EPTNASL's Tal'darim Altar review - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Hikko
United States1126 Posts
| ||
|
cyprin
United States1105 Posts
cyprinsc @88iNcontroL What about the maps? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=212685#1 88iNcontroL Geoff Robinson @cyprinsc Spoke to the admins about maps.. we will see if they want to change it. Have to remember: Some tourneys use different maps though! | ||
|
mprs
Canada2933 Posts
The rocks are not an issue because Ensnare had ample amount of time of destroying them throughout the game when he was ahead. In fact, Tal'darim gave him enough space to get a decent concave, probably better than most of the other maps. It could be something they fix for next season, but TBH I don't think the issue brought up are really big advantages to Protoss to warrant chaos. Every map is favored towards some race, and the favorness towards Protoss in this map is not more than any other map favors any other race. Ensnare had many options to win the game but did not act upon his lead correctly. That is all that needs to be said. If other PvX on this map show a similar trend as you describe, then it can be evaluated at season end. I don't think panic is warranted at this time. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On April 15 2011 08:42 chuDr3t4 wrote: I know there wasn't ever rocks from main to nat. Hmm. I was going by this post: On April 15 2011 05:31 Antoine wrote: it's not a new version, it's like the very original version LS made if you go back and look at the 1st screeenshots or 1st games on Gisado, it's this map Since it's from someone with the TLPD sign and they know their maps/information pretty well. You may be right, but I'm just skeptical off all the "they changed everything!!" | ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
88iNcontroL Geoff Robinson @cyprinsc Spoke to the admins about maps.. we will see if they want to change it. Have to remember: Some tourneys use bad maps though! There, fixed that for Geoff! | ||
|
MagnusHyperion
United States288 Posts
I would like to remind all of us of that fact that cannot determine map balance from neither one match nor theory-crafting. We would need about 20-25 games per match-up (withstanding mirrors) of randomly selected professional players to even begin to create definite statistical claims about map balance. Additionally, speculation about the mechanics of game play are pointless. As above, you need actual raw data. You can't call the map imbalanced because of the possibility of force field nor because of rocks. As for discussion and speculation of the decision to use this map, I would like to point out some possible points. Primarily, perhaps the map was chosen incorrectly during creation? Human error in map selection in the heat of battle or casting is not too far fetched. Or, alternatively, perhaps the NASL's internal testing found that map produced superior games? Don't think these men are bumbling idiots, I am sure they internally tested their map selection based on viewer preference and professional player opinion. Thus, we may not know their reasoning but the map decision could have firm grounding. Just some things to keep in mind ^__^ | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
From a protoss standpoint there are many things i dont like about it and I don't even think it is that good for toss but in fact it's a pretty easy map for terran to win on imo. - scouting time is too long. Even if you scout fast, say 9 scout for toss you will scout their base very late. Too late against some stuff like korean 10 warpgate sometimes. - no ramp and a wide entrance to the main. This is horrible for PvP and bad in other matchups too. - natural is too easy to siege. Siege tanks are crazy strong especially as terran spawns on a clockwise position compared to you. Playing like MVP on this map and doing a 2 base marine, tank push is near impossible to hold here in both TvZ and TvP. Lots of the GSL maps are crap imo. They are similar to sc:bw maps but what worked there doesn't work well in sc2. In sc2 3 running bases is the max that is useful thus any map with 3 easy bases tends to lead to camping games. Huge 4 player maps also mean scouting positions takes too long imo, sc:bw didn't have the warpgate mechanism so any cheese was scoutable around your main, in sc2 scouting your opponents main quickly is more important. The best maps by far are xel naga, metalopolis (preferably no close spawn) and the new shakuras imo. A medium size, multiple attack paths, semi-open battlefields and a easy natural but not too easy third makes for the best and most balanced sc2 maps imo. | ||
|
seiferoth10
3362 Posts
| ||
|
The Final Boss
United States1839 Posts
Then Blizzard decided that they would add rocks to the third base of Tal'Darim; that change makes no sense in my opinion personally. The point of the map is to have a map that you can macro on without having to fear super all-in style play. That's the reason for the map, so why then did Blizzard have to add those rocks? You had a great map that allowed for a early 3rd and possibly 4th (something that isn't present in any of the crap-tastic maps Blizzard has ever made (Blistering Sands, Jungle Basin, Metal close spawns, ect.; take your pick). Of course Blizzard decided to change that, as it would make any player who would prefer to play a macro game. Those rocks seriously slow down your third and in turn slow down your fourth. Of course that's just my hatred of Blizzard maps; now on to the map this thread is about: I hate the new Tal'Darim. Basically Blizzard took the GSL Tal'Darim and took away some of the best features of it. Then NASL took Blizzard's map and made it even worse. Maybe I'm crazy, but I like maps that have expos that you can take fairly easily beyond the natural. I mean that's the problem with most of Blizzard's maps--you can get two bases fairly easily, but any bases after that are so difficult to secure if they even exist that there is no reason to not do a 2 Base Timing Push. Then you have rocks at expansions which hinders a player's macro. I play Terran and I personally like to play a more Mech based army instead of the usual Bio style. I don't know if any of you have played that style, but have fun breaking down rocks to get another base when most of your army is concentrated in Siege Tanks and Hellions. That being said I really like rocks. I think they make the maps dynamic which wasn't seen as much in BW. That being said, they should be placed like they are on Crevasse, where they add more routes later in the game that increase the scouting distance early in the game adding more macro sense to the game. All I can say is that I think that if map makers want to use rocks in maps, they should look at Crevasse as a guide on how to use rocks. Why? Because having backdoor rocks or blocking expos with rocks are both bad ideas that take away from a good map. I like rocks blocking gold bases or maybe 4th bases, but you should be able to get your natural and your third without having to kill rocks Also, as far as other maps that have been changed, I think I noticed some differences on Terminus RE. I could be wrong but something about the map looked different. | ||
|
Babru
196 Posts
We dont care about which map was the original version etc, all we know is this particular version sucks, for obvious reasons. Dont get me started on the rest of the mappool. | ||
|
Oreo7
United States1647 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
It will be lol when Zerg plays on this version against Protoss, and I don't even believe ZvP is imbalanced in general. | ||
|
ihavetofartosis
1277 Posts
Watch yesterdays games, and note the time Ensare tries to put pressure on Incontrol to not let him get his death ball. The pressure was instantly negated by casting 3 forcefields and a-moving his colossus. Then proceeding to sit in his base until maxed and wins. This does not lead to exciting matches, at least not for me, to see a guy able to sit in his 3 bases for 20 minutes without any chance of ground harassment. Please use the Official version or GSLs. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On April 15 2011 09:02 ihavetofartosis wrote: What a terrible version of the map. A choke leading to 3 expansions able to be forcefielded with a couple sentries??? Who thought this was a good idea. Watch yesterdays games, and note the time Ensare tries to put pressure on Incontrol to not let him get his death ball. The pressure was instantly negated by casting 3 forcefields and a-moving his colossus. Then proceeding to sit in his base until maxed and wins. This does not lead to exciting matches, at least not for me, to see a guy able to sit in his 3 bases for 20 minutes without any chance of ground harassment. Please use the Official version or GSLs. Well the original map makers and Blizzard apparently thought it was a great idea considering this is the original Gisado version of the map! Though they should have updated it... | ||
|
Scrandom
Canada2819 Posts
| ||
|
Kazzabiss
1006 Posts
btw I think NASL should try out some iCCup maps. ^.^ | ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
. I don't know if any of you have played that style, but have fun breaking down rocks to get another base when most of your army is concentrated in Siege Tanks and Hellions The exact number eludes me since i usually have a few marines shooting the rocks as well, but somewhere around 2 siege tanks kill rocks before the CC is finished building. I can tell you that from DQ experience where i often take the backdoor as a third. a handfull marines and 2 siege tanks are more than enough to clear the room (which is usually what i leave at home for drop protection when i move out with my main army). Protoss have zealots and stalkers who are decently suited to take out rocks at high speed as well, but they can't float their nexus so they might have some room to complain (but honestly not a lot). The only race which can whine about rocks are zerg because they might want to take it immediatly if they see their opponent going for a FE, and 6 zerglings really aren't going to cut it against a block (rocks, debris whatever you want to call it). On topic: while i would prefer a different edition (frankly i'd prefer Ladder Edition maps, because i know those best) but they published the list of maps they'd be using a few weeks ago so that the players could prepare. Changing them now while the tournament is running isn't an ideal solution either. They definitly should listen to the feedback for next season, but I don't agree with changing the rules during a running tournament unless some kind of true emergency makes it necessary (e.g. exploit found in the rulebook which ruins the entire tournament and needs to be fixed asap). | ||
|
dvide
United Kingdom287 Posts
On April 15 2011 08:56 seiferoth10 wrote: Just want to point out that this IS the GSL version. There was the original GSL version (which is this one), and then the Blizzard version. Later on, the GSL adopted the Blizzard version (with the rock at the third). No it's not. While it's true that the GSL is now using the Blizzard version, the version used in the NASL with gold bases was never used at the GSL. It was used during the original gisado tournament thing prior to the first GSTL, when they were testing new maps out, but they continually tweaked them. About a week before the GSTL started they removed all of the gold expos and all rocks blocking expansions. They made the same changes to Crevasse (which used to have rocks blocking the inbase expansion) and Terminus RE, as it was generally decided that rocks blocking expos was a horrible mechanic. So the fact that NASL is using such an early version of the map is just bizarre. | ||
|
MMello
279 Posts
| ||
|
Juffalo
United States155 Posts
Not too keen on the gold expansions. One thing I do like is the destructable rocks in the choke between the main and natural. Makes a 15 hatch into roach opener much more viable in ZvZ therefore improving the matchup drastically. So at first glance I like the changes but I h net scrutinized the map too much. | ||
| ||
