|
On April 18 2011 00:37 obsidia wrote:
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.
They didn't edit anything. Why does everything have to be a jab at Incontrol with people?
|
By adding rocks to every base other than a main or natural, they just limit the amount of scouting you have to do if you suspect a hidden base, I just don't get it? On the golds fair enough, but I don't think they should be there either ^^
|
Seriously. Including Backwater Gulch in the map pool is analogous to including Steppes of War.
And there's a damn good reason why the in base expo on Crevasse doesn't have 2 gas in other versions of the map. There's no chance for either of the races to be able to pressure Protoss.
Playing standard vs. forge FE protoss on normal maps is cringeworthy as it is (but doable). However, with the protoss having to make none of the sacrifices and investments in the form of extra forge/canons/gateways that they usually have to make in order to survive, turns the games into true lotteries for both Terran and Zerg.
The fact that the in base expansion has fewer mineral patches and one gas geyser on Crevasse than on normal maps, is the very reason Protoss are forced to go out on any sort of limb and actually put themselves in risk of losing (through being pressured to take the more dangerous expo earlier).
As for Tal'darim: If there's a protoss in the matchup, do you really think any other race will be abe to make use of the center gold expansions (without already having won the game, or having a huuuge lead)? Why do you think they got removed in the first place? They're expansions only Protoss can hold.
With an experienced player like incontrol on the NASL-team, I can't believe there weren't major objections raised on the shittyness of the map pool. But maybe it's true after all that he's not involved in many of the inner workings of NASL (as was already stated about the application process etc).
If not incontrol, then you'd at least expect someone as involved in the community as Xeris to react. Backwater Gulch??? Really? I'm honestly interested in knowing who in the NASL-team came up with the idea of including Backwater Gulch in the map pool, and how the subsequent discussion around its suitability sounded.
Bashing Blizzard for Steppes of War, Delta Quadrant, Incineration Zone, etc... But then emulating Blizzard.
There are still plenty of good maps, and the maps will still produce plenty of good games. But this small and easily fixable annoyance will be another factor that pushes every livereport and normal thread about NASL into flame fests rather than having them be focused on the games and the players.
|
After Blizzard changed Backwater Gulch I think its a great map. Atm I havnt heard a single good reason as to why its bad.
|
On April 15 2011 10:04 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 09:56 yoplate wrote:
So many destructible rocks. Why do map designers feel the need to throw destructible rocks everywhere they think they can get away with? Rocks just slow down expanding strategies (especially zerg ones) and make the game more boring. Your expansion timing should be dictated by what your opponent is doing, not by some random map maker. According to iNcontrol on NASL, he loves rocks blocking expos. He says it rewards the player who prepares. I suppose that's fine for a turtle style protoss. Also he thinks close positions on metal is fine, and gretorp said people just need to adapt to it. Also trying to defend backwater gulch choice.
Where did they say this?
|
On April 18 2011 01:06 LaLuSh wrote:
Seriously. Including Backwater Gulch in the map pool is analogous to including Steppes of War.
And there's a damn good reason why the in base expo on Crevasse doesn't have 2 gas in other versions of the map. There's no chance for either of the races to be able to pressure Protoss.
Playing standard vs. forge FE protoss on normal maps is cringeworthy as it is (but doable). However, with the protoss having to make none of the sacrifices and investments in the form of extra forge/canons/gateways that they usually have to make in order to survive, turns the games into true lotteries for both Terran and Zerg.
The fact that the in base expansion has fewer mineral patches and one gas geyser on Crevasse than on normal maps, is the very reason Protoss are forced to go out on any sort of limb and actually put themselves in risk of losing (through being pressured to take the more dangerous expo earlier).
As for Tal'darim: If there's a protoss in the matchup, do you really think any other race will be abe to make use of the center gold expansions (without already having won the game, or having a huuuge lead)? Why do you think they got removed in the first place? They're expansions only Protoss can hold.
With an experienced player like incontrol on the NASL-team, I can't believe there weren't major objections raised on the shittyness of the map pool. But maybe it's true after all that he's not involved in many of the inner workings of NASL (as was already stated about the application process etc).
If not incontrol, then you'd at least expect someone as involved in the community as Xeris to react. Backwater Gulch??? Really? I'm honestly interested in knowing who in the NASL-team came up with the idea of including Backwater Gulch in the map pool, and how the subsequent discussion around its suitability sounded.
Bashing Blizzard for Steppes of War, Delta Quadrant, Incineration Zone, etc... But then emulating Blizzard.
There are still plenty of good maps, and the maps will still produce plenty of good games. But this small and easily fixable annoyance will be another factor that pushes every livereport and normal thread about NASL into flame fests rather than having them be focused on the games and the players.
Why is BG so bad, i mean since the fix is ok i think. It has its dicciculties, but has its ups for Z as well, i for one would pick it over Typhoon peaks for exemple any day.
|
NASL didn't edit or change any of the maps, they're using the original (outdated and imbalanced) pre-GSL versions of the maps.
I'm guessing they prepared the mapfiles back when NASL was in its planning stages. Whoever was in charge of downloading and republishing the maps to the NA server must of got them back in December/January, or mistakenly downloaded the oldest versions.
It's not just Tal'darim Altar that is outdated. I believe all of their maps are using older versions, here are some of the differences
Crevasse - NASL version has 2 hex wide ramp, new one is 4 hex wide w/ rocks covering half. The ramps at the center are positioned differently. New version has 1 gas on the in-base natural, and no rocks at your third expo.
Crossfire SE - has been updated a couple times, aesthetic changes for the most part.
Terminus SE - NASL uses an old version of Terminus RE, which is MUCH different than SE. Terminus SE has a ramp w/ rocks at the third expansions. The main's are also much smaller and natural choke point is different.
Note: This isn't a complete list, I just compared the NASL and current GSL versions myself, so some of the changes are missing.
Almost all of the outdated Gisado maps had flaws that made Protoss imbalanced. The current versions of each map are far better than before; the changes were necessary. It's very disappointing to see NASL using the oldest verions of each map, it's bad for the players, the viewers, and their reputation. I think they need to update the maps that haven't been played yet ASAP, using these maps for the next 3 months is ridiculous.
Something else worth noting is they removed Scrap Station and Shakuras Plateau. Why does Zerg seem to always have it so hard?
|
I Do not mind the version of the maps, though I wish they would balance it out between Zerg/Protoss/Terran favored maps so at least everyone has to test there mantle in unfavorable situations.
|
|
|
On April 18 2011 02:02 lysergic wrote:
Something else worth noting is they removed Scrap Station and Shakuras Plateau. Why does Zerg seem to always have it so hard?
Shakuras and Scrap are both really hard maps for Zerg. ZvP at least. Shakuras isn't bad ZvT.
|
On April 18 2011 01:16 DaCruise wrote:
After Blizzard changed Backwater Gulch I think its a great map. Atm I havnt heard a single good reason as to why its bad.
It's under-rated on cross spots. When I heard NASL was including the map, I was intrigued. I'd assumed they'd set it to not allow close spawns, since that's a blatently obvious thing to do (and even Blizzard has been dropping hint that Tournaments should disable close spawns, because that allows Blizz to cater to rush-liking non-pros while still having decent maps for tourneys to use).
With close positions enabled, it's pretty bad.
|
Yay they are updating the maps. Now it's much better.
Still no Terminus SE though. Does changing one letter of the name make it a different map and not a new version?
link
|
On April 18 2011 11:26 coolcor wrote:Yay they are updating the maps. Now it's much better. Still no Terminus SE though. Does changing one letter of the name make it a different map and not a new version? link
I'm glad they reacted but it's still an issue that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
|
On April 18 2011 11:26 coolcor wrote:Yay they are updating the maps. Now it's much better. Still no Terminus SE though. Does changing one letter of the name make it a different map and not a new version? link
While obviously good changes, I'm confused at the lack of anything about BG. Are they removing close spawns from Metal and Shattered, but leaving them on for BG? That's a a little insane. Are they removing BG from the pool entirely? That would make me sad, because it had potential as a "medium-sized" map.
Is Shattered Temple with no close spawns considered the best map for Zerg in the NASL pool, by the way?
|
United States7481 Posts
I hope NASL knows that the versions of GSL maps used by TSL are no longer current.
|
On April 18 2011 12:01 Antoine wrote:
I hope NASL knows that the versions of GSL maps used by TSL are no longer current.
Yeah 
I got disappointed when I read on the Map Updates news post that they were using the TSL versions, as GSL has already moved on especially with the new version of Terminus that they've been using.
|
On April 18 2011 02:29 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 02:02 lysergic wrote:
Something else worth noting is they removed Scrap Station and Shakuras Plateau. Why does Zerg seem to always have it so hard? Shakuras and Scrap are both really hard maps for Zerg. ZvP at least. Shakuras isn't bad ZvT.
I haven't heard that. I haven't heard of a major problem with shakuras for either race, but Scrap station is a bit difficult for protoss vs zerg, and a bit difficult for zerg vs terran.
|
Why would NASL try make their own map changes?
Just use the standards that are already out there, making your own edits is just asking for trouble.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
For clarity all of the NASL versions of the GSL maps are outdated/unbalanced. They are the original maps that were downloaded for GCPL and not changed/updated since. NASL did not edit maps beyond adding branded loading screens.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 18 2011 12:49 Subversion wrote:
Why would NASL try make their own map changes?
Just use the standards that are already out there, making your own edits is just asking for trouble.
I don't believe that was the issue. I think whoever uploaded the NASL Official versions just didn't know about the different versions, and picked the original Blizzard ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
