EPTEnclosed in the spoiler are lots of quotes.
+ Show Spoiler [Seriously, quote a few quotes in here.] +
On June 21 2011 01:35 chenchen wrote:
Give me a ring when Blizzard makes some maps that aren't complete crap.
Maps that are purposely designed for one base rushes? Seriously . . .
Give me a ring when Blizzard makes some maps that aren't complete crap.
Maps that are purposely designed for one base rushes? Seriously . . .
On June 21 2011 01:32 Torte de Lini wrote:
1st map looks really cool.
The other one looks like they took the same map and played boggle and reassembled the pieces. Some of these are just terrible .__.
1st map looks really cool.
The other one looks like they took the same map and played boggle and reassembled the pieces. Some of these are just terrible .__.
On June 21 2011 01:31 Telcontar wrote:
At least Blizzard is being consistent with their obnoxiousness. That is all I can say about that.
At least Blizzard is being consistent with their obnoxiousness. That is all I can say about that.
On June 21 2011 01:24 neobowman wrote:
Notice how new Blizzard maps aren't being used in GSL? I think tournaments should stop using ladder maps.
Notice how new Blizzard maps aren't being used in GSL? I think tournaments should stop using ladder maps.
On June 21 2011 01:20 Drazerk wrote:
As long as they block close spawns I will be happy
The maps look cool but I don't like the first one at all
As long as they block close spawns I will be happy
The maps look cool but I don't like the first one at all
On June 21 2011 01:20 iamho wrote:
Close rush distances and hard to take third bases. why the hell is blizzard so obsessed with rushing???
edit: crap wasted 2000th post
Close rush distances and hard to take third bases. why the hell is blizzard so obsessed with rushing???
edit: crap wasted 2000th post
On June 21 2011 01:19 ondik wrote:
I don't like mindless bashing, but the distance between bases seems VERY short. No way can you go into longer game with down+down or up+up positions in first three maps and even with cross positions spawn only it will be hard.. well let's hope I'm wrong
I don't like mindless bashing, but the distance between bases seems VERY short. No way can you go into longer game with down+down or up+up positions in first three maps and even with cross positions spawn only it will be hard.. well let's hope I'm wrong
On June 21 2011 01:54 Elefanto wrote:
all are looking completely terrible
why are they refusing to listen to the community and remove all the horrible maps in the pool (80%) and
add GSL maps?
Goddamnit.
all are looking completely terrible
why are they refusing to listen to the community and remove all the horrible maps in the pool (80%) and
add GSL maps?
Goddamnit.
On June 21 2011 01:55 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Wow, GREAT JOB BLIZZARD!
I'm glad these maps, on first glance, actually look fairly "standard" unlike the maps they showed us last season which all looked glaringly bad (except for Shattered and maybe Backwater Gulch).
I'm still disappointed in how their Normal maps still seem a bit small, but I guess I will have to actually play on them to see how big they are.
Hurray for no close positions! That is, not super close, at least. Not like Shatterd or Metal. Great job!
The 1v1 Maps look definitely playable, and the team maps look great too (shared bases ftw!)
Wow, GREAT JOB BLIZZARD!
I'm glad these maps, on first glance, actually look fairly "standard" unlike the maps they showed us last season which all looked glaringly bad (except for Shattered and maybe Backwater Gulch).
I'm still disappointed in how their Normal maps still seem a bit small, but I guess I will have to actually play on them to see how big they are.
Hurray for no close positions! That is, not super close, at least. Not like Shatterd or Metal. Great job!
The 1v1 Maps look definitely playable, and the team maps look great too (shared bases ftw!)
On June 21 2011 01:55 See.Blue wrote:
I'd love to say 'lets wait and see how these pan out' but all the 1v1 maps look particularly underwhelming
I'd love to say 'lets wait and see how these pan out' but all the 1v1 maps look particularly underwhelming
On June 21 2011 01:59 DeltruS wrote:
I don't think Blizzard realizes that rush maps should not exist because the game is balanced for large maps. There are things players can flat out lose to without scouting, and with these maps they player can't even build reactionary units.
Not only this, but a large amount of strategies have limited map control. This means that taking a third is impossible for that large amount of builds. The problem isn't with the build makers, but with Blizzard. They don't give players units for area denial. They encourage "rush" plays that don't give the defender an advantage.
The game doesn't need to be tuned for casuals. The matchmaking system allows them to play at a lower level. Getting a third is a thousand times easier than building exactly what they need to defend the opponents hidden, cheesy tactics.
I don't think Blizzard realizes that rush maps should not exist because the game is balanced for large maps. There are things players can flat out lose to without scouting, and with these maps they player can't even build reactionary units.
Not only this, but a large amount of strategies have limited map control. This means that taking a third is impossible for that large amount of builds. The problem isn't with the build makers, but with Blizzard. They don't give players units for area denial. They encourage "rush" plays that don't give the defender an advantage.
The game doesn't need to be tuned for casuals. The matchmaking system allows them to play at a lower level. Getting a third is a thousand times easier than building exactly what they need to defend the opponents hidden, cheesy tactics.
On June 21 2011 02:19 Megaliskuu wrote:
I'm anticipating the maps that will be removed far more than these maps that are getting added, they are pretty bad.....
I'm anticipating the maps that will be removed far more than these maps that are getting added, they are pretty bad.....
On June 21 2011 02:52 Yaotzin wrote:
I like variety. I don't want huge macro maps every game. Some certainly, but not all.
I like variety. I don't want huge macro maps every game. Some certainly, but not all.
On June 21 2011 02:58 FaCE_1 wrote:
dam, I really don't like the 2v2 and 3v3 map..
SPECIALLY the second 2v2 map, it's just pure awful
dam, I really don't like the 2v2 and 3v3 map..
SPECIALLY the second 2v2 map, it's just pure awful
On June 21 2011 03:15 Zelniq wrote:
i like how map 2 is basically backwater gulch on crack.. walk 2 feet from your own natural platform and you're at your enemy's nat platform lol. at least the center doesnt suck anymore like backwater's did though. im assuming they'll change the ramp to the main as well as it seems too easy to avoid any defense youve put at your natural and waltz into your main
i like how map 2 is basically backwater gulch on crack.. walk 2 feet from your own natural platform and you're at your enemy's nat platform lol. at least the center doesnt suck anymore like backwater's did though. im assuming they'll change the ramp to the main as well as it seems too easy to avoid any defense youve put at your natural and waltz into your main
On June 21 2011 03:23 Zelniq wrote:
well those gold expos are the reason why map 3's layout sucks, if they removed that, or shoved it more over to the outskirts, there'd be some nice areas to fight in and just make for an overall better map layout. i dont know why blizzard is so obsessed with having some maps have no wide open areas at all
well those gold expos are the reason why map 3's layout sucks, if they removed that, or shoved it more over to the outskirts, there'd be some nice areas to fight in and just make for an overall better map layout. i dont know why blizzard is so obsessed with having some maps have no wide open areas at all
On June 21 2011 03:45 Chill wrote:
These maps, especially the 1v1 maps, made me fall asleep.
These maps, especially the 1v1 maps, made me fall asleep.
On June 21 2011 03:47 Ribbon wrote:
The first reaction I had to this was "Ugh".
The more I look at it, though, the more it becomes "enh"
Test Map 1 is okay. I like that they forgot to name it. Rotational symmetry helps keep the rush distances okay.
Kerrigan's Wrath is fucking absurd. Close spawns are actually worse than Steppes. Like, a lot worse.
Shattered Sky is probably fine. It reminds me a little of Metalopolis.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm okay with the Macro Map.
So, that's two enh maps, one pretty decent one, and one fucking awful one. I guess it depends on what maps they remove to make room. If they remove, for instance, Slag, Scrap, Delta, and Typhon, I guess I'm okay with this.
The first reaction I had to this was "Ugh".
The more I look at it, though, the more it becomes "enh"
Test Map 1 is okay. I like that they forgot to name it. Rotational symmetry helps keep the rush distances okay.
Kerrigan's Wrath is fucking absurd. Close spawns are actually worse than Steppes. Like, a lot worse.
Shattered Sky is probably fine. It reminds me a little of Metalopolis.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm okay with the Macro Map.
So, that's two enh maps, one pretty decent one, and one fucking awful one. I guess it depends on what maps they remove to make room. If they remove, for instance, Slag, Scrap, Delta, and Typhon, I guess I'm okay with this.
On June 21 2011 03:51 -orb- wrote:
These maps look terrible
I sure hope I'm wrong
Not nearly enough vetoes for all the crap blizzard puts in the ladder pool
These maps look terrible
I sure hope I'm wrong
Not nearly enough vetoes for all the crap blizzard puts in the ladder pool
On June 21 2011 04:10 WniO wrote:
very cool stuff.
very cool stuff.
On June 21 2011 04:15 Zapdos_Smithh wrote:
Blizzard should just put rocks everywhere for all the maps. Your natural will have rocks in it, your RAMP will have fucking rocks, your GAS will be covered in rocks, every single expansion will have rocks in it, if you want to access watch towers you need to kill rocks, and every single path in the map will be stopped by rocks.
Zerg, Terran, and Protoss' worst enemies aren't each other, they are rocks. Who would have thought that intergalactic war in the future with all of it's technologies will still be troubled by rocks.
Blizzard should just put rocks everywhere for all the maps. Your natural will have rocks in it, your RAMP will have fucking rocks, your GAS will be covered in rocks, every single expansion will have rocks in it, if you want to access watch towers you need to kill rocks, and every single path in the map will be stopped by rocks.
Zerg, Terran, and Protoss' worst enemies aren't each other, they are rocks. Who would have thought that intergalactic war in the future with all of it's technologies will still be troubled by rocks.
On June 21 2011 04:25 BigFan wrote:
Gotta love how people will keep on complaining about maps regardless of whether the maps are good or bad. Personally, I think these maps are fine as is. Once the community gets a chance to play on them, we can then determine how good of maps they are. Nice to see more open areas in the middle and being able to double exp on map 4 sounds great :D
Gotta love how people will keep on complaining about maps regardless of whether the maps are good or bad. Personally, I think these maps are fine as is. Once the community gets a chance to play on them, we can then determine how good of maps they are. Nice to see more open areas in the middle and being able to double exp on map 4 sounds great :D
On June 21 2011 04:29 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
We'll see how they turn out I guess, so far my optimism is crushed though :/
We'll see how they turn out I guess, so far my optimism is crushed though :/
On June 21 2011 04:32 ZeromuS wrote:
My issue is mainly with the first and third maps. On the sky map I think that banshees from Terran will completely destroy. Think about the open space behind the main and the long distance between the mineral line on the natural and the mineral line on the main for any infantry to traverse to deal with banshees :/
My issue is mainly with the first and third maps. On the sky map I think that banshees from Terran will completely destroy. Think about the open space behind the main and the long distance between the mineral line on the natural and the mineral line on the main for any infantry to traverse to deal with banshees :/
On June 21 2011 04:39 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
Hmmm looking at the new maps now. They seem to be going in the right direction
. Still too many rocks for my taste but to each their own.
I am actually excited to try out 1v1 Test4, it looks interesting.
Hmmm looking at the new maps now. They seem to be going in the right direction
. Still too many rocks for my taste but to each their own. I am actually excited to try out 1v1 Test4, it looks interesting.
On June 21 2011 04:44 grobo wrote:
Seems decent in my opinion, just wish they would stop with all the destructible rocks.
Seems decent in my opinion, just wish they would stop with all the destructible rocks.
On June 21 2011 04:44 MrCon wrote:
After taking a close look at those maps, I think they're not that bad. Actually, I think they could be good. Even the rush map is not that rush happy, because you have a good choke to defend and an easy 3rd.
I think I really like all those maps in fact, for the first time I'm actually in a hurry to play those maps.
After taking a close look at those maps, I think they're not that bad. Actually, I think they could be good. Even the rush map is not that rush happy, because you have a good choke to defend and an easy 3rd.
I think I really like all those maps in fact, for the first time I'm actually in a hurry to play those maps.
On June 21 2011 05:33 travis wrote:
God damn people are negative LOL
I guess I am not as amazing at telling what the maps mean as you guys since I have no clue if these are good or bad yet.
God damn people are negative LOL
I guess I am not as amazing at telling what the maps mean as you guys since I have no clue if these are good or bad yet.
Generally a negative response, but of course only time will tell if opinions remain unchanged.
