EPTKerrigan's Wrath sucks, so I improved it for you:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mihwi.jpg)
I still feel the map is sub par, but I think it's a little less crap than it was before.
Season 3 Ladder Pool Updates - Page 31
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
starmeat_
105 Posts
Kerrigan's Wrath sucks, so I improved it for you: I still feel the map is sub par, but I think it's a little less crap than it was before. | ||
|
Gorguts
Canada254 Posts
People have been complaining about the retarded amount of Destructible Rocks/debris since BETA, and STILL blizzard fills their maps with that shit. | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
if we had 9 tal'darims, at least at platinum level and lower, matches would generally go on a lot longer and be less fun for most of them (less skirmishes, just a 15-minute build up and a one off huge clash that decided the entire game). not saying bliz' maps are perfect (Delta Quadrant is horrendous), but i think people just assume the grass is always greener... | ||
|
Boyo
United States226 Posts
| ||
|
MstrJinbo
United States1251 Posts
| ||
|
maybelunarox
Poland74 Posts
On June 21 2011 08:04 coolcor wrote: Blizzard is never going to add maps designed for tournaments to the ladder, but I think the best solution is to ask them to have a second ladder that GSL and ICCup can add whatever maps they want to. And let anybody select to play in either one. Then people can chose between the "variety" and rushing of the blizzard maps or the tournament maps for balance or if they wanna play like and copy the pros or train for a tournament. It would also let the tournaments do what they want with maps without worrying about keeping a few ladder maps in because anyone can practice them now without being on a pro team. Out of the two that you mentioned I'd actually swapped em and said they'd never make a second ladder inside the bnet 2.0. Seems like a pretty silly idea. The only way for another ladder, different than the official one, is I believe independent ladder, prepared and ranked on some site. Other then that, they already added Tal Darim. I wonder why the hesitate to add few others. | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
edit: i looked it up it's called incineration zone | ||
|
Zerum
Sweden348 Posts
| ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
On June 21 2011 08:12 maybelunarox wrote: Out of the two that you mentioned I'd actually swapped em and said they'd never make a second ladder inside the bnet 2.0. Seems like a pretty silly idea. The only way for another ladder, different than the official one, is I believe independent ladder, prepared and ranked on some site. Other then that, they already added Tal Darim. I wonder why the hesitate to add few others. haven't they alluded to tal'darim getting a lot of thumbs down? | ||
|
Mercury-
Great Britain804 Posts
| ||
|
MstrJinbo
United States1251 Posts
On June 21 2011 08:12 akaname wrote: all these maps are better than kulas ravine and that shitty lava one from beta I remember incineration zone. That map was so awful. Strangely, I kind of liked Kulas Ravine. Don't really know why. | ||
|
JiYan
United States3668 Posts
| ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
On June 21 2011 08:14 MstrJinbo wrote: I remember incineration zone. That map was so awful. Strangely, I kind of liked Kulas Ravine. Don't really know why. i remember getting sieged from above on that map and not being able to do a thing. possibly the day i started hating terran... and if you wanna see a bad map, guys, here you go... ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/f/f3/Incineration_Zone.jpg/400px-Incineration_Zone.jpg) | ||
|
Dusty
United States3359 Posts
| ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
On June 21 2011 08:15 JiYan wrote: i think they mentioned that backwater gulch gets the most thumbs down, not taldarim ah ok. i think i recall someone asking about more larger maps, and them replying by saying they saw the TD stats and that we'd be surprised, so i just assumed they meant tal'darim. | ||
|
Gorguts
Canada254 Posts
On June 21 2011 08:15 Dusty wrote: Apparently normal means all-in? I thought a macro game was normal... map team needs to be fired for this garbage Apparently you're not supposed to take a 3rd base in this game. the map team has made that pretty clear. we're playing allincraft 2. | ||
|
IPA
United States3206 Posts
On June 21 2011 08:08 akaname wrote: at the risk of getting abuse in this thread... i'd rather have a 9 tiny-map map pool than a 9 macro heavy maps. if we had 9 tal'darims, at least at platinum level and lower, matches would generally go on a lot longer and be less fun for most of them (less skirmishes, just a 15-minute build up and a one off huge clash that decided the entire game). not saying bliz' maps are perfect (Delta Quadrant is horrendous), but i think people just assume the grass is always greener... If we had nine Tal Darims, the game would be infinitely better. | ||
|
Mauldo
United States750 Posts
On June 21 2011 08:04 coolcor wrote: Blizzard is never going to add maps designed for tournaments to the ladder, but I think the best solution is to ask them to have a second ladder that GSL and ICCup can add whatever maps they want to. And let anybody select to play in either one. Then people can chose between the "variety" and rushing of the blizzard maps or the tournament maps for balance or if they wanna play like and copy the pros or train for a tournament. It would also let the tournaments do what they want with maps without worrying about keeping a few ladder maps in because anyone can practice them now without being on a pro team. ^^ I like this way more than separating the leagues by map pools. It's gets too complicated for people when they upgrade from Platinum and suddenly have to acclimate to new maps. That's not far to anyone at all. Also, did anyone read what Blizzard wrote at the end of the blog post? Looking at the statistics, we’re seeing that the higher level players rarely play these formats. Therefore, we’ve decided to go with a bit more of a casual-player-friendly selection of formats. We want to provide a good mix of fortress style maps, as well as rush maps, to cater to the broad player base here. Our goal for these two formats is for players to be able to enjoy variety in the gameplay, rather than trying to provide an eSports level of game balance. The reason why they add these maps and won't "add normal and macro maps to help people get better at the game" is because they know their fan base, and they know that most people aren't necessarily looking to get better. They're looking to play how they want, and so Blizzard caters to them. If that makes them an evil corporation, then damn. I know of a few American companies that bought up the housing market debt, and when it all defaulted, used the government payouts to give themselves hundreds of millions worth of bonuses. But that's on the same level of giving people varied maps on the ladder, right? They said it right here guys. If you're pissy about people cheesing and rushing on the ladder, then you'll have to suck it up. Sorry. I can't beat them, but you don't see me on here advocating that Blizzard add maps that only I would like to play. And these maps look okay, but I haven't played on them, so I'm not going to shit on any of them like so many of my forum brethren have. I'll say that they look decent. They're not GSL maps, which I almost uniformly love, but I'm sure they'll give most of the players (including myself) some fun games. And that's what Blizzard is in the business of, giving the most people at the same time as much fun as they can. So kudos. | ||
|
shmoo
United States139 Posts
On June 21 2011 08:13 Mercury- wrote: You Zergs whiners know the reason most of the thirds have rocks is spawn larva, right? That is why the 3rd on Metalopolis has rocks then! It must be. Because if what you say is true, then a 3rd without rocks must be op for zerg. 7: Metalopolis 1.1 - 52.60% http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231648 That is the overall win ratio for zerg on Metalopolis. 9: Metalopolis 1.1 - 53.70% That is the win ratio for zerg against protoss on Metalopolis. Now lets compare it to a map where you need to destroy rocks to get your third base. 20: Shattered Temple - 42.20% It seems like rocks do hurt zerg, a lot. I will let you judge if those numbers show zerg is op without rocks though. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On June 21 2011 08:07 starmeat_ wrote: Dear Blizzard, Kerrigan's Wrath sucks, so I improved it for you: I still feel the map is sub par, but I think it's a little less crap than it was before. Except now you don't have a third  | ||
| ||
