On April 17 2011 19:36 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Apparently this is actually the earliest beta version of Tal'Darim, so I guess its just a mistake and not intentional.

I highly doubt it. The first changes to Tal'Darim occurred even before GSTL and there were more changes made for GSL, NASL had enough time to reflect on their decision, test the maps and choose. Also - it is near imposible( I am sure they don't have the "wrong" version on their machines) to make a mistake like picking the wrong map and even if they did the referee would have ended the game before it started. Yes, mistakes happen, but this is not the case; NASL chose an old version of the map that was rejected by both GSL and Blizzard.

I realize there are several reasons to want to retract your criticism, but this doesn't change the fact that some of the decision making regarding the map pool is questionable.

TT1

Canada10045 Posts

April 17 2011 11:05 GMT

#183

if this was indeed a change made by nasl im interested in knowing who ordered this change, hopefully that person can come make a post and enlighten us on the balance advantages of having those 4 gold expos

ALPINA

3791 Posts

April 17 2011 11:09 GMT

#184

Dunno how for other races but for zergs all those rocks is just a nightmare. If I try to FE on Tal darim and toss cannon rushes me I cannot drop 3rd hatch unless it's miles aways on another main.

Usually on Tal darim toss gets his expansion earlier than zerg so zerg need to get 3rd fast if he wan't to keep up with toss, but it will take forever to kill those rocks. Not to mention you need to make good amount of lings early to even kill those.

Ragoo

Germany2773 Posts

April 17 2011 11:21 GMT

#185

On April 17 2011 18:21 NHY wrote:
So, it turns out that NASL changed Crevasse too. 3 things I noticed:

1) In-base expansion has 2 gas
2) Natural expansion has a rock
3) There a gold expansion

Just like when Crevasse first came out back in January. I guess NASL believes months of testing by progamers in korea and GOM means nothing.

Unlike some players, there are players in NASL who competes in other leagues which uses 'original' or 'standerd' version of these maps and viewers who follow them. At least call these maps something else so players and viewers are not confused.

Haha, this is even more ridiculous than the NASL Tal'Darim :D

So now we have Backwater Gulch and Crossfire which are pretty horrible, Metalopolis and Shattered Temple with close spawn (I hope I'm right about that), ridiculous versions of Terminus, Tal'Darim and Crevasse and the imo questionable Typhoon Peaks.
Thank god there is at least Xel'Naga in the map pool even if it will be played 99% of the time like always... but wait.., no veto system means people can't even decide to play this balanced map and have to play stupid maps most of the time...

Srsly NASL, this is the most ridiculous map pool I have seen since we moved away from Jungle Basin and Steppes of War and there is no reason why you would do that.
Please get in contact with pros and/or iCCup mapmaking team and let them figure out a good and fair map pool.

I see Protoss dominating so hard on these maps and for Zerg it's pretty horrible^^

eloist

United States1017 Posts

April 17 2011 11:24 GMT

#186

Somewhat off topic, but have there been games played on backwater gulch yet? I really like that map and would like to see how it holds up in pro play.

LunarC

United States1186 Posts

April 17 2011 11:28 GMT

#187

Thought process of the average reader:

1. Hm, a thread about map balance. Interesting!
2. Hm, an analysis of the current NASL map pool. Sounds credible.
3. This poster is giving out reasons for why the NASL version is less good. I don't want to think or analyze anything myself and his reasons seem good enough. I will vote that this map is worse.

Biased poll is biased.

pdd

Australia9933 Posts

April 17 2011 11:34 GMT

#188

On April 17 2011 20:24 eloist wrote:
Somewhat off topic, but have there been games played on backwater gulch yet? I really like that map and would like to see how it holds up in pro play.

Many. Just look through Days 1 through to 3.

Greenworld

93 Posts

April 17 2011 11:41 GMT

#189

Some people are a obsessed a little too much about ballance. PEOPLE TALKED about MAP BALLANCE IN SC1 too and nobody was this qq . A game with diversity in units/economy/development in the races it has can't be ballanced on ALL MAPS at ALL LEVELS of play. It's good to find a bigger diversity in map pool and see who is favored by certain terrains. You have to realize even now in bw there aren't perfect maps built all the time, some are better then other and it's good that we have complains about certain things and it would be good to keep this a constructive post.

In my opinion it is too easy for protoss to secure a natural and the 3'rd from zerg that can be taken without killing the rocks is putting him at a huge risk from air attacks+ the travel distance is huge, it shouldn't be that big in a map that would be ballanced in my eyes.

bashalisk

102 Posts

April 17 2011 11:42 GMT

#190

On April 15 2011 05:06 pycho wrote:
i missed day 2 of nasl but if this is true (4 gold expos +rocks LOL) then im not watching nasl anymore.

Overreacting is not cool anymore. Just grow up.

On topic, I find the Blizzard's edition of the map much more fluid, holds less surprises overall (I play random, if that clarifies my PoV at all). I'm not really sure how important a role the map played in iNcontrol's game, but I find that in the general case Blizzard's version is a little bit more stable. It'd be very interesting to hear NASL mapmakers' reasoning behind the changes, though.

hugman

Sweden4644 Posts

April 17 2011 12:04 GMT

#191

On April 17 2011 19:48 MorroW wrote:
seems like nasl is trying their best to eliminate all zergs from nasl. their map pool was pretty bad to begin with but to actually go ahead and modify them to make toss even stronger is just sad

i hope they realize its not too late to fix things :p

Don't worry :D
You'll beat Grubby and Artosis regardless of maps

Papulatus

United States669 Posts

April 17 2011 12:40 GMT

#192

I don't get why NASL would add maps that make Protoss STRONGER, when most pro Zergs, and most lower level Zergs (like a mid master Zerg that I am) feel like Protoss is strongly favored in this match up. Tournaments have the opportunity to fix this apparent imbalance by adding maps that are balanced, and yet NASL seems to be throwing away this chance.

Oh, well. I suppose we'll just have to see in the long run how these map changes work out. Although I foresee most Zergs doing very poorly as a result of the map choices of NASL.

Grumbels

Netherlands7032 Posts

April 17 2011 13:27 GMT

#193

This is such an odd mistake to make. I'm curious, have they uploaded and renamed the maps to "NASL Shattered Temple" and so on, similar as there are versions of GSL, ESL and MLG maps to be found? Because an admin still needs to host the game, so he has to deliberately sift through all the possible versions and then pick apparently the earliest and most outdated one? Are those even available anymore?

I wish NASL would consider a more balanced pool, including ICCUP maps and new GSL maps. It's good for them to let the GSTL be the place where new maps are introduced and then eventually the GSL and then MLG/NASL can use those maps, but given that there is a foreign mapmaking community too it's odd NASL isn't considering using, say, Neo Enigma. (do they use Testbug? - I thought not) I can understand how it might be annoying for Korean players to have to play foreign maps however.

brentsen

1252 Posts

April 17 2011 15:10 GMT

#194

On April 17 2011 20:24 eloist wrote:
Somewhat off topic, but have there been games played on backwater gulch yet? I really like that map and would like to see how it holds up in pro play.

Yes and those were some of the best games of NASL yet. BG is one of the better maps I think.

loveeholicce

Korea (South)785 Posts

April 17 2011 15:18 GMT

#195

I disagree with the complaint about making the natural's entrance smaller, its a lot better that way. Shattered temple drew so much flak from that new natural which blizzard made wider. Maybe forcefields are a little strong now, but how many games do u honestly think there will be where ZErg says "aah, i would have had this game if the natural was only a little bigger". My guess is none.

The most important thing is that a smaller entrance facilitates early expanding (like lost temple did), which is definitely a great thing. also the gold bases with the rocks were there in one of the earlier versions of Tal ' Darim.

Numy

South Africa35471 Posts

April 17 2011 15:21 GMT

#196

On April 17 2011 18:28 dezi wrote:
2 gas inbase? So why should i ever move out early on when i get free, nearly uncontested inbase expo. Thoses changes are just plain dumb and fit the whole NASL. Big annoucements but nothing more to come ... yet. I really hope they stop this crap and ask some mappers which know their job. Why don't get in contact with iCCup?

This uninformed rage is annoying. Seems like a mistake on their part. They used the super old version on US servers instead of latest GSL. This most likely comes from the unfamiliarity the organizers/players have with the map or they intentionally used old version. I find the latter hard to believe.

People stop saying they changed the map etc.

For anyone still doubting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182734
This is the topic made when GSL first announced the new maps. Here is a close up on Taldarim is you are too lazy to go look + Show Spoiler +

Here is Crevasse :+ Show Spoiler +

So stop theory crafting about the maps. GSL has already done all your theorycrafting and deemed them not worthy thus why we have our current versions.

r3clay

Netherlands137 Posts

April 17 2011 15:27 GMT

#197

another zerg crying.. ffs grow a bit up, maybe the map isn't in your favor because of the entrance.. but its rediculisly big so you can do whatever the fuck you want the first 20 minutes ingame.. if you still lose then..

you deserve to lose.. nothing to do with the size of the friggin ramp

ImmortalTofu

United States1254 Posts

April 17 2011 15:32 GMT

#198

On April 15 2011 10:02 Jayrod wrote:
God I can't even get away from the balance whining on the general forums now. So obnoxious

There isn't any imbalance whine about the RACES here, there is MAP imbalance whine. This map caters very very hard to the abilities and strengths of protoss, and I say this as a protoss main player. It isn't fair for tournament play.

Jinsho

United Kingdom3101 Posts

April 17 2011 15:35 GMT

#199

On April 18 2011 00:27 r3clay wrote:
another zerg crying.. ffs grow a bit up, maybe the map isn't in your favor because of the entrance.. but its rediculisly big so you can do whatever the fuck you want the first 20 minutes ingame.. if you still lose then..

you deserve to lose.. nothing to do with the size of the friggin ramp

^ The quality of an average Teamliquid poster.

Everyone who gave some good suggestions needs to remember that the map pool for S1 has already been determined. Any changes/comments will have to be saved for when S2 approaches.

obsidia

122 Posts

April 17 2011 15:37 GMT

#200

while I also agree with the Tal'Darim glaring problems, I think that close positions metalopolis needs to be addressed more fully; and is more strikingly unfavourable for zerg, if NASL intends to edit their own maps to their liking then why does incontrol admit that close positions metalopolis is "favoured towards protoss against zerg" and attempt to justify them not changing this map, when they have edited others.