EPTOn March 23 2011 00:14 Jayson X wrote:
Then the rocks make sense
Then the rocks make sense
I would love to hear your explanation for this.
Patch 1.3 Map Changes - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
I would love to hear your explanation for this. | ||
|
Treva
United States533 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
BlasiuS
United States2405 Posts
| ||
|
Overpowered
Czech Republic764 Posts
Shakuras changes are nice. But the worst thing is that they keep map like Delta Quadrant. Why?!? I have only 3 vetos and I have to play on this map  They could at least make Backwater fixed crosspawn, that would be excellent. | ||
|
setzer
United States3284 Posts
On March 22 2011 23:56 sleepingdog wrote: The reason why I'm being so negative is, that I don't expect changes to the mappool for a really....REALLY long time. Wouldn't be surprised at all if this setup stayed the same for the whole season 2. Unless there are bugs of course. I doubt it. I think Blizzard is going to slowly add more GSL maps to their pool and phase out some of the more detestable maps such as SS, DQ and Slag. They REALLY need to create separate map pools for the different ladders though. I don't know if I can stomach more dumb changes to high quality GSL maps. | ||
|
Archvil3
Denmark989 Posts
I think destructible rocks are great to add on maps as features like on Crevasse where you can make chokes larger or make new attack paths which serves great tactical purposes. But why is it that Blizzard keep using them to prevent people from expanding? Tal'Darim Altar is such a great map but what the hell is purpose of limiting tactics and preventing people from taking their 3rd? Shakuras Plateau is going to be a nightmare as well with only 1 attack path through the center. It seems that everytime Blizzard map makers is taking two steps forward they take at least one step backwards and I cannot grasp why we have to deal with this 8 months after release. So many talented map makers figured out how to make fun, beautiful and balanced maps a long time ago, how can it be so extremely hard for Blizzard to do the same? And why is it they keep making the same mistakes over and over again even when it's being pointed out so many times that it is horrible, and why do they insist on adding a million poorly positioned destructible rocks to prevent people from expanding on every map they get their hands on? | ||
|
Treehead
999 Posts
On March 23 2011 00:15 sleepingdog wrote: The only "treament" that can possibly save Slag Pits is complete removal. I'm totally against euthanasia, but Blizz has to relieve this poor map from its miserable existence. I don't think this is necessarily true. Terminus RE is a remake of an old Blizzard map, for example. The biggest impediment to maps like Slag Pits being saved is that the people running Blizzard's mapmaking crew are not in touch with what makes the great maps great and emulating that in other maps. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 22 2011 23:50 majestouch wrote: did you not read what i typed? they made shakuras worse (read my first post) yes they did, and they made it even worse (read my first post) they added the first version of the gsl map which was awfully imbalanced (read my first post) It's actually easier to attack those shakuras 6 & 12 by air, and they can't slow push you, which is the real problem. Having defendable expansions isn't that terrible. It's kind of difficult for protoss to take those expansions now anyway. Rocks on Tal-Darim are stupid though. I don't know why Blizzard hates third expansions so much... | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On March 23 2011 00:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Shakuras changes are not completely detestable on second glance, they did open the middle up a lot... But fuck, Taldarim! -__- Way to ruin it. You're being so negative and hateful of all things Blizzard lately. :o I think the rocks are a good addition, because I've seen various games where people get 3 bases up rather easily and then you might as well let the game start with 3 bases. For zerg too, I know that it is an advantage for them to be able to expand more, but I don't think anyone should want zerg to be balanced around a quick three bases. They can still get it, but they have to build some units first. Constantly droning up isn't fun, because if it ends up as your only option the race becomes one dimensional. I question the high armor the rocks have though, it seems like it hurts zerg more than other races. | ||
|
Treehead
999 Posts
On March 23 2011 00:28 Archvil3 wrote: I never understood why Blizzard is trying to prevent players from expanding. Apparently, Blizzard has it in their head that zerg becomes too powerful if expanding is too safe and easy. I can't say one way or another, because I've never seen a map where zerg could expand safely and easily and I could not, but that was their stated rationale IIRC. | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
On March 23 2011 00:28 Overpowered wrote: Rocks on Taldarim are bad, but it could be worse. Shakuras changes are nice. But the worst thing is that they keep map like Delta Quadrant. Why?!? I have only 3 vetos and I have to play on this map They could at least make Backwater fixed crosspawn, that would be excellent.New backwater isn't as bad as Delta Quad (for Protoss anyway), you can actually take your natural now | ||
|
setzer
United States3284 Posts
On March 23 2011 00:34 Grumbels wrote: You're being so negative and hateful of all things Blizzard lately. :o I think the rocks are a good addition, because I've seen various games where people get 3 bases up rather easily and then you might as well let the game start with 3 bases. For zerg too, I know that it is an advantage for them to be able to expand more, but I don't think anyone should want zerg to be balanced around a quick three bases. They can still get it, but they have to build some units first. Constantly droning up isn't fun, because if it ends up as your only option the race becomes one dimensional. I question the high armor the rocks have though, it seems like it hurts zerg more than other races. The changes to Tal'darim make it so turtle play is actually better (once you kill the rocks) because they changed the mineral amount. One of the unique features of GSL's version is that you are forced to continuously expand because of low-econ bases. Even if games end up not being too different or balance is unchanged, I still don't see the reason why Blizzard has to put the "destructible rock stamp" everywhere. | ||
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
On March 23 2011 00:35 Treehead wrote: Apparently, Blizzard has it in their head that zerg becomes too powerful if expanding is too safe and easy. I can't say one way or another, because I've never seen a map where zerg could expand safely and easily and I could not, but that was their stated rationale IIRC. How can you possibly say that a fast 3-bases could be too strong for Zerg when there are already builds that destroy a Zerg thats being too greedy? Maybe you'd have a point if there weren't 2-rax, 3-rax, 4-gate, 3-gate, 7 pool, etc builds. This would just make is possible for zerg to respond to a T or P FE build by taking an additional base instead of being forced into taking a risky 3rd or doing a 2-base timing. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 23 2011 00:34 Grumbels wrote: You're being so negative and hateful of all things Blizzard lately. :o I think the rocks are a good addition, because I've seen various games where people get 3 bases up rather easily and then you might as well let the game start with 3 bases. For zerg too, I know that it is an advantage for them to be able to expand more, but I don't think anyone should want zerg to be balanced around a quick three bases. They can still get it, but they have to build some units first. Constantly droning up isn't fun, because if it ends up as your only option the race becomes one dimensional. I question the high armor the rocks have though, it seems like it hurts zerg more than other races. I don't know. I think it unfavors zerg too much, as terran and protoss will actually have units to kill the rocks and good defenses. So Terran and Protoss can take fast thirds (as demonstrated by Jinro), but it slows down zerg significantly. Like does anyone here wonder what DQ would be like without the back-expansion rocks?? On March 23 2011 00:39 Dental Floss wrote: How can you possibly say that a fast 3-bases could be too strong for Zerg when there are already builds that destroy a Zerg thats being too greedy? Maybe you'd have a point if there weren't 2-rax, 3-rax, 4-gate, 3-gate, 7 pool, etc builds. This would just make is possible for zerg to respond to a T or P FE build by taking an additional base instead of being forced into taking a risky 3rd or doing a 2-base timing. Er... he wasn't saying that. He was saying that that is Blizzard's rationale. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On March 23 2011 00:35 Treehead wrote: Apparently, Blizzard has it in their head that zerg becomes too powerful if expanding is too safe and easy. I can't say one way or another, because I've never seen a map where zerg could expand safely and easily and I could not, but that was their stated rationale IIRC. Shakuras shows that on good maps this is simply not the case (don't worry, I didn't misunderstood you as somebody making a point in favour of more rocks). Shakuras demonstrated perfectly how a map with an easy to take 2nd and a semi-decently to take 3rd doesn't favour zerg at all since the other races profit immensely from an easy to take and defend third as well. In fact, I as a toss player LOVE maps that give me a "free" third (like shattered temple cross position) vs zerg. He can have the whole map, as long as I have my third (and the gold as fourth) I'm 100% happy. On March 23 2011 00:40 DoubleReed wrote: Like does anyone here wonder what DQ would be like without the back-expansion rocks?? Terrans would still tank-drop me, and I would still have it downvoted ~~ | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
On March 23 2011 00:39 Dental Floss wrote: How can you possibly say that a fast 3-bases could be too strong for Zerg when there are already builds that destroy a Zerg thats being too greedy? Maybe you'd have a point if there weren't 2-rax, 3-rax, 4-gate, 3-gate, 7 pool, etc builds. This would just make is possible for zerg to respond to a T or P FE build by taking an additional base instead of being forced into taking a risky 3rd or doing a 2-base timing. Um, good luck 3gating, 7pooling, 3/2raxing on Tal'Darim... 4gate I could see, but all you have to do is deny the pylon and it is game over Shakuras shows that on good maps this is simply not the case (don't worry, I didn't misunderstood you as somebody making a point in favour of more rocks). Shakuras demonstrated perfectly how a map with an easy to take 2nd and a semi-decently to take 3rd doesn't favour zerg at all since the other races profit immensely from an easy to take and defend third as well. In fact, I as a toss player LOVE maps that give me a "free" third (like shattered temple cross position) vs zerg. He can have the whole map, as long as I have my third (and the gold as fourth) I'm 100% happy. What "free" third do you get on the new ST? edit: NVM -.-, its almost 2am  I was thinking of Shakuras for some reason when you said Shattered | ||
|
Candles
United Kingdom103 Posts
On March 22 2011 22:48 TheTenthDoc wrote: That's a pretty disingenuous analogy. The current situation is more like Blizzard punching you in the face at a bar, then apologizing and offering to buy you a beer and you refusing. They returned Shakuras without the Terran Hallway of Doom, put in a GSL map with a tweak that doesn't matter much (though low armor rocks would have been better), and put in several much larger maps as well as fixing up Backwater Gulch. Not to mention that recently they removed Blistering Sands and Lost Temple, two maps that showed pretty bad imbalance. I think the situation is improving. Its not even like that. At no point did anyone get punched in the face. It's like someone buying you a drink and then you complaining cuz it wasn't the drink you wanted so they go back to the bar and get you the drink you wanted, but you're now complaining because there is Ice in it. What happened to the mature community I keep being told about from the Broadwar days? I think next time Blizz might not bother listening to the community (which they clearly did here), because no matter what they do there are people who will complain. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for constructive criticism and that is on a Battlenet forum and it should be done in a constructive way and not just whining and pretending Blizz it out to screw you all over. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On March 23 2011 00:40 Dommk wrote: Um, good luck 3gating, 7pooling, 3/2raxing on Tal'Darim... 4gate I could see, but all you have to do is deny the pylon and it is game over To be honest, I think 6 pools could be really strong on Tal'Darim in ZvP since many toss players might try a 15 Nex. And on this map it's literally impossible to get an early scouting of if you scout in the wrong direction. | ||
|
doctorwho
Canada1 Post
nice additions tho | ||
| ||
