EPTGSTL March new maps announced - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
LetoAtreides82
United States1188 Posts
| ||
|
GP
United States1056 Posts
Also I wish they stuck with Shakuras, it's a much better map than Metalopolis. | ||
|
Escapist
Portugal548 Posts
Im also wondering if any Blizzard representatives will be sit on the front row watching the matchups held at this new maps. They were on the previous GSTL so they might witness another success of the map creators over their "inhouse" maps. | ||
|
MoreFaSho
United States1427 Posts
On March 17 2011 14:53 KawaiiRice wrote: this is hardly the same... but I guess you don't know about the BW / SC2 drama otherwise you wouldn't post that >_> It's closer to teams having a DotA, HoN and a LoL team. As for the maps. I like Xel'Naga fortress in that it's a 3-player map and I like 3-player maps, but I think the map is a little too small to compensate for the directional imbalances and the main bases look too big IMO, but that doesn't mean I don't look forward to playing that map! | ||
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
On March 17 2011 22:32 GP wrote: No Coral Coast? I was really excited to see that one. Also I wish they stuck with Shakuras, it's a much better map than Metalopolis. As a viewer, there's only so many times you can watch the back door siege in TvZ on Shakuras before it just gets boring and tired. While I don't think it's really a bad map at all from my own games' perspective ( I've never played anyone anywhere near as good at that back door push as in GSL in ZvT obviously ), I feel like it always gives the same type of game every time in that horizontal spawns situation. Obviously, they could just force cross position spawns, but I kinda think it's just better to retire the map at that point because it's basically a 2 player map with 2 extra main bases at that point. Maybe I'm just crazy, but does anyone else feel like Dual Sight encourages 2/3 base play? I kinda don't see how I'd ever feel comfortable taking a 4th base in PvT or PvZ. Like, taking the gold base seems like it would be suicide. | ||
|
MoreFaSho
United States1427 Posts
On March 17 2011 16:17 RPR_Tempest wrote: Why remove Shakuras? Why add Typhon Peaks? Why not add Shattered Temple? 1) It's a bad map in close positions. 2) It's on ladder and seems good so far( although I don't like the path between the naturals through the rocks in vertical positions. 3) It's not a good map, it's marginal if you get rid of close positions, but it's actually aesthetically terrible and nowhere near as good as any of the other maps in the pool. | ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
On March 17 2011 23:57 MoreFaSho wrote: 1) It's a bad map in close positions. 2) It's on ladder and seems good so far( although I don't like the path between the naturals through the rocks in vertical positions. 3) It's not a good map, it's marginal if you get rid of close positions, but it's actually aesthetically terrible and nowhere near as good as any of the other maps in the pool. Your answers are contradictory. The path between the naturals on Typhon Peaks are narrower and shorter in length than between the mains on Shakura's. We will see even stronger siege pushes here  | ||
|
Ohdamn
Germany765 Posts
very sad... | ||
|
Slardar
Canada7596 Posts
![[image loading]](http://classic.battle.net/war3/images/ladder/maps/wetlands.jpg) | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On March 17 2011 23:49 ShadowWolf wrote: Maybe I'm just crazy, but does anyone else feel like Dual Sight encourages 2/3 base play? I kinda don't see how I'd ever feel comfortable taking a 4th base in PvT or PvZ. Like, taking the gold base seems like it would be suicide. Nope, also my first impression. Nevertheless there's nothing wrong with such maps in general. It's just that most of the Blizz maps were/are retarted in one way or the other BESIDE the size. I mean, just think about Blistering...the first thing that pops into your head should be ROCKS not "small", if you know what I mean. Dual Sight is a smaller map, but it seems like you could take and defend the third decently. | ||
|
DerNebel
Denmark648 Posts
| ||
|
Psycosquirrel
United States161 Posts
On March 18 2011 00:02 Gigaudas wrote: Your answers are contradictory. The path between the naturals on Typhon Peaks are narrower and shorter in length than between the mains on Shakura's. We will see even stronger siege pushes here I have a few points to counter this argument. 1. On SP, the ramps into the main are small. Like 1FF wide small. The ramps on TP are huge. The main difficulty with stopping the push on SP is that all your units are funneled into a small choke, and therefore killing the tanks becomes very difficult. On TP, the ramp is huge, which makes it much easier to counterattack the push. 2. The path connects naturals. You will already be concentrating your forces in the natural anyways, so your army is always in good position to defend against this push. Second, the terran natural is also exposed to counterattacks. On SP, Terran can just wall off his natural with 3 raxes, leaving him nearly invulnerable to counterattack. 3. While the path is shorter, the reinforcement path is just as long or longer. The attack path being shorter is also not much of an issue, since knocking down the rocks takes time in itself. | ||
|
SaetZero
United States855 Posts
...if its big enough anyway, that being too small could be really bad though. dual looks cool, and i dont like typhon that much but its not bad. overall: thumbs up ^^ | ||
|
MoreFaSho
United States1427 Posts
On March 18 2011 00:02 Gigaudas wrote: Your answers are contradictory. The path between the naturals on Typhon Peaks are narrower and shorter in length than between the mains on Shakura's. We will see even stronger siege pushes here No, the path on shakuras is particularly bad because it goes directly to your main, not just because there's a path with distance X. I agree that siege pushes will be strong through that path, but unlike on shakuras, since it doesn't go main to main you can actually counter attack. You don't have to blindly build a second spawning pool the second they start a push and you can even flank their main. Think about the geography of shakuras, if your'e in close positions through the rocks (which happens btw 1/2 the time vs 1/3 the time for typhon) and they're starting to push through, there's basically only a little akward angle to try to harass the main. I personally as a reasonably strong player would much rather defend a siege push on Typhon than on shakuras. | ||
|
Kazzabiss
1006 Posts
On March 17 2011 23:38 MoreFaSho wrote: It's closer to teams having a DotA, HoN and a LoL team. As for the maps. I like Xel'Naga fortress in that it's a 3-player map and I like 3-player maps, but I think the map is a little too small to compensate for the directional imbalances and the main bases look too big IMO, but that doesn't mean I don't look forward to playing that map! But the makers of HoN and LoL are not suing the DotA devs (Just being used as a comparison to Blizzard suing OGN and KeSPA) | ||
|
Baum
Germany1010 Posts
On March 18 2011 00:06 Slardar wrote: Typhon peaks looks exactly like that Warcraft 3, 2v2 map "Wetlands". There is a slight resemblance in the general layout but I don't think it's close actually. | ||
|
Hyren
United States817 Posts
| ||
|
eXwOn
Canada351 Posts
| ||
|
Toads
Canada1795 Posts
I hope this is because this is a new who should not get announce yet and it was a mistake by them to announce it yet. I can't see why Gom would have write this when this is not true and i can't see KT change his mind and say to Gom he wont sponsoring anymore | ||
|
LetoAtreides82
United States1188 Posts
On March 18 2011 00:02 Gigaudas wrote: Your answers are contradictory. The path between the naturals on Typhon Peaks are narrower and shorter in length than between the mains on Shakura's. We will see even stronger siege pushes here The rock paths in Shakuras leads to your main, while the ones in Typhon leads to your natural. Huge difference, with Typhon of course being the better option. | ||
| ||
