a lot of people keeps saying that terran just needs to know how to mech, which is IMO like saying zerg players needs to know how do use hydras or nydus worms or whatever. Even though terran players can improve their mech play, a lot of toss players will pretty easily learn how to defeat it by abusing its immobility.
This is amazing news indeed. I am not sure I agree with the categories though. In brood war we had maps and island maps. Those were the categories. I am not sure if it's good for the game to have categories be about their orientation in regards to macro; that should be the default (according to me).
I 1000% agree we need nice big, meaty maps like this in the pool, so long as Blizzard does maintain that balance of map styles. You go too far into the enormous macro maps where you need to pack lunch to cover the rush distances and balance issues arise at the other end.
On March 08 2011 23:22 ParasitJonte wrote: This is amazing news indeed. I am not sure I agree with the categories though. In brood war we had maps and island maps. Those were the categories. I am not sure if it's good for the game to have categories be about their orientation in regards to macro; that should be the default (according to me).
Nobody actually played on island maps in serious games. And BW definitely had more macro oriented maps and more aggressive ones (Blue Storm comes to mind as a very aggressive old map)
I think I would have preferred Tal'darim Altar - terminus re is a bit awkward with it's "you want 3 bases? Here, have 3 bases. It's on the house.
SERIOUS tournaments (aka korean ones, wcg map pools were honestly pretty retarded half the time. ) didn't bother with island maps. Island maps are kinda silly.
Looking forward to this, haven't laddered in a while, but have done customs, so I'm better than my ladder rank. Nothing funner than triple expanding while your opponent hides in one base. GSL maps, here I come!
Brilliant to have those maps included on the ladder pool. More epicness incoming and hopefully LSPrime and JackyPrime might motivate other map builders to provide us all with more cool and challenging maps.
definitely a good idea by blizzard. just get rid of backwater, slag, and delta, and the community will finally shut up about the shitty map pool. i'd love to see some IcCup and MotM maps make it in as well. Marshlands and Mud Rock jump to mind as maps I'd love to ladder on
Good news, but I hope they keep Metalopolis, my personal favorite since the beta.
Also, I would like to point out the Typhon Peaks is an awesome map. I played about 30 games on it and most of them were mid/late game oriented. You can take a third relatively easily. I see it as a mix between Shakuras and Xel Naga Cavern. Can't understand why it seems so disliked.
I'm glad and looking forward to these changes. I believe they will probably come with a season reset from what I understood based on google translate. However, the problem with google translate isn't the best and I pieced together what I could. If someone could translate it somewhat more fully that would be super helpful.
On March 08 2011 23:22 ParasitJonte wrote: This is amazing news indeed. I am not sure I agree with the categories though. In brood war we had maps and island maps. Those were the categories. I am not sure if it's good for the game to have categories be about their orientation in regards to macro; that should be the default (according to me).
Nobody actually played on island maps in serious games. And BW definitely had more macro oriented maps and more aggressive ones (Blue Storm comes to mind as a very aggressive old map)
If you don't think WCG was a serious event then yes, I agree.
Something tells me Aggressive is like Steppes (completely dumb for Zerg) and Metapolis is intermediate (1/3 chance of getting unlucky with close positions).
On March 08 2011 23:22 ParasitJonte wrote: This is amazing news indeed. I am not sure I agree with the categories though. In brood war we had maps and island maps. Those were the categories. I am not sure if it's good for the game to have categories be about their orientation in regards to macro; that should be the default (according to me).
Honestly I'd love to see some island maps for SC2, just to see how they're handled in this game. Not the best choice for BW obviously, but that's no reason to not even give it a try now.
I like the idea of categories though, if I'm understanding what they're doing correctly. I think it's good to separate them for newer players to know which style each will (probably) play out as.
On March 09 2011 01:48 SovSov wrote: wtf are "Aggressive" and "Intermediate" maps?
Something tells me Aggressive is like Steppes (completely dumb for Zerg) and Metapolis is intermediate (1/3 chance of getting unlucky with close positions).
It's kind of frustrating that Blizzard doesn't realize people can play aggressively on larger maps.
On March 08 2011 23:22 ParasitJonte wrote: This is amazing news indeed. I am not sure I agree with the categories though. In brood war we had maps and island maps. Those were the categories. I am not sure if it's good for the game to have categories be about their orientation in regards to macro; that should be the default (according to me).
Honestly I'd love to see some island maps for SC2, just to see how they're handled in this game. Not the best choice for BW obviously, but that's no reason to not even give it a try now.
I like the idea of categories though, if I'm understanding what they're doing correctly. I think it's good to separate them for newer players to know which style each will (probably) play out as.
YES LoL I was about to give up practicing on these maps, I knew Blizzard would come around at some point. All my GSL watching will have paid off muahha
This threads been going on a long time for us not really knowing anything... have we found out if theyre adding all 3 maps or just 1 map? Its not really clear.
On March 09 2011 04:06 Spekulatius wrote: Blizzard seems slow but they obviously DO care. That's a very comforting fact to me.
I like "slow and well done" much better than "fast but rushed"
Thank you Blizzard! I haven't played the new maps a lot, but I am already liking the new improved map pool that lacks steppes, blistering and jungle basin.
On March 09 2011 03:34 Jayrod wrote: This threads been going on a long time for us not really knowing anything... have we found out if theyre adding all 3 maps or just 1 map? Its not really clear.
I think it's three maps, but one at a time. Blizz said in an interview they'd intended to be rotating maps more often then they have been, but they've been busy or somesuch. They said they wanted a map rotation every 3-4 months, so they might dole out GSL maps slowly, while also occasionally replacing one of their smaller maps. I'm kind of hoping they switch out one map per month or something. Keep it varied.
Also, we're not getting Steppes back, so can we please calm down about that?
On March 08 2011 23:22 ParasitJonte wrote: This is amazing news indeed. I am not sure I agree with the categories though. In brood war we had maps and island maps. Those were the categories. I am not sure if it's good for the game to have categories be about their orientation in regards to macro; that should be the default (according to me).
Honestly I'd love to see some island maps for SC2, just to see how they're handled in this game. Not the best choice for BW obviously, but that's no reason to not even give it a try now.
I like the idea of categories though, if I'm understanding what they're doing correctly. I think it's good to separate them for newer players to know which style each will (probably) play out as.
There is a team island map. You can try it there.
Playing on/metagame in a team game is completely different than a 1v1. I don't see what would be so bad about at least trying it out, obviously not in a big name tournament right away or anything, but maybe iCCup or another big map creator could make one for some players to try out. I would, but my map editor skills are abysmal.
On March 08 2011 16:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Show nested quote +
??? Haha they were? Or are you guessing? It makes sense I guess, but idk if Blizzard would go so far to be like that.
Guessing, but saying they removed Shakuras because they don't like maps with safe expansions, and then the very next week announcing GSL maps? I suppose it could be a pretty epic communication mishap, though.
The amulet change was made because HT energy upgrade was too strong on GSL-sized maps, right? I think we'll see the GSL maps when patch 1.3 comes out.
That would make sense; after all, even Blizzard can't possibly think Slag Pits is a map more suited to macro than Metalopolis, can they? CAN THEY???
The fact alone that their maps will be used in the ladder is a great honour. It also really is good for getting a job in the entertainment industry I think that is more valuable them getting just paid for the maps they made.
Wow I have to say that adding all the new crappy maps right before such an announcement must be one of the most epic trolls in the history of RTS-esports.
I mean they really have a strange sense of humour: first they add those ridiculous excuses for maps and then they announce that these three great maps will be available soon? Can't wait. Also playing on slag pits and backdoor gulch feels even more terrible now lol. I guess I'll be sticking with custom games practicing the new ones.
EDIT: just put the whole thing into google translate, it also speaks of something like ladder season 2 starting with the new maps!
If this is true, this is absolutely amazing. I gotta say though, adding Slag and Gulch, calling them macro maps and then actually adding GSL maps to the map pool must be one of the best game developer trolls I've ever seen.
On March 09 2011 19:29 Jago wrote: If this is true, this is absolutely amazing. I gotta say though, adding Slag and Gulch, calling them macro maps and then actually adding GSL maps to the map pool must be one of the best game developer trolls I've ever seen.
Yeah, that's weird. Blizz said in the post Xeph linked that the GSL maps were what they considered "Macro maps". I like to think they were trolling, but probably there was just some confusion between the map guy and the PR guy or something.
Hmm I think Terminus RE has produced by far the least interesting games in the GSL of the new maps, but oh well the others will come soon after I hope.
On March 09 2011 20:04 Elwar wrote: Hmm I think Terminus RE has produced by far the least interesting games in the GSL of the new maps, but oh well the others will come soon after I hope.
It has also produced some fairly interesting ones: I recall seeing a terran 1 rax into double expland.
On March 09 2011 20:04 Elwar wrote: Hmm I think Terminus RE has produced by far the least interesting games in the GSL of the new maps, but oh well the others will come soon after I hope.
Squirtle vs MVP? how can you even say such a statement seriously lol
A Bluepost in the german forum annouced that there will only be ONE GSL-Map in the pool.
Mit den neuen Karten möchten wir für mehr Vielfalt bei Ranglistenspielen sorgen und euch die Gelegenheit bieten, mit Hilfe des Veto-Systems bestimmte Kartentypen auszuwählen, auf denen ihr am liebsten spielt. Bei den neun Karten für gewertete Spiele war unser Ziel, jeweils 1/3 der Karten für einen Rush- oder Makro-orientierten Spielstil auszulegen und 1/3 für einen „normalen“ Stil, der dazwischen liegt. So stufen wir die Karten ein:
-Delta-Quadrant: Rush -Der zerstörte Tempel: Rush, normal oder Makro, abhängig von den Startpositionen -Metalopolis: Rush, normal oder Makro, abhängig von den Startpositionen -Schlackegruben: Rush, normal oder Makro, abhängig von den Startpositionen -Xel’Naga-Höhlen: Normal -Schrottplatz: Normal (mit mehr Tendenz zu Makro als zu Rush) -Typhons Gipfel: Normal bis Makro -Backwater-Schlucht: Makro -GSL-Karte (noch nicht im Kartenpool): Makro
Davon ausgehend kann zum Beispiel ein Spieler, der grundsätzlich keine Rushes mag, ohne weiteres sein erstes Veto gegen Delta-Quadrant einlegen. Die beiden verbleibenden Vetos können für eine der anderen drei möglichen Rush-Karten (Der zerstörte Tempel, Metalopolis oder Schlackegruben) eingesetzt werden. Von den verbleibenden sechs Karten hat nur eine eine Chance von 1/3, ein Rush-Spiel zu bieten. Das funktioniert auch anders herum, und wer wirklich keine Makro-Spiele mag, kann sein Veto gegen die GSL-Karte, Blackwater-Schlucht und eine weitere der zu Makro tendierenden Karten einlegen.
Wir arbeiten weiter daran, den Kartenpool für gewertete Spiele zu verbessern. Unseren derzeitigen Ansatz halten wir für sehr solide und eine gute Grundlage für die zweite Saison, was aber nicht bedeuten soll, dass unsere Philosophie nun in Stein gemeißelt ist. Wir freuen uns auf weiteres Feedback von euch.
The pool will be (9 maps included): - DQ: rush map - ST: rush, normal and makro map - Metalopolis: rush, normal and makro map - Slag Pits: rush, normal and makro map - XNC: normal - Scrapstation: normal - Typhoons Peak: normal - makro - Backwater: makro (wtf?!?) - GSL-Map: makro
Mit den neuen Karten möchten wir für mehr Vielfalt bei Ranglistenspielen sorgen und euch die Gelegenheit bieten, mit Hilfe des Veto-Systems bestimmte Kartentypen auszuwählen, auf denen ihr am liebsten spielt. Bei den neun Karten für gewertete Spiele war unser Ziel, jeweils 1/3 der Karten für einen Rush- oder Makro-orientierten Spielstil auszulegen und 1/3 für einen „normalen“ Stil, der dazwischen liegt. So stufen wir die Karten ein:
-Delta-Quadrant: Rush -Der zerstörte Tempel: Rush, normal oder Makro, abhängig von den Startpositionen -Metalopolis: Rush, normal oder Makro, abhängig von den Startpositionen -Schlackegruben: Rush, normal oder Makro, abhängig von den Startpositionen -Xel’Naga-Höhlen: Normal -Schrottplatz: Normal (mit mehr Tendenz zu Makro als zu Rush) -Typhons Gipfel: Normal bis Makro -Backwater-Schlucht: Makro -GSL-Karte (noch nicht im Kartenpool): Makro
Davon ausgehend kann zum Beispiel ein Spieler, der grundsätzlich keine Rushes mag, ohne weiteres sein erstes Veto gegen Delta-Quadrant einlegen. Die beiden verbleibenden Vetos können für eine der anderen drei möglichen Rush-Karten (Der zerstörte Tempel, Metalopolis oder Schlackegruben) eingesetzt werden. Von den verbleibenden sechs Karten hat nur eine eine Chance von 1/3, ein Rush-Spiel zu bieten. Das funktioniert auch anders herum, und wer wirklich keine Makro-Spiele mag, kann sein Veto gegen die GSL-Karte, Blackwater-Schlucht und eine weitere der zu Makro tendierenden Karten einlegen.
Wir arbeiten weiter daran, den Kartenpool für gewertete Spiele zu verbessern. Unseren derzeitigen Ansatz halten wir für sehr solide und eine gute Grundlage für die zweite Saison, was aber nicht bedeuten soll, dass unsere Philosophie nun in Stein gemeißelt ist. Wir freuen uns auf weiteres Feedback von euch.
The pool will be (9 maps included): - DQ: rush map - ST: rush, normal and makro map - Metalopolis: rush, normal and makro map - Slag Pits: rush, normal and makro map - XNC: normal - Scrapstation: normal - Typhoons Peak: normal - makro - Backwater: makro (wtf?!?) - GSL-Map: makro
In before incoming nerd rage about blizzard keeping terrible maps and only adding one GSL map.
Really though, it's not bad. Just veto DQ, Slag and Backwater, and you have a 100% good map pool. i really don't see how a map pool of Terminus, Typhoon, Shattered Temple, Scrap Station, XC, and Metal is bad in any way.
- Slag Pits: rush, normal and makro map - Backwater: makro (wtf?!?) - GSL-Map: makro
If they seriously call Slag Pits (4 player map with 10 bases total) and Backwater (can't take your natural) macro maps, they should invent a new word for GSL maps. Like "where-more-than-two-bases-is-common"-map
Only one would be kind of underwhelming, but they've changed their minds before and surely some data on their own new additions must have come back to them by now?
..
Surely!
At least I'm glad to see they've not just thrown in maps with larger dimensions and called it a day, but are handling it as a continuous process, which it is. Of course something could be said for quicker adaptions, but just shaking it all up in one go can be detrimental as well and at least it's something. If it still happens, you know, this year..
Mit den neuen Karten möchten wir für mehr Vielfalt bei Ranglistenspielen sorgen und euch die Gelegenheit bieten, mit Hilfe des Veto-Systems bestimmte Kartentypen auszuwählen, auf denen ihr am liebsten spielt. Bei den neun Karten für gewertete Spiele war unser Ziel, jeweils 1/3 der Karten für einen Rush- oder Makro-orientierten Spielstil auszulegen und 1/3 für einen „normalen“ Stil, der dazwischen liegt. So stufen wir die Karten ein:
-Delta-Quadrant: Rush -Der zerstörte Tempel: Rush, normal oder Makro, abhängig von den Startpositionen -Metalopolis: Rush, normal oder Makro, abhängig von den Startpositionen -Schlackegruben: Rush, normal oder Makro, abhängig von den Startpositionen -Xel’Naga-Höhlen: Normal -Schrottplatz: Normal (mit mehr Tendenz zu Makro als zu Rush) -Typhons Gipfel: Normal bis Makro -Backwater-Schlucht: Makro -GSL-Karte (noch nicht im Kartenpool): Makro
Davon ausgehend kann zum Beispiel ein Spieler, der grundsätzlich keine Rushes mag, ohne weiteres sein erstes Veto gegen Delta-Quadrant einlegen. Die beiden verbleibenden Vetos können für eine der anderen drei möglichen Rush-Karten (Der zerstörte Tempel, Metalopolis oder Schlackegruben) eingesetzt werden. Von den verbleibenden sechs Karten hat nur eine eine Chance von 1/3, ein Rush-Spiel zu bieten. Das funktioniert auch anders herum, und wer wirklich keine Makro-Spiele mag, kann sein Veto gegen die GSL-Karte, Blackwater-Schlucht und eine weitere der zu Makro tendierenden Karten einlegen.
Wir arbeiten weiter daran, den Kartenpool für gewertete Spiele zu verbessern. Unseren derzeitigen Ansatz halten wir für sehr solide und eine gute Grundlage für die zweite Saison, was aber nicht bedeuten soll, dass unsere Philosophie nun in Stein gemeißelt ist. Wir freuen uns auf weiteres Feedback von euch.
The pool will be (9 maps included): - DQ: rush map - ST: rush, normal and makro map - Metalopolis: rush, normal and makro map - Slag Pits: rush, normal and makro map - XNC: normal - Scrapstation: normal - Typhoons Peak: normal - makro - Backwater: makro (wtf?!?) - GSL-Map: makro
Simple solution. Downvote Backwater, Slag Pits, and Delta Quadrant. Besides those maps, the rest of the map pool is quite decent.
It's disappointing that Blizzard isn't adding more than one GSL map at this time, but at least they are moving in the right direction. Plus, 3 map downvotes are all we need to make the map pool decent.
If anyone is so kind to translate what IdrA said in the koreean topic about this http://kr.battle.net/sc2/ko/forum/topic/607720827?page=2#25 I would appreciate it deeply. Google translator talks about dogs, bugs into being a poisonous insect...
The pool will be (9 maps included): - DQ: rush map - ST: rush, normal and makro map - Metalopolis: rush, normal and makro map - Slag Pits: rush, normal and makro map - XNC: normal - Scrapstation: normal - Typhoons Peak: normal - makro - Backwater: makro (wtf?!?) - GSL-Map: makro
They should just delete Slag Pits and put in another GSL map.
That's very promising news. Blizzard is accepting that their map creating team is not the best out there and are indeed turning to other teams. That's really surprising actually.
I always thought that Blizzard would take more time to make a decision like this.
Why on earth are they saying this on Korean and German forums and not posting anything on the English ones. Blizzard, a little coordination if you please.
Anyhow, it's a welcome addition to the map pool. I think this is great.
On March 10 2011 05:05 Heraklitus wrote: Why on earth are they saying this on Korean and German forums and not posting anything on the English ones. Blizzard, a little coordination if you please.
Anyhow, it's a welcome addition to the map pool. I think this is great.
Blizzard probably expects a huge shitstorm of criticism from the English forums for not including all the GSL maps and including Slag Pits and Backwater.
Dunno if the Korean and German forums are more docile compared to the English ones, but personally I would be treading lightly when nothing is absolutely set in stone yet.
On March 10 2011 05:32 ICA wrote: I heard that the maps Terminus RE, Crevasse and Tal'Darim Altar are already on the Korean map pool, can anybody confirm this?
idk who told you that but just checked now and none of them are on.
On March 10 2011 04:45 acidfreak wrote: If anyone is so kind to translate what IdrA said in the koreean topic about this http://kr.battle.net/sc2/ko/forum/topic/607720827?page=2#25 I would appreciate it deeply. Google translator talks about dogs, bugs into being a poisonous insect...
On March 10 2011 04:45 acidfreak wrote: If anyone is so kind to translate what IdrA said in the koreean topic about this http://kr.battle.net/sc2/ko/forum/topic/607720827?page=2#25 I would appreciate it deeply. Google translator talks about dogs, bugs into being a poisonous insect...
That is not the real Idra.
Lol, and above EGIdrA in the division is oGsHuk. :D
So does this mean only one GSL map now? I was so excited for those three maps and now I'm just pissed... I hope the first post is true! And that Blizzard decides to make a good choice on the maps.
Awesome job blizzard. So... what is the next reason we will scream at blizzard for being incompetent?
Chat rooms... ok those are in... Bad custom map system... ok that is improving bit by bit Map pool... ok they are listening to us there too...
All that irrational hate for blizzard as nothing but whores who don't listen to the community and care about nothing but money... Not really holding water now eh?
On March 10 2011 06:33 Zanez.smarty wrote: Awesome job blizzard. So... what is the next reason we will scream at blizzard for being incompetent?
Chat rooms... ok those are in... Bad custom map system... ok that is improving bit by bit Map pool... ok they are listening to us there too...
All that irrational hate for blizzard as nothing but whores who don't listen to the community and care about nothing but money... Not really holding water now eh?
Oh come on, this one's easy. Where's our shared replays (watch as a group).
I do agree though, people take out their frustration by blaming blizzard a little too much.
On March 10 2011 06:33 Zanez.smarty wrote: Awesome job blizzard. So... what is the next reason we will scream at blizzard for being incompetent?
Chat rooms... ok those are in... Bad custom map system... ok that is improving bit by bit Map pool... ok they are listening to us there too...
All that irrational hate for blizzard as nothing but whores who don't listen to the community and care about nothing but money... Not really holding water now eh?
Oh come on, this one's easy. Where's our shared replays (watch as a group).
I do agree though, people take out their frustration by blaming blizzard a little too much.
no, ppl are frustrated cuz blizzard takes way too long to improve things that are commonly known as just bad and when they finally do the only logical thing we all should praise them for it?
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.
This post is truly the funniest thing I've read in a while. I'm still laughing as I type this.
I'm a little concerned about Blizzard's definition of the word "soon".
By the time these come out, the GSL will be on new maps, and people will be wanting to play those.
Also, I don't know if Blizzard is going to be cool changing the map pool every 3 months which is roughly the time it took for most BW maps to fall out of style (except the special ones, you know Bluestorm, Python, Andromeda, Destination...)
Either way, excited about playing on the sexy GSL maps, had some very fun games on Terminus, and Altar, also jacked about the precedant of adding third party maps to the map pool as Blizzard seems to have their collective heads up their collective asses.
On March 10 2011 06:53 annYeong(o11) wrote: I'm a little concerned about Blizzard's definition of the word "soon".
By the time these come out, the GSL will be on new maps, and people will be wanting to play those.
Also, I don't know if Blizzard is going to be cool changing the map pool every 3 months which is roughly the time it took for most BW maps to fall out of style (except the special ones, you know Bluestorm, Python, Andromeda, Destination...)
Either way, excited about playing on the sexy GSL maps, had some very fun games on Terminus, and Altar, also jacked about the precedant of adding third party maps to the map pool as Blizzard seems to have their collective heads up their collective asses.
They said they want too have a ladder reset (= new map pool) rougly every 3 months once things get rolling.
On March 10 2011 06:33 Zanez.smarty wrote: Awesome job blizzard. So... what is the next reason we will scream at blizzard for being incompetent?
Chat rooms... ok those are in... Bad custom map system... ok that is improving bit by bit Map pool... ok they are listening to us there too...
All that irrational hate for blizzard as nothing but whores who don't listen to the community and care about nothing but money... Not really holding water now eh?
Some of the criticism of Blizzard is actually warranted. It shouldn't have taken this long to remove the bad maps they had and some of their decisions are still head scratchers. What Winston Churchill said about Americans applies to Blizzard with their stance on maps.
On March 10 2011 06:33 Zanez.smarty wrote: Awesome job blizzard. So... what is the next reason we will scream at blizzard for being incompetent?
Chat rooms... ok those are in... Bad custom map system... ok that is improving bit by bit Map pool... ok they are listening to us there too...
All that irrational hate for blizzard as nothing but whores who don't listen to the community and care about nothing but money... Not really holding water now eh?
Some of the criticism of Blizzard is actually warranted. It shouldn't have taken this long to remove the bad maps they had and some of their decisions are still head scratchers. What Winston Churchill said about Americans applies to Blizzard with their stance on maps.
Example of assholes who will never be satisfied. When they do get what they want, they complain that it took too long.
Kelly just said in the GSL that the GSL Maps are in the map pool. Does it mean that the maps are on some servers already in the ladder pool? I just checked EU - no changes there.
On March 10 2011 06:33 Zanez.smarty wrote: Awesome job blizzard. So... what is the next reason we will scream at blizzard for being incompetent?
Chat rooms... ok those are in... Bad custom map system... ok that is improving bit by bit Map pool... ok they are listening to us there too...
All that irrational hate for blizzard as nothing but whores who don't listen to the community and care about nothing but money... Not really holding water now eh?
Some of the criticism of Blizzard is actually warranted. It shouldn't have taken this long to remove the bad maps they had and some of their decisions are still head scratchers. What Winston Churchill said about Americans applies to Blizzard with their stance on maps.
Example of assholes who will never be satisfied. When they do get what they want, they complain that it took too long.
In this case, it's legit. Players across the world have been shedding sweat and tears telling blizzard how bad the map pool was even back in beta and it took them so long to react. No one is saying the length of time it took negates any changes they're making now but you have to admit, they could've acted much sooner.
On March 11 2011 19:55 Markus138 wrote: Kelly just said in the GSL that the GSL Maps are in the map pool. Does it mean that the maps are on some servers already in the ladder pool? I just checked EU - no changes there.
No she must have read this thread and got confused.
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.
This post made me lol pretty hard. You're a super duper strong silver player, and your opinion on maps being too macro favored a really valid!
On March 10 2011 06:33 Zanez.smarty wrote: Awesome job blizzard. So... what is the next reason we will scream at blizzard for being incompetent?
Chat rooms... ok those are in... Bad custom map system... ok that is improving bit by bit Map pool... ok they are listening to us there too...
All that irrational hate for blizzard as nothing but whores who don't listen to the community and care about nothing but money... Not really holding water now eh?
Some of the criticism of Blizzard is actually warranted. It shouldn't have taken this long to remove the bad maps they had and some of their decisions are still head scratchers. What Winston Churchill said about Americans applies to Blizzard with their stance on maps.
Example of assholes who will never be satisfied. When they do get what they want, they complain that it took too long.
lol what? Most of the features people complain about should have been in the game from release, not months after. Chat rooms and customizable hotkeys are great examples of things that absolutely should have been in the game from release.
You're really coming off as a mindless fanboi. Blizzard can never do wrong! Of course! Everyone who gives criticism is a QQer! Criticism is bad! No one be constructive! No!
On March 12 2011 05:24 Buddhist wrote: lol what? Most of the features people complain about should have been in the game from release, not months after. Chat rooms and customizable hotkeys are great examples of things that absolutely should have been in the game from release.
You're really coming off as a mindless fanboi. Blizzard can never do wrong! Of course! Everyone who gives criticism is a QQer! Criticism is bad! No one be constructive! No!
But its been so long now that the point of "this should have been done earlier" isn't really..relevant anymore. Ok, it wasn't done. We all know. How could we not know? :p Is it really necessary to bring up "this is late" every time they do something? Its not that I think Blizzard isn't to blame or something like that, its just that we've all heard it 1000 times.
On March 12 2011 05:24 Buddhist wrote: lol what? Most of the features people complain about should have been in the game from release, not months after. Chat rooms and customizable hotkeys are great examples of things that absolutely should have been in the game from release.
You're really coming off as a mindless fanboi. Blizzard can never do wrong! Of course! Everyone who gives criticism is a QQer! Criticism is bad! No one be constructive! No!
But its been so long now that the point of "this should have been done earlier" isn't really..relevant anymore. Ok, it wasn't done. We all know. How could we not know? :p Is it really necessary to bring up "this is late" every time they do something? Its not that I think Blizzard isn't to blame or something like that, its just that we've all heard it 1000 times.
It's still relevant. Even if these were the best maps ever, SC2 is 8 months old already. And these maps have been around since beta. Proleague, MSL and OSL change their maps more frequently than this and only a select few maps stay longer.
The fact that the map pool isn't good just makes the problem worse. But 8 months is too long for a map pool to last. Blizzard should be changing them as often as the starleagues do. This new map pool shouldn't survive until October/November this year even if it's good.
On March 11 2011 19:55 Markus138 wrote: Kelly just said in the GSL that the GSL Maps are in the map pool. Does it mean that the maps are on some servers already in the ladder pool? I just checked EU - no changes there.
They are NOT in the map pool on the Korean server.
IMO, i think tal'darim is just a bit too large. Crevasse and Terminus are good, but Tal'Darim is with its massive 172x172 just too large. Shakuras is only 140x140 and after Tal'Darim Terminus is the largets map with 162x160. Although, alot of the space of Terminus is just open air and doesn't really ' count'.
On March 13 2011 08:15 ScrubS wrote: IMO, i think tal'darim is just a bit too large. Crevasse and Terminus are good, but Tal'Darim is with its massive 172x172 just too large. Shakuras is only 140x140 and after Tal'Darim Terminus is the largets map with 162x160. Although, alot of the space of Terminus is just open air and doesn't really ' count'.
Are people still thinking that this post is relevant? There has still been no word on the US blizzard website refering to the addition of the GSL maps into the ladder pool. One would think that since they talked about it in Korea they would here as well, unless they do not plan to actually add the maps in the US.
On March 17 2011 02:53 eVolvE342 wrote: Are people still thinking that this post is relevant? There has still been no word on the US blizzard website refering to the addition of the GSL maps into the ladder pool. One would think that since they talked about it in Korea they would here as well, unless they do not plan to actually add the maps in the US.
I think it's unlikely that servers will have different maps. I'm starting to wonder if these maps are ever going to debut, though... It'd been a long time. I'm guessing it's gonna be with 1.3, but who knows when that's going to happen..
I wish they just had same map selection as GSL, that way we can learn from watching the games. They can update every season :D Encourages ppl to watch GSL too!
Edit: I do not like the new bliz-made maps (slag pits etc), except shattered temple. Maybe i just need more practice on those i am not sure.
EPT
Better maps are always welcome and should make for some interesting game on ladder.
?
)
. We need more destructible rocks between mains Blizz. Make it happen. 
