|
Spoilers from NASL day 2.
Hello StarCraft Fans and NASL's viewers,
I don't require dicussion about the game balance in this thread, only about one map's balance.
At first when I saw the NASL's mappool, I found it good, except crossfire which looks (and proved to be) a horrible maps for zergs against protoss.
But, after I saw the third game of EGincontrol vs oGsEnsnare, I was shocked by the NASL's Tal'Darim Altar. This map is A JOKE.
While blizzard changed original Tal'Darim Altar by expanding the natural's ramp and the natural's entrance to make ForceFields and and 3 3x3 buildings (for example forge gate cybernetic) less effective and more balanced, the NASL even reduced the original space to make protoss EVEN stronger.
They also added 4 gold expands near the middle of the map and destructible rocks at all the bases which aren't main or natural bases. Those rocks are a very good advantage for protosses which don't really need to take multiple expands at one time and prefer to have all their units together.
The rocks at the gold bases even helped incontrol in a fight against ensnare where forcefield + rocks prevented Ensnare of making a good concave with his heavy marauders/marines force. For a zerg, those rocks could even be worst than for a terran like ensnare (while being against a protoss) since zergs need an even better concave than terrans because roach's range is inferior than terran units.
I didn't (yet) notice changes on the other NASL maps that's why I only talk about Tal'Darim Altar but if you noticed something different, you can still talk about it here.
Maybe I'm alone to find it as a bad change but if you don't aggree with my analysis, please explain your statement. If most people aggree with me, I hope NASL's people will see the poll and change the map.
Cordially,
Cosmos
Poll: The NASL's Tal'Darim Altar...isn't as good as the Blizzard's map (692) 93% is better than the Blizzard's map (51) 7% 743 total votes Your vote: The NASL's Tal'Darim Altar... (Vote): isn't as good as the Blizzard's map
(Vote): is better than the Blizzard's map
Poll: If you don't have an opinionI voted on the other poll. (216) 63% I don't have an opinion about these maps. (126) 37% 342 total votes Your vote: If you don't have an opinion (Vote): I don't have an opinion about these maps.
(Vote): I voted on the other poll.
Edit: second poll as required.
|
poll needs an indifferent option, imo.
|
Well, if your are indifferent, you don't need to vote^^
|
dunno why they tried to change one of, if not THE best map currently in competitive play. only thing i would change is take out the rocks on 2nd nat so its like GSL version
|
i missed day 2 of nasl but if this is true (4 gold expos +rocks LOL) then im not watching nasl anymore.
|
Well, if you're indifferent your opinion still is pretty important. What if 90% of people are indifferent, 8% say NASL's is worse, and only 2% say Blizzard's is worse. Then in your poll it seems heavily in favor against NASL, but in reality the point is more or less moot.
Change the poll.
|
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.
I'm slightly concerned with the map too, but... seriously?
One bad map in the map pool means not watching the entire league any more? Because, in BW there were no bad maps, and in SC2 before now, the maps were WAY better.
Like Scrap Station.
Or Steppes.
Good maps right guys?
(Full disclosure: I actually don't like Tal'darim too much in general)
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
Although ensnare reacted poorly to inc's phoenix Colo composition (not enough Vikings and no ghosts), I think the changes definitely favour Protoss.
|
Tal'darim is too big and it doesn't need gold expo IMO
|
I'm so sick of rocks in general. Just look at the backwater gulch rocks next to the natural which just SCREAMS void ray imbalance.
|
On April 15 2011 05:03 GriNn wrote:
poll needs an indifferent option, imo.
Agreed. Let's add the option of "Backwater Gulch is in the pool, wtf?"
|
Sounds a lot like the original GSL tal'darim before it was heavily changed. If that is true, then I can't believe the NASL is using a map that was found to be heavily imbalanced through GSL's testing. Definitely the worse version, next to Blizzard's.
I don't understand why each tournament uses not only a different version, but an inferior version. This is a bad decision by NASL and it needs to be fixed asap.
|
I like the NASL so far in general but the maps are really weird. Backwater Gulch? Really? Then they take a pretty good map and throw rocks pretty much everywhere. That's really my only complaint about NASL.
|
Hmm, I think it was more of Ensnare not waiting for ghost or not getting ghost fast enough. Dont forget that fighting in constrain area will also give EMP a large advantage. If you were watching the game, you would notice that Ensnare finished mobius factor and had ghost walking on their way. If he could of just waited to engage, I think it could of been a totally different fight. He also had a pretty decent concave. Of course the surrounding had some factor but I dont think it matter as much.
But honestly, it just very hard to engage a protoss player are this point since without a doubt, protoss late game > terran late game simply cause it easyer to control and a-move collosi. Iono, I dont wana blame the map because it a pretty good map overall and the center is relatively open. All I am saying is if ensnare had just waited for his ghost he could of probably changed the entire game. Also, ensnare at all the watch tower as well. He would have the advantage ad defending since he could easily planed a flank or prepare an even better concave.
Simply put, I think the map is fine.
|
It doesnt seems so bad by the looks of it, it's still very playable and I dont think the balance will tilt towards anyone badly because of it.
The problem as I see it however is making too many different versions of the same map. You can miss a hole in your wall-in because the choke is one size in version 1,2,4 and 6 but you happened to be playing on version 5 for the first time, where they made the choke one size bigger. Sure one should be able to adapt but one should also get comfortable with a map that you played 100 times and not lose games because version 7 has some slightly different and easily overlooked features then previous versions.
And I dont see why they wanted to change Tal'Darim altar in the first place, the first 2 versions are both great and didnt need to be changed at all.
|
I don't think backwater gulch is as bad as crossfire.
|
On April 15 2011 05:16 Cosmos wrote:
I don't think backwater gulch is as bad as crossfire.
You're terran, that's why.
|
i dont know why they changed the map like this. was something wrong with blizzard and gsl tal darim?
|
There are too many different versions being used throughout the leagues and ladder, we need one version and stick with it.
|
I'm glad I wasn't going crazy. I was like wait this must be a new version, it looks like the original GSL version, but wait wild rocks have appeared everywhere.
|
On April 15 2011 05:16 Cosmos wrote:
I don't think backwater gulch is as bad as crossfire.
I agree, if only because Backwater doesn't lead to 100+ posts in the Live Report Thread about "wtf this gamma/glow is way too high fix it this is worse than MLG wtf." Plus we got to see that super-cute qxc reaper-medivac play.
|
I think the map change was detrimental, and makes it unnecessarily favor Protoss. Blizzard's map is fine.
|
On April 15 2011 05:11 infinity21 wrote:
Although ensnare reacted poorly to inc's phoenix Colo composition (not enough Vikings and no ghosts), I think the changes definitely favour Protoss.
He had ghosts, but they came too late.
|
On April 15 2011 05:18 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 05:16 Cosmos wrote:
I don't think backwater gulch is as bad as crossfire. You're terran, that's why.
As a terran I don't have problems with crossfire in fact. It's just after that I saw darkforce vs cruncher or grubby vs moon on this map that I now find it EXTREMELY unbalanced for zergs vs protoss.
|
What do you expect from a tournament run by iNcontrol?
Jokes aside... yes, it's terrible. Easy expansions to hold for both terran (siege tanks) and protoss (forcefield + collosi), impossible to hold for zerg.
|
ensnare was way to passive on tal'darim, he also could of destroyed the gold rocks, in fact I was hoping he would. He just played bio completely wrong in every way. I kind of like the gold minerals in the middle personally, although I think they are only really useful for terran (mass mule), maybe zerg.
|
Didn't they also add a destructible rocks to the entrance to your main? Wouldn't that be anti-force field? 0_o
Natural ramp wasn't that small. Still needed 2-3 FF to deal with (iNc used 4 when Ensnare poked). That probably still favors Protoss, but keep in mind they're are 2 entrances to your natural. Ensnare only went up one. If he had done a dual pronged attack, iNcontrol would have been dead.
Adding all of those Gold bases doesn't really effect anyone, since you can only take the middle if you're ahead.
This map is not a joke, what a biased OP :/
|
it wasn't the map... ensnare just didn't take advantage of his advantage if that makes sense.
|
United States7481 Posts
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
|
Why try and be fancy with their own mods, just use the Blizzard map which has undergone testing.
|
From what I could tell they added rocks at the main choke making it really tiny, rocks on every expansion except nats, and 4 gold expansions in the middle of the map.
It's really strange that they would just make their own version of the map like that.
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
Oh ok then they just screwed up completely
|
On April 15 2011 05:22 Cosmos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 05:18 Offhand wrote:On April 15 2011 05:16 Cosmos wrote:
I don't think backwater gulch is as bad as crossfire. You're terran, that's why. As a terran I don't have problems with crossfire in fact. It's just after that I saw darkforce vs cruncher or grubby vs moon on this map that I now find it EXTREMELY unbalanced for zergs vs protoss.
What? In either of those series did they utilize brood lords or infesters which are amazing on that map... no, well actually moon did and that is how he won. But really how does a terran comment about a match up he doesn't play? i mean seige tanks are just as good as forcefeilds and let me tell you this... fungal is amazing on that map....
|
On April 15 2011 05:14 setzer wrote:
Sounds a lot like the original GSL tal'darim before it was heavily changed. If that is true, then I can't believe the NASL is using a map that was found to be heavily imbalanced through GSL's testing. Definitely the worse version, next to Blizzard's.
I don't understand why each tournament uses not only a different version, but an inferior version. This is a bad decision by NASL and it needs to be fixed asap.
Yeah, you can even see the blue honeycomb of the original Amoroso (which had become green by the time it was used in the Gom team league).
|
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
Well the OP also thinks crossfire is imba for protoss against zerg.
|
Tournaments REALLY need to stop using old maps that have new versions. Old Tal Darim and Terminus Re are pretty imba.
|
They're using an old version of Crossfire too - though I think the differences are mostly aesthetic.
|
United Kingdom38193 Posts
It was an awful game, and that version of the map is...not so good.
|
It kinda seems like a huge oversight if they aren't using the right map versions. What do you suppose they do from here? I would think they have to switch them out, there are some significant differences
|
The real problem here is that Ensnare didn't play the map the way he should have. Maybe the map needs to change maybe it doesn't, but you have to play the map you're on at the time, and Ensnare just way over produced his marine/marauder army which was basically the worst possible composition for that situation.
Change the map if it needs to be changed, but it doesn't change the fact that there are a ton of things Ensnare could've done differently to win that game.
|
On April 15 2011 05:40 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
Tournaments REALLY need to stop using old maps that have new versions. Old Tal Darim and Terminus Re are pretty imba.
Thanks for bringing up Terminus, I had forgot they are using the old version of that too.
This is making NASL look like a joke. They have had ample time to change their map pool to the more balanced versions. If I remember, Terminus RE was also found to be heavily imbalanced in favor of protoss. If NASL continues to use the outdated versions for the entire season (3 months!) then that will definitely factor into my decision to purchase a ticket for season 2.
|
On April 15 2011 05:46 floor exercise wrote:
It kinda seems like a huge oversight if they aren't using the right map versions. What do you suppose they do from here? I would think they have to switch them out, there are some significant differences
The map pool is constantly changing per group as the tournament moves forward.
|
i guess ensnare got a little impatient there picking such a wrong battlefield.
He knew his lead was rapidly diminishing and he prolly thought that would be only chance he would catch incontrol's army out of the ramp before it maxed (which practically was at max).
As far as map goes, I find it absolutely stupid having high yield in Tal'darim. It's already big and so many expos all over the map. Destructible rocks werent meant to impede the battle in such a way but it was just poor but somewhat understandable choice by ensnare.
|
On April 15 2011 05:48 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 05:46 floor exercise wrote:
It kinda seems like a huge oversight if they aren't using the right map versions. What do you suppose they do from here? I would think they have to switch them out, there are some significant differences The map pool is constantly changing per group as the tournament moves forward.
What? It's still a fixed map pool even if it rotates. Everyone still plays on Taldarim if they haven't yet. Do some guys play on a different version than others? Even if one favors their race more than another. Or do we keep playing an inferior version?
|
On April 15 2011 05:47 SnuggleZhenya wrote:
The real problem here is that Ensnare didn't play the map the way he should have. Maybe the map needs to change maybe it doesn't, but you have to play the map you're on at the time, and Ensnare just way over produced his marine/marauder army which was basically the worst possible composition for that situation.
Ensnare may have played it wrong in your opinion (I wouldn't know.. the game rather boring to the point that I just turned it off), but that doesn't change the fact that the old version of this map still has rather significant balance issues.
|
On April 15 2011 05:47 SnuggleZhenya wrote:
The real problem here is that Ensnare didn't play the map the way he should have. Maybe the map needs to change maybe it doesn't, but you have to play the map you're on at the time, and Ensnare just way over produced his marine/marauder army which was basically the worst possible composition for that situation.
Yeah. I agree with this.
While the Protoss was able to completely negate the Terran's advantage with forcefields and that feels ridiculous on its own, Ensnare subjected himself to this kind of shenaniganry by getting such an ineffective force for moving up ramps. What if he had gotten siege tanks and banshees and taken the position next to the expo and sieged the mineral line?
What if he had enough medivacs to have dropped half his army in the back of InControl's base?
|
I feel like I'm the only person that absolutely loves blizzards Tal"darim LE. Its a fun map and its less predictable than others.
|
can you dig up a pic and put it in the OP?
|
On April 15 2011 05:40 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +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 Well the OP also thinks crossfire is imba for protoss against zerg.
zerg against protoss.
|
the thing with the ensnare/incontrol game was that ensnare was so far ahead that that engagement shouldn't have mattered
the map let incontrol get to 200/200 and incontrol probably could've taken a 4th and equalized the game right there had ensnare not attacked
I hear people say "he should've done more drops"
lol he tried several drops but once you get like 2 cannons up and you're turtling it's so easy to defend an expo that's so close to each other; the drop isn't a guaranteed harass where you'll come out ahead, the other guy has to be way offguard for that to work well enough
|
On April 15 2011 05:50 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 05:48 Baarn wrote:On April 15 2011 05:46 floor exercise wrote:
It kinda seems like a huge oversight if they aren't using the right map versions. What do you suppose they do from here? I would think they have to switch them out, there are some significant differences The map pool is constantly changing per group as the tournament moves forward. What? It's still a fixed map pool even if it rotates. Everyone still plays on Taldarim if they haven't yet. Do some guys play on a different version than others? Even if one favors their race more than another. Or do we keep playing an inferior version?
I think after a week of preparation and knowing the map you are getting you should be able to adjust your play regardless of fotm race balance for it.
|
On April 15 2011 05:54 FliedLice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 05:40 Baarn wrote: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 Well the OP also thinks crossfire is imba for protoss against zerg. zerg against protoss.
you mean zerg beating protoss.
|
i would like to hear the reasoning on why they use outdated version of maps
it really doesn't make sense
|
On April 15 2011 05:56 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 05:50 floor exercise wrote:On April 15 2011 05:48 Baarn wrote:On April 15 2011 05:46 floor exercise wrote:
It kinda seems like a huge oversight if they aren't using the right map versions. What do you suppose they do from here? I would think they have to switch them out, there are some significant differences The map pool is constantly changing per group as the tournament moves forward. What? It's still a fixed map pool even if it rotates. Everyone still plays on Taldarim if they haven't yet. Do some guys play on a different version than others? Even if one favors their race more than another. Or do we keep playing an inferior version? I think after a week of preparation and knowing the map you are getting you should be able to adjust your play regardless of fotm race balance for it.
Let's bring back steppes then
|
the nasl changes are really irrelevant, those high yields will rarely see any use at all. ensnare vs incontrol was a joke game and ensnare played like a noob with a huge advantage just threw the game so hard it was disappointing.
Please don't use that game to discuss balance of the map.
|
This is the original Tal'Darim Altar, and the version I'm assuming they're using in the NASL (assuming cause I didn't bother watching):
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/1bBHh.jpg)
On April 15 2011 06:02 KawaiiRice wrote:
the nasl changes are really irrelevant, those high yields will rarely see any use at all. ensnare vs incontrol was a joke game and ensnare played like a noob with a huge advantage just threw the game so hard it was disappointing.
Please don't use that game to discuss balance of the map.
It's not really about whether the map affected the game's outcome, but rather the fact that NASL are using outdated (2-3+ months old) versions of the GSL maps, not to mention other questionable choices such as Backwater.
|
I remember watching it live and wondering WTF version of Tal Darim they were playing on. Don't understand why tournaments want to use outdated versions of maps (Terminus RE instead of SE, og TDA vs LE or current GSL). Theres obviously a reason why the maps were updated.
|
Thanks for the image, I uploaded it to the OP.
|
On April 15 2011 06:02 KawaiiRice wrote:
the nasl changes are really irrelevant, those high yields will rarely see any use at all. ensnare vs incontrol was a joke game and ensnare played like a noob with a huge advantage just threw the game so hard it was disappointing.
Please don't use that game to discuss balance of the map.
I absolutly don't use that game. My thoughts about the unbalance is mostly about the ZvP.
Please don't all argue about how Ensnare could have play this. I didn't like his strat at all and I don't really think that there are many issues regarding PvT (at least not more on this map than on any other).
|
Yeah, the fact that they're using a super outdated map is questionable. Also I think the Tal'darim Altar that they used in GSL 5 is a better version than the LE which Blizzard made. I can understand using LE, as people are used to it (even though I think Blizzard ruined the map), but using a super outdated map is just unnecessary and inconsistent, even if the golds in the middle doesn't change play much.
|
Lol...this map really is a joke. I can't believe they thought any of all that were good ideas...
|
I don't really want to get into balance but i think NASL should use the latest version of the map. There isn't much sense using an outdated version. Even if they don't use the LE version, they should at least use the latest GSL version.
|
I dont know why NASL likes rocks more than blizzard but lol.
|
it was horrible imo, i was cringing at incontrols win, not saying he's a bad player (because he isnt) but it felt like in that particular game the map basically made it impossible for ensnare to use any advantage he had earned, alot of my friends independently of one another have pointed this out to me and were pretty horrified by it aswell
|
Yes, I thought this at the time. Please NASL, get with the program. This map wasn't even used in the original GSTL. They had updated it to remove the rocks and gold bases even before that.
|
This looks a trial version of T'd Altar even before it was approved for GSTL S1, down to the doodads. I'm just not sure if that version had the destructible rocks between the main and nat. In any case, seems like regression to me.
|
Haven't seen enough of the map to decide whether its balanced or not. What I am interested in is why they chose the version of T'al they did, or if they modded it, and the reasons why.
Has Xeris made an official statement?
|
of all the maps to adjust i'm not sure why they did so with this map...the gold expansions are pretty much impossible to take at the center unless you've already won the game...the extra rocks make little sense...will see how it plays out but overall I'm not super excited about the changes.
|
lol, NASL's map pool is kinda ridiculous. Old Tal'Darim, old Terminus. Both are changed for a reason. And then Crossfire which is horrible ZvP with all these chokes and Backwater which is highly questionable as well.
I'm not surprised if Protoss will continue to dominate with this kind of map pool. I just wish they had chosen Testbug at least :C
|
Wait the tourny being led by a protoss is using the old versions of maps that had heavily favored protoss....
say it aint so!
*snicker*
|
The OP just sounds like a rant about protoss IMO but about the map. Id say it adds more of an element. If your that far ahead where you can be safe and take the gold than you've probably already won at that point. The rocks are the bases behind the naturals are strange but by that point you can kill rocks easily for any race so its no big deal. Id like to avoid calling any race IMBA on these maps because the races are fine, its just strategies havent evened out yet
|
As a toss player, I love the rocks added to the main making the entrance much smaller. With a wide open main, I often felt like I had to FE against zerg because the main choke and the natural choke were relatively the same size, and choking the main with a forge first severely limits the tech and economy of toss. The rocks allow the toss player to FE if they choose, or 1 gate/core block into 3 gate expand, or any other early builds, while also having to keep the rocks in the back of their mind as a potential weakness they have to deal with.
|
Australia8532 Posts
Even though i agree with you that the changes are a little bit strange; i don't see how you can encourage discussion by opening with "THIS MAP IS A JOKE"
In terms of balance i don't think basing an entire conclusion off one game played incredibly poorly by oGsEnsnare can be conclusive. Yes forcefields block ramps; but then again yes Terrans have dropships, and vikings, and units that can be produced out of other buildings besides a barracks;
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this map plays out over time, if there is a serious problem i am sure NASL will look for a remedy - everything else they have done has been community minded.
|
Wow, they're using a version found to be favoring Protoss that has been revised, instead of the new more balanced version? Wut? And the old Terminus? This just makes an additional version of that map, really, what's the point? Use the ladder one or the new GSL version.
|
I'm sort of curious why Backwater Gulch is in the pool too considering every other tournament ever does not use this horrible map...
All in all, I think the map pool is NASL's biggest weakness right now.
|
Didn't it have enough expansions already? Jesus why would they add more.
|
It must be really hard to be the NASL staff, having to take so much negativity after only two days from their exact target audience.
Can people at least give them a week before saying they're so terrible. Isn't the name North American Star League worth that to much to you 
|
I think the biggest problem with this map is that there are about 3 or 4? versions of this map floating about, and everyone uses different ones. Its damn confusing.
|
On April 15 2011 07:24 bkrow wrote:
Even though i agree with you that the changes are a little bit strange; i don't see how you can encourage discussion by opening with "THIS MAP IS A JOKE"
In terms of balance i don't think basing an entire conclusion off one game played incredibly poorly by oGsEnsnare can be conclusive. Yes forcefields block ramps; but then again yes Terrans have dropships, and vikings, and units that can be produced out of other buildings besides a barracks;
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this map plays out over time, if there is a serious problem i am sure NASL will look for a remedy - everything else they have done has been community minded.
Uh, the map is a joke. There is a reason LSPrime heavily modified the map into its current version. The version NASL is using never even made it into the original GSTL.
|
Referring to the OP, the map isn't necessarily imbalanced just because a player used terrain to his advantage. It's not as if oGsEnsnare was forced to engage right next to rocks. Everybody should know by know that the larger the area of engagement, the worse it is for protoss.
As for the gold bases, these don't seem to unfair to me. These bases are so exposed that unless a protoss player builds a ton of cannons, a zerg player could sacrifice a very small portion of their army to take it out. Sure, Protoss doesn't need to grab multiple expos at once. But a protoss player can't split up their army, so the valnurablity of these bases can be used to harrass the protoss.
I'm not really sure whether the map is imbalanced or not, as I'm a relatively noobish player, but I'm not those two aspects mentioned in the OP make it impalanced (the expo choke seems like a good point though.
|
I think people need to wait and see how other games pan out on this map. Ensnare should not have waited until Inc could catch up on his supply before attacking at an awkward angle into FF and collossi with almost pure bio.
I'm sure that in other situations it won't seem quite as bad as Ensnare made it seem
|
Map isn't terrible.
Ensnare lost that game because he went like 14min Medivacs, and only had 3 Medivacs and 5 Viking against 8 Colossus + 10 Phoenixes.
I'm not even sure what Ensnare was doing, how does the Protoss manage to get the more expensive army as well as keeping up with upgrades when the Terran had his expansion up as well as it mining long before Protoss's natural went up?
This is just like a 3gate into double forge against Mech. Toss manages to deny the Terrans expo then after expanding himself sits around and is surprised at the end of the game when his mass Gateway/Colossus composition gets crushed by the Terran who was going Mech, even though the Toss was incredibly far ahead on upgrades and macro.
|
I'm just confused why, of all the maps in the pool, it was TAL'DARIM ALTAR that NASL looked at and thought "You know what? This needs more bases".
I don't think it ruins the map or anything, but it doesn't add anything, and the Blizzard version has the advantage of being on the ladder and thus being easier to practice on.
I was a big fan of them trying a less-popular map like Backwater, until I saw Ensnare vs Incontrol and realized they didn't disable close spawns, which baffles me. When Blizz said they'd only make "rush maps" that were rush maps on close spawns, I thought that was a not-so-subtle hint that "Enough people on the ladder are casuals who like rushes that we don't want to get rid of rushy maps entirely. We'll try to make some maps that are good for tournaments, and some maps that are good for tournaments with close spawns disabled, and hopefully at least 5 of the 10 on the ladder will be good enough that you can get a map pool of ladder maps".
Close spawns are incredibly difficult for Zerg, which has been proven again and again over a period of months. Why aren't they disabled?
Also, Ensnare played ATROCIOUSLY, going mass bio against a protoss who was going mass colossus and hardly pressuring at all.
|
I just think the rocks on the expansions are bad.
So much Strategy that is in Starcraft2 revolves around when you take that third expansion and by adding rocks you basically limit the options player can do because you have to get units out do destroy them reasonable fast.
I also dislike gold bases but that´s something personal.
|
Why did NASL switch maps and make their own tinkerings with the GSL maps? That's the question.
|
i just hope they add some fuckin rocks to the natural ramp. otherwise pvp is 100% 4 gate on that fuckin map.
|
NASL has an overall terrible map pool. Their changes to Tal'darim make absolutely no sense either.
|
Hmmm, no wonder the map looked weird during that game. Still it didn't affect the outcome of the game.
Hopefully they use a better version of the map in the future
|
On April 15 2011 05:11 infinity21 wrote:
Although ensnare reacted poorly to inc's phoenix Colo composition (not enough Vikings and no ghosts), I think the changes definitely favour Protoss.
He had ghosts.
|
Ah, I felt that the sizes (natural "ramp" and entrance) were different from Blizzard's to the older GSL's xD
And wow, they changed the maps? Why didn't they announce the changes? Did even the players get to know the changes? Perhaps Incontrol wanted to rig it to help him? Just putting it out there, not that I believe it (which I don't), it's just that people may think this and it would look bad for him =O
And uh yeah, I really don't like these changes, lol...
|
Those changes are terrible. The GSL TDA was fine, why does everyone insist on modifying it when they're only making it worse...
|
Didn't Incontrol say "thanks to whoever made those ramps" during his interview? I swear I heard him say something like that!
|
On April 15 2011 08:20 Techno wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 05:11 infinity21 wrote:
Although ensnare reacted poorly to inc's phoenix Colo composition (not enough Vikings and no ghosts), I think the changes definitely favour Protoss. He had ghosts.
Yeah but they didn't take part in the fight that lost him the game.
... although you could argue that he had lost the game before that fight anyway. But still, he didn't have ghosts when they could have mattered.
|
Would be interesting to hear their thought process behind the changes. Considering that GSL maps probably get tested quite a bit before they are thrown in there. To add gold bases and rocks and not test for balance purposes...
|
It's kinda funny how the map gets blamed when the Terran is ahead 50-70 food and 1 expo in midgame with better upgrades to boot and still can't win against Colossus.
|
It's kinda funny how the map gets blamed when the Terran is ahead 50-70 food and 1 expo in midgame with better upgrades to boot and still can't win against Colossus.
I don't see how it's funny to think that may be true.
What else would it be? Unless you think Incontrol was simply that much better to beat someone who had 50-70 more food.
|
On April 15 2011 08:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +
It's kinda funny how the map gets blamed when the Terran is ahead 50-70 food and 1 expo in midgame with better upgrades to boot and still can't win against Colossus.
I don't see how it's funny to think that may be true. What else would it be? Unless you think Incontrol was simply that much better to beat someone who had 50-70 more food.
I think he's making a balance whine.
|
On April 15 2011 07:59 Ribbon wrote:
I'm just confused why, of all the maps in the pool, it was TAL'DARIM ALTAR that NASL looked at and thought "You know what? This needs more bases".
I don't think it ruins the map or anything, but it doesn't add anything, and the Blizzard version has the advantage of being on the ladder and thus being easier to practice on.
I was a big fan of them trying a less-popular map like Backwater, until I saw Ensnare vs Incontrol and realized they didn't disable close spawns, which baffles me. When Blizz said they'd only make "rush maps" that were rush maps on close spawns, I thought that was a not-so-subtle hint that "Enough people on the ladder are casuals who like rushes that we don't want to get rid of rushy maps entirely. We'll try to make some maps that are good for tournaments, and some maps that are good for tournaments with close spawns disabled, and hopefully at least 5 of the 10 on the ladder will be good enough that you can get a map pool of ladder maps".
Close spawns are incredibly difficult for Zerg, which has been proven again and again over a period of months. Why aren't they disabled?
Also, Ensnare played ATROCIOUSLY, going mass bio against a protoss who was going mass colossus and hardly pressuring at all.
Close spawns on Backwater aren't really that close. Have you played the map on ladder? At least from my feel when I roll the map, the spawns are all really, really far apart. 2raxing will not ever be successful. Plus the multi-exit rocks, as we saw in the qxc vs. MooNaN (right?) game make tank pushes less effective in some ways.
As to everyone saying "NASL altered it!" did you read earlier in the thread? It's an earlier version of Altar. That does beg the question of "Why are they using the earlier version?", but be informed before spewing nonsense.
|
Russian Federation484 Posts
On April 15 2011 08:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:
As to everyone saying "NASL altered it!" did you read earlier in the thread? It's an earlier version of Altar. That does beg the question of "Why are they using the earlier version?", but be informed before spewing nonsense.
I know there wasn't ever rocks from main to nat.
|
Smaller ramps make me sad. Rocks are not such a big deal, since you should be preparing to expand before you actually do, but I agree about the ramps making forcefields much stronger than they should be.
|
GSL Version is the best version. The version that blizz put on ladder is full of their shenanigans.
|
NASL should use the GSL version of Tal'Darim Altar.
|
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!
|
the game has gotten to a point where if someone is ahead, you still need to make all the right moves to secure a win. Ensnare was wrong in the way he wanted to press his advantage, opting for a 200v200 engagement (which he did not have the proper units for).
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.
|
On April 15 2011 08:42 chuDr3t4 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 08:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:
As to everyone saying "NASL altered it!" did you read earlier in the thread? It's an earlier version of Altar. That does beg the question of "Why are they using the earlier version?", but be informed before spewing nonsense. 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!!"
|
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!
|
Gentlemen,
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 ^__^
|
Tal darim is just a poor map in my opinion.
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.
|
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).
|
I don't understand why map makers insist upon adding rocks at expansions. That is my least favorite part of a map. For example, by far my least favorite feature of Blistering Sands (one of the worst maps in my opinion) is the fact that there is no third base. Not the fact that it's tiny or the stupid back rocks (I know everyone reading this has lost a game because of some cheesy play going through that backdoor).
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.
|
I can definitely imagine incontrol looking at the map and not seing a problem with it. Switch to any version with wider chokes. NASL thinking noone would notice/protest against this makes me lol.
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.
|
I just dislike the rocks. I think it really hurts macro games; if I'm making a push and decide I can expand, I cant move my army back! Get rid of rocks, create more epic games of people just mass expanding.
|
Wow I didn't even notice these changes, that's absolutely terrible. The map definitely does NOT need more expansions (especially golds), but that's not nearly as bad as all the rocks. All they have to do is glance at the community for two seconds to realize that everyone hates rocks blocking expos, except in very specific circumstances.
It will be lol when Zerg plays on this version against Protoss, and I don't even believe ZvP is imbalanced in general.
|
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.
|
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...
|
They should of just used the original
|
I never liked any version of Terminus or Tal'darim Altar. A player shouldn't be able to turtle on 3 bases. There are such things as 'macro' maps, but these two maps are just too forced that they award turtling.
btw I think NASL should try out some iCCup maps. ^.^
|
I am not going to argue with your entire post. Quite simply put i don't have the patience for it. One thing i must note though is that Terran and protoss really have no reason to complain about rocks blocking a possible third. No matter how fast you want to go for that 3rd you already have units available which can break rocks down reasonably fast.
. 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).
|
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.
|
Learn to be a better zerg / terran player and not worry so much about protoss
|
I think your are overstating the effect of the rocks on the middle of the map as they have an effect on battle. Once you have an army sizable enough for a big battle you can just kill the rocks before you engage.
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.
|
The fact that they are taking it upon themselves to try and set standards or whatever with maps is just silly. They are still learning how to run a pretty standard broadcast, but yet they want to set standards on which maps are in their pools. Just copy ESL/MLG/GSL, it isn't that hard.
Edit: I didn't actually realize they changed maps, I knew they added that terrible map Blackwater, but didn't realize they actually edited some already very fine maps.
|
While this version of the map is in all ways worse, i still dont see how you can go to Incontroll vs Ensnare as a game to point out why it is bad, ensnare had that game won, he for some reason thought it was ok to get pure bio against a turtling colossus protoss.
|
On April 15 2011 09:30 ImHuko wrote:
The fact that they are taking it upon themselves to try and set standards or whatever with maps is just silly. They are still learning how to run a pretty standard broadcast, but yet they want to set standards on which maps are in their pools. Just copy ESL/MLG/GSL, it isn't that hard.
Edit: I didn't actually realize they changed maps, I knew they added that terrible map Blackwater, but didn't realize they actually edited some already very fine maps.
They didn't change any maps unless you count using an earlier version of the map as changing it (though that is still a bit of a ???). And Blackwater gave some great games yesterday in my opinion...
|
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.
|
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.
They are ok for Islands like in BW with mineral blockers on Island Expos. But every other expo should be open. Literally i never get the third on Bliz Tal b/c of the rocks. They slow me down. I just get the expo behind the nat.
|
Canada7096 Posts
The NASL version is horrendous. I cant believe they added more rocks. They made the map even worse for zerg's then Blizzard's version. There should be no rocks on this map. Beating zergs here is so easy as a protoss because I can fe and the zerg has to take his third not in the optimal location or take it late. Then i can turtle on 3 bases pretty easy and mass a huge death ball and there really isnt much zerg can do.
|
God I can't even get away from the balance whining on the general forums now. So obnoxious
|
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.
|
On April 15 2011 05:05 danson wrote:
dunno why they tried to change one of, if not THE best map currently in competitive play. only thing i would change is take out the rocks on 2nd nat so its like GSL version
this, gsl version is the best of them all.
|
You can't expect pro-gamers to learn 3 different version of the same map. Sure the changes are a little subtle and everything, but they can really make a big difference in terms of engagements and strategies. You don't need to make minor changes to all of the maps just so you can name them 'NASL <whatever>'.
|
Don't like the rocks at the 4th and gold. Why do people feel the need to add destructible rocks to everything? zzz
|
This is very unnecessary. Why continue to alter maps? I don't like the changes but the bigger point is that its already a new map, and they are using a completely new version no one is used to. I just find it strange and don't see a reason for the changes.
|
I have no problem with a different mappool, like NASL saying "We want Backwater Gulch in there, but dont like X".
But I do think the whole different map versions for different tournaments thing is getting out of hand.
MLG Metalopolis, Blizzard Metalopolis, GSL Metalopolis, TSL Metalopolis (is there a difference to the MLG one?), Tal'darim Altar Origininal (NASL), Tal'darim Altar Ladder, Tal'darim Altar GSL.
I personally do get confused - and players & admins seem to get confused as well.
Dreamhack finals, one player forgot that the used Shakuras Plateau version only allowed cross-position spawns. Surely it's the player's fault for forgetting that, but it seems to become a problem (especially considering that new tournaments may arise or old tournaments use their own versions (IEM, IPL, ...)).
I also watched a tournament yesterday (dont remember which one), where one game was on MLG Metalopolis, but one player crashed and the game had to be remade and then they started Blizzard Metalopolis (still spawned cross, but ...) Clearly a human error from the guy who created the game, but no one noticed.
Could've been the same thing happening for NASL with Tal'darim Altar "We want to use TDA GSLv2, but accidentally chose TDA GSLv1".
|
They had this same problem in the GCPL. They used old versions of GSL maps on a few occasions, I remember a player complained about it once (StrifeCro I think?) and was assured there wasn't a problem by the casters. Jinro even commented on it in the LR thread that they seemed to be using really old versions of some maps, versions that were scrapped in the GSTL due to heavy imbalances.
|
|
|
I personally like the GSL version which I think is different than the blizzard one. It just seems more smooth and isnt too favored toward a specific race.
Its just favored to macro players and not cheesy players. Thank goodness...
|
On April 15 2011 05:22 Cosmos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 05:18 Offhand wrote:On April 15 2011 05:16 Cosmos wrote:
I don't think backwater gulch is as bad as crossfire. You're terran, that's why. As a terran I don't have problems with crossfire in fact. It's just after that I saw darkforce vs cruncher or grubby vs moon on this map that I now find it EXTREMELY unbalanced for zergs vs protoss.
You should check out Haypro vs KawaiiRice tonight's NASL.
+ Show Spoiler +Haypro map lossed Backwater and TDA hard, it was amusing given this thread.
|
Rocks rocks everywhere.
I still think that Day9's quote is applicable to every map with rocks on it.
"It just feels like you're not allowed to take a third in this game anymore. The game, like, literally doesn't want you to take a third. You'll get to your third and the game's just like "well sure you can take a third base, but there's a giant piranha in the way. But wait! It's actually a logic puzzle. It only tells the truth on ODD FOOD COUNTS." and I'm just like FUCK can't I just expand already?"
|
On April 15 2011 11:24 Farkinator wrote:
Rocks rocks everywhere.
I still think that Day9's quote is applicable to every map with rocks on it.
"It just feels like you're not allowed to take a third in this game anymore. The game, like, literally doesn't want you to take a third. You'll get to your third and the game's just like "well sure you can take a third base, but there's a giant piranha in the way. But wait! It's actually a logic puzzle. It only tells the truth on ODD FOOD COUNTS." and I'm just like FUCK can't I just expand already?"
that's an awesome quote lol
Day9 <3
|
Four gold bases that close together are BAD and there is even room in the middle to move a defensive force through. This feature makes it "golden" for Terrans (MULEs on up to four gold expos = $$$$). The ramp thing clearly favors Protoss (offensively and defensively) AND Terran (defensively) if he goes for mech, BUT it totally screws Zerg.
NASL also has the "stupid version" of Metalopolis ... where you can spawn close ground. Good luck to all you Zerg competitors for not getting that.
|
I hope NASL will correct this as well as Terminus and Metalopolis (allowing close spawns) This seems like an oversight, but it's a pretty large one. Ideally, leagues should use similar/same versions of maps as to not confuse the players and the spectators.
The most important reason though - there's usually a good reason why a new version of a map was released - very often flaws/balance issues!
|
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.
Preparing for 1 map is one thing. Preparing for 3 significantly different variations of the same map is another.
Yeah, as far as game balance goes, I'm not going to make a judgment. The biggest problem here is that I just don't understand the reasoning behind using this version of the map, when there are more standard versions of it (GSL5 version and the Blizzard LE version) which people already practise on.
|
yeah pretty much no reason to have gold expansions with already existing expansions being so easy to grab. I really don't see any need for them, nonetheless 4. Do they want to have the first ever 2+ hour game? Little excessive, and from the looks of it most TLers agree.
|
So I haven't watched the NASL so I havent actually seen the map in action. Basiclly I'm saying take my post with a grain of salt.
But looking at the image, I seriously have to ask wtf?
Look My preferred map version is the GSL because of the third expo I can get as fast as possible. IT is the only response to a forge expand opening. I'm fine with Blizzard adding rocks, because the fourth expansions is jsut as good as a third though slightly more difficult to defend. But adding rocks to the 4th natural as the picture implies? Naw that Is so incredibly anti Zerg I'm surprised any of them would win on it. It isn't a matter of being prepared, it is basiclly saying screw you Zergs, we need you to make 30 supply of Roaches just so you can take a third and/or fourth. I'm indifferent about the middle Golds, but they look silly.
Has IncontroL become a parody of himself, or does he just have no say in map design? Becuase I'm 100% positive they all sat around on tone of the SOTG and complained that BLIZZARD puts to many rocks everywhere. You look at the NASL map... AND THERES ROCKS EVERYWHERE!? REALLY?
Don't get me started, because I just looked at Crevasse... and the front third has rocks too!? Really? the most enjoyable part of that map is the decision about an easy back nat with one gas or an exposed front with two. Basiclly NASL doesn't like macro options and absolutely hates Zerg.
ARGH!? Why has this gotten me angry
|
I just dont understand why nasl felt the need to alter the map... gsl uses it and everyone else uses it, and i definitely think the nasl version is inferior to the blizzard version
|
On April 15 2011 05:06 Ryuu314 wrote:
Well, if you're indifferent your opinion still is pretty important. What if 90% of people are indifferent, 8% say NASL's is worse, and only 2% say Blizzard's is worse. Then in your poll it seems heavily in favor against NASL, but in reality the point is more or less moot.
Change the poll.
Then you should be able to tell by the number of responses to the poll. If 4 people voted 3 yes 1 no, then I'm sure anyone with a brain will take the 75% yes with a grain of salt.
|
I'm surprised by a lot of things that NASL is doing. As an org they don't seem to be making mistakes that indicate they're still learning how to work- instead they're bringing up original, stupid ideas to implement poorly.
|
The changes are bad and unneccesary, every map doesnt need to have rocks blocking expansions. There already was rocks at the third, so why add rocks to 4th aswell? And adding 4 more gold expansions with rocks on a map with 16 bases already? Also the NASL map is now very t/p favored against Z.
|
Did incontrol pick the map pool? Interesting how he gets 2 good maps for PvT.
I mean he's a cool guy but I find it interesting how he helped set up the tournament, is casting it, and competing in it as well.
It's probably not that big of a deal since it's only one match of pool play, but we shall see if all his map pools favor his matchup I suppose.
|
1: Use GSL version
2: Have great league.
NOT HARD
|
Well it IS Tal'darim Altar, of course protoss gets an advantage... I'm sure the Xel Naga Caverns also favour the Xel Naga. They should rename the map to fix this.
Anyway, I didn't like the way Ensnare played out his game on this map. I like MVP's way of playing this map - getting tanks to siege up on the opponent's natural.
|
I dont think we need 1000 different versions of one map for competitive gaming. I really dislike this "we are a major tournament, we change the maps like we want to". At this moment ppl are getting terribly confused which map has which settings (only cross/no close etc) and I cant see the point of adding MORE different versions.
Please stop that! Talk to other tournament organizers and freaking stop editing maps randomly.
Though: Noone likes rocks at expansions. It's just terrible. I cant imagine why NASl did this O.o
|
The map pool of the NASL lok so bad from a zerg point of view...
Seriously, stop putting rock everywhere.
|
On April 15 2011 13:28 pdd wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 10:04 dvide wrote: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. Preparing for 1 map is one thing. Preparing for 3 significantly different variations of the same map is another. Yeah, as far as game balance goes, I'm not going to make a judgment. The biggest problem here is that I just don't understand the reasoning behind using this version of the map, when there are more standard versions of it (GSL5 version and the Blizzard LE version) which people already practise on.
In my job I don't get to say X client likes reports in Y fashion, so all clients get the report in Y fashion. You learn to adapt, money is on the line if you choose to not study the 3 maps you're about to play on then it is your fault. On April 15 2011 16:32 Tppz! wrote:
I dont think we need 1000 different versions of one map for competitive gaming. I really dislike this "we are a major tournament, we change the maps like we want to". At this moment ppl are getting terribly confused which map has which settings (only cross/no close etc) and I cant see the point of adding MORE different versions.
Please stop that! Talk to other tournament organizers and freaking stop editing maps randomly.
Though: Noone likes rocks at expansions. It's just terrible. I cant imagine why NASl did this O.o
Correct, but each league wants to be #1, so in the end they get to make the decisions about the starcraft map pool. Hopefully we wind up letting korea make the maps and USA/Euro win them 
On April 15 2011 16:39 Noocta wrote:
The map pool of the NASL lok so bad from a zerg point of view...
Seriously, stop putting rock everywhere.
Zerglings.
|
Was it not too long ago on SOTG that they were laughing about how Blizzard loves rocks and how people at GOM were just that much better at creating and tinkering with the mappool?
Unless people at NASL have a strong and unique perspective on current maps they should not tinker with them and just go with the flow. It is their first season and from the looks of various things, they have plenty on their minds, no need to have a problem regarding maps now too.
|
Isn't this the original version of the map?
|
On April 15 2011 17:07 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 16:39 Noocta wrote:
The map pool of the NASL lok so bad from a zerg point of view...
Seriously, stop putting rock everywhere. Zerglings.
Yeah, rocks everywhere who don't let zerg expand when he wants will obviously favor zerglings.
The same zerglings who take forever to take out rocks.
On the same map where gold's rock create chock point in the middle of a use to be wide open map.
|
It would be hella nice for tournaments of this scale to actually use the same maps instead of insisting on using their own variations of said maps.
It must be very annoying as a pro to prepare for three different versions of the same map just because some people think they know it better than the others.
|
On April 15 2011 17:14 Haydin wrote:
Isn't this the original version of the map?
according to liquipedia this is the original map (just for the comparison):
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/1/13/Tal%27Darim_Altar.jpg/600px-Tal%27Darim_Altar.jpg)
|
I'm going to assume, based on these terrible map additions/choices by NASL, that gretorp and incontrol must have a huge say in the matter, as they also seem to be the only decent players with these opinions on rocks, close spawn etc.
Or they have no say and they are just trying to make the NASL look as legitimate as possible despite the horrid map choices.
Either way it's a shame, this isn't how the biggest NA league should start
|
Wait, I thought pros (including Incontrol) thought that rocks were largely a horrible idea. The fact that EVERY expanion has one is...
|
On April 15 2011 17:22 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 17:07 NoobSkills wrote:On April 15 2011 16:39 Noocta wrote:
The map pool of the NASL lok so bad from a zerg point of view...
Seriously, stop putting rock everywhere. Zerglings. Yeah, rocks everywhere who don't let zerg expand when he wants will obviously favor zerglings. The same zerglings who take forever to take out rocks. On the same map where gold's rock create chock point in the middle of a use to be wide open map.
Zerglings are the most cost-efficient rock-killer in the game (except Reapers maybe), provided there's space around the rock for all of them to fit... as there should be for rocks in open spaces in the early game.
I hate destructible rocks but Zerg is much faster to kill them than Protoss.
|
On April 15 2011 17:38 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 17:22 Noocta wrote:On April 15 2011 17:07 NoobSkills wrote:On April 15 2011 16:39 Noocta wrote:
The map pool of the NASL lok so bad from a zerg point of view...
Seriously, stop putting rock everywhere. Zerglings. Yeah, rocks everywhere who don't let zerg expand when he wants will obviously favor zerglings. The same zerglings who take forever to take out rocks. On the same map where gold's rock create chock point in the middle of a use to be wide open map. Zerglings are the most cost-efficient rock-killer in the game (except Reapers maybe), provided there's space around the rock for all of them to fit... as there should be for rocks in open spaces in the early game. I hate destructible rocks but Zerg is much faster to kill them than Protoss.
not when you're trying to have a quick third... 10 lings with no +1 attack = ages to finish killing a rock.
|
On April 15 2011 17:38 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 17:22 Noocta wrote:On April 15 2011 17:07 NoobSkills wrote:On April 15 2011 16:39 Noocta wrote:
The map pool of the NASL lok so bad from a zerg point of view...
Seriously, stop putting rock everywhere. Zerglings. Yeah, rocks everywhere who don't let zerg expand when he wants will obviously favor zerglings. The same zerglings who take forever to take out rocks. On the same map where gold's rock create chock point in the middle of a use to be wide open map. Zerglings are the most cost-efficient rock-killer in the game (except Reapers maybe), provided there's space around the rock for all of them to fit... as there should be for rocks in open spaces in the early game. I hate destructible rocks but Zerg is much faster to kill them than Protoss.
Protoss don't lose economy by making units in the early game.
The main anwser to a Terran / protoss FE is to take a very early third.
Rocks everywhere deny that, because you'll have to make ling instead of drones to kill rocks, which delay your expand timing and slow your economy...
|
do rock free expos break the game or something? come on blizz take em out and see what happens.
|
Can no one win anymore without sparking some IMBA discussion.
Ensnare chose the wrong army composition, at least it all started out pretty well for him, making a huge bio ball. Then he commenced to roam about the map doing fuck all and partying on mapcontrol so Incontrol could build up to a zillion colossi wich kind of counter the bio ball, a bio ball that, at that time, was so big there was no supply left for vikings.
So basically Ensnare made a huge army for incontrol to kill.
|
On April 15 2011 17:07 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 13:28 pdd wrote:On April 15 2011 10:04 dvide wrote: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. Preparing for 1 map is one thing. Preparing for 3 significantly different variations of the same map is another. Yeah, as far as game balance goes, I'm not going to make a judgment. The biggest problem here is that I just don't understand the reasoning behind using this version of the map, when there are more standard versions of it (GSL5 version and the Blizzard LE version) which people already practise on. In my job I don't get to say X client likes reports in Y fashion, so all clients get the report in Y fashion. You learn to adapt, money is on the line if you choose to not study the 3 maps you're about to play on then it is your fault. Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 16:32 Tppz! wrote:
I dont think we need 1000 different versions of one map for competitive gaming. I really dislike this "we are a major tournament, we change the maps like we want to". At this moment ppl are getting terribly confused which map has which settings (only cross/no close etc) and I cant see the point of adding MORE different versions.
Please stop that! Talk to other tournament organizers and freaking stop editing maps randomly.
Though: Noone likes rocks at expansions. It's just terrible. I cant imagine why NASl did this O.o Correct, but each league wants to be #1, so in the end they get to make the decisions about the starcraft map pool. Hopefully we wind up letting korea make the maps and USA/Euro win them Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 16:39 Noocta wrote:
The map pool of the NASL lok so bad from a zerg point of view...
Seriously, stop putting rock everywhere. Zerglings.
1. GSL make map pool decisions taking into community feedback (the play tested so many maps on Gisado's KOTH and even more in GSTL 1 before putting it into the GSL). Yeah, sure you can force them to play on that map, but a well-organized league (particularly since SC2 is a very community based game) takes into account player/community feedback before forcing them onto players, otherwise they'll just use regular standard versions. This version of Tal'darim as you probably know is not standard.
I might be wrong, but it doesn't seem like the NASL did that. I would really like to know the decision-making behind why the NASL chose the maps the way they did, because it is just questionable.
2. How does using a non-standard (and I must say outdated) variation of the map make this league #1?
3. A slower 3rd expo vs forge FE is very detrimental to Zergs. It forces them to baneling bust. And as cool as baneling busts are, seeing Zerg's limited to that is just bad.
Also this is the same issue I have with the LE version of the map. The rocks just eliminate options for Zergs/Protoss to deal with tanks sieging at the natural. I mean, sac-ing the natural and taking the third instead might not be the best option to deal with tanks at the natural, but it is still an option and provides better diversity of play.
4. I'm not really turning this into a balance discussion/strategy, but it is pretty clear that the best version of the map is the GSL version (played in GSL 5). The main issue for me is a big competition choosing to use non-standard, outdated variations of a map, when clearly it is far better to use more standard versions.
On April 15 2011 17:32 aScaris wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 17:14 Haydin wrote:
Isn't this the original version of the map? according to liquipedia this is the original map (just for the comparison):
What he meant was the original "beta" version of the map which was tested in Gisado's KOTH before it was first used in GSTL 1.
On April 15 2011 17:38 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 17:22 Noocta wrote:On April 15 2011 17:07 NoobSkills wrote:On April 15 2011 16:39 Noocta wrote:
The map pool of the NASL lok so bad from a zerg point of view...
Seriously, stop putting rock everywhere. Zerglings. Yeah, rocks everywhere who don't let zerg expand when he wants will obviously favor zerglings. The same zerglings who take forever to take out rocks. On the same map where gold's rock create chock point in the middle of a use to be wide open map. Zerglings are the most cost-efficient rock-killer in the game (except Reapers maybe), provided there's space around the rock for all of them to fit... as there should be for rocks in open spaces in the early game. I hate destructible rocks but Zerg is much faster to kill them than Protoss.
But 2 base Zerg vs a 2 base Protoss = difficult for Zerg. Protoss can delay their third expansion as long as possible, where else if Protoss fast expanded before the Zerg (which they can do easily nowadays with Forge FE, Zerg's need the third base or have to baneling bust/other all-in).
|
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.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
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?
|
i think the gsl version is the best version of this map, the 2nd best the blizzard version (i dont like the rocks at the 3rd too much, imo a bit opposed to the macro style of this map), but this version really sucks so hard lol
|
I think the ladder version is fantastic TvP, but I haven't player on the NASL one. I wonder if the changes weren't instituted for TvZ and just had a negative effect on TvP.
|
Germany1287 Posts
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.
I've added Crevasse 0.8 to TLPD, can someone confirm that this is the correct picture of the map?
|
don't really understand most of the nasl maps. i feel like they didn't get input from pros..
backwater gulch, crossfire, modified tal'darim.
gsl put a lot of effort into the maps they have. Seems like MLG did too.
and for some reason nasl took 3 maps nobody else ever uses.
|
Taldarim altar is just a boring bad map.
The expansion are to easily secured. This leads to a three base turtle I-don't-move-until-I-am-maxed game.
The center is too open, and there are no multiple paths.
By comparison, GSL crevasse is way better.
Inbase expo has less minerals and only 1 gas. The third is harder to secure. There are a lot of possibilties to harass by air. The center has an interesting layout. By taking out the rocks, multiple pathways are created, which make army placement and movement important, as well as counterattacks possible.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Blizzard made Tal'Darim worse than the GSL version, NASL built on that and turned a still decent map into a complete joke.
Same with Crevasse.
|
The rocks at the third made me sad
The really open centre is cool though. Nice for surrounds and makes for some great tank leap-frogging style slow pushes.
|
I don't know what NASL is doing. Basically they have a semi-horrible mappool (wtf Backwater) and just change the good maps to also more horrible versions.
NASL really HAS TO ask some progamers about the mappool. Right know i think it's a joke. I even stopped watching some NASL games because the games turned out to make the games ridicolously bad.
How can anyone think moar rocks and a 2nd with 2 geysirs which is unattackable (Crevasse) is balanced?
|
Having 4 gold bases regardless of them having rocks is prone to me thinking its a nono.
Hell, imagine a terran taking all four golds for some reason. The sheer amount of marines coming from his barracks suggest that even the old and sick people get recruited to the militairy just for the sake of spending minerals.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Apparently this is actually the earliest beta version of Tal'Darim, so I guess its just a mistake and not intentional.
|
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
|
dont you people get tired from all these complain threads?
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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^^
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Hmm... I sure do hope they use the current version GSL uses of Terminus (all the previous versions favour protoss way too much).
|
It would be nice if somehow the sc2 world would settle on a single version of each fucking map. Loading up maps and finding them to be altered every time is frustrating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2d3NO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KanAo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/J3b0D.jpg)
