|
On June 21 2011 07:24 Fede wrote:
People bitching about rocks notices that almost every single map from GSL has rocks?
Terminus RE, Crevasse, Crossfire and now Tal'Darim.
You missed the point. None of those GSL maps have rocks blocking expansions. I don't think anyone is upset by rocks that open up new pathways. Well, at least not to the same extent as rocks blocking expansions.
|
On June 21 2011 13:44 Ventor wrote:
Typical stupid people... think they know more about maps than people who design the game. If you don't like it, don't play. Pretty simple.
Game designers are after $$. They balance the game based off what community and programmers say. Big tournaments use almost exclusively custom maps. Brood War stayed alive solely because the map makers knew what they were doing- Blizzard maps were never used. The community is the only reason starcraft 2 stays alive- we are trying to help it continue to be an eSport. A lot of starcraft 2 players will not be playing ladder because of the shitty maps- that does not help anything.
|
On June 21 2011 10:33 Kamais_Ookin wrote:
Maps are shit, swallow your fucking pride and use GSL maps.
I can't believe blizzard actually admits that they are only catering to the casuals in the link from the op, FUCK.
I read that quote from Blizz to mean higher level players don't often play 3v3s or 4v4s
|
On June 21 2011 13:56 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 07:24 Fede wrote:
People bitching about rocks notices that almost every single map from GSL has rocks?
Terminus RE, Crevasse, Crossfire and now Tal'Darim. You missed the point. None of those GSL maps have rocks blocking expansions. I don't think anyone is upset by rocks that open up new pathways. Well, at least not to the same extent as rocks blocking expansions.
Just want to clarify here- most rocks block expansions unnecessarily. Also, the ones they use on pathways are just band-aid fixes to inherently flawed distances, mostly from natural to natural. They have clearly designed the maps before adding rocks, and then add them to try to cover up how imbalanced their map was previously.
|
I just hope to christ that they finally get rid of Scrap Station. How can that map still be in rotation and also be so blatantly awful? That ramp, dear god.
|
On June 21 2011 13:59 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 13:56 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:On June 21 2011 07:24 Fede wrote:
People bitching about rocks notices that almost every single map from GSL has rocks?
Terminus RE, Crevasse, Crossfire and now Tal'Darim. You missed the point. None of those GSL maps have rocks blocking expansions. I don't think anyone is upset by rocks that open up new pathways. Well, at least not to the same extent as rocks blocking expansions. Just want to clarify here- most rocks block expansions unnecessarily. Also, the ones they use on pathways are just band-aid fixes to inherently flawed distances, mostly from natural to natural. They have clearly designed the maps before adding rocks, and then add them to try to cover up how imbalanced their map was previously.
Because facing a zerg opponent who fast expands to the gold is fun? Once again the community at large hasn't a clue.
|
blizzard has never been good at making maps EVER
Well, Xel'Naga turned out to be a great map, and Shakuras turned out to be a good 1v1 map.
Shattered and Metal are both also pretty great, or at least without close positions (the maps are just slightly too small for close positions to work...)
Typhon and Backwater Gulch turned out to not be too horrible either.
None of them are nearly as great as the BW maps, though, of course, or the GSL ones.
|
I am very dissappointed by the 1v1 maps. They added 1 macro map out of four, while they have 2 rush maps and one insanely quirky rock-filled map. I don't have a problem with having a rush map, because serious players can always veto it. I don't like adding 2 rush maps out of 4 new maps however. I don't think this is what any level of the community wants. If I'm wrong though, please let me know.
|
Not too bad IMO. Will down vote map 3.
The rest I can live with (GSL maps would be better though)
|
Because facing a zerg opponent who fast expands to the gold is fun?
but seeing a forge FE on every new map with no possibilitys to get an early 3rd yourself ist? You like playing 2 base all-ins on every map?
|
On June 21 2011 14:01 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 13:59 monitor wrote:On June 21 2011 13:56 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:On June 21 2011 07:24 Fede wrote:
People bitching about rocks notices that almost every single map from GSL has rocks?
Terminus RE, Crevasse, Crossfire and now Tal'Darim. You missed the point. None of those GSL maps have rocks blocking expansions. I don't think anyone is upset by rocks that open up new pathways. Well, at least not to the same extent as rocks blocking expansions. Just want to clarify here- most rocks block expansions unnecessarily. Also, the ones they use on pathways are just band-aid fixes to inherently flawed distances, mostly from natural to natural. They have clearly designed the maps before adding rocks, and then add them to try to cover up how imbalanced their map was previously. Because facing a zerg opponent who fast expands to the gold is fun? Once again the community at large hasn't a clue.
You are accepting blizzards premise that every fucking map needs a gold and the only way to prevent it from being op'd is to slap rocks on top of it instead of having a normal third sans rocks and gold minerals.
|
looks like on the second map i think, the natural has rocks next to it, but it looks like stalkers/marines can still hit it from over the rocks? who knows, but that will be some pretty annoying pressure for a zerg player
|
On June 21 2011 14:19 Snorkle wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:01 Ownos wrote:On June 21 2011 13:59 monitor wrote:On June 21 2011 13:56 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:On June 21 2011 07:24 Fede wrote:
People bitching about rocks notices that almost every single map from GSL has rocks?
Terminus RE, Crevasse, Crossfire and now Tal'Darim. You missed the point. None of those GSL maps have rocks blocking expansions. I don't think anyone is upset by rocks that open up new pathways. Well, at least not to the same extent as rocks blocking expansions. Just want to clarify here- most rocks block expansions unnecessarily. Also, the ones they use on pathways are just band-aid fixes to inherently flawed distances, mostly from natural to natural. They have clearly designed the maps before adding rocks, and then add them to try to cover up how imbalanced their map was previously. Because facing a zerg opponent who fast expands to the gold is fun? Once again the community at large hasn't a clue. You are accepting blizzards premise that every fucking map needs a gold and the only way to prevent it from being op'd is to slap rocks on top of it instead of having a normal third sans rocks and gold minerals.
metalopolis doesnt have rocks at its gold base
|
On June 21 2011 14:22 PromKing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:19 Snorkle wrote:On June 21 2011 14:01 Ownos wrote:On June 21 2011 13:59 monitor wrote:On June 21 2011 13:56 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:On June 21 2011 07:24 Fede wrote:
People bitching about rocks notices that almost every single map from GSL has rocks?
Terminus RE, Crevasse, Crossfire and now Tal'Darim. You missed the point. None of those GSL maps have rocks blocking expansions. I don't think anyone is upset by rocks that open up new pathways. Well, at least not to the same extent as rocks blocking expansions. Just want to clarify here- most rocks block expansions unnecessarily. Also, the ones they use on pathways are just band-aid fixes to inherently flawed distances, mostly from natural to natural. They have clearly designed the maps before adding rocks, and then add them to try to cover up how imbalanced their map was previously. Because facing a zerg opponent who fast expands to the gold is fun? Once again the community at large hasn't a clue. You are accepting blizzards premise that every fucking map needs a gold and the only way to prevent it from being op'd is to slap rocks on top of it instead of having a normal third sans rocks and gold minerals. metalopolis doesnt have rocks at its gold base
Nice double post to point that out. I was exaggerating because I'm mad and disappointed with the new maps. Also the gold on metal isn't supposed to be your third.... and it is not viable for a zerg to expand to it early in the game like it would be on most of these new maps if they lacked rocks.
|
zerg needs gold bases? i thought the are looking for gas
|
so I assume season 3 is happening soon then...
lol hasnt the ladder been locked for like half season 2?
|
On June 21 2011 14:22 PromKing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:19 Snorkle wrote:On June 21 2011 14:01 Ownos wrote:On June 21 2011 13:59 monitor wrote:On June 21 2011 13:56 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:On June 21 2011 07:24 Fede wrote:
People bitching about rocks notices that almost every single map from GSL has rocks?
Terminus RE, Crevasse, Crossfire and now Tal'Darim. You missed the point. None of those GSL maps have rocks blocking expansions. I don't think anyone is upset by rocks that open up new pathways. Well, at least not to the same extent as rocks blocking expansions. Just want to clarify here- most rocks block expansions unnecessarily. Also, the ones they use on pathways are just band-aid fixes to inherently flawed distances, mostly from natural to natural. They have clearly designed the maps before adding rocks, and then add them to try to cover up how imbalanced their map was previously. Because facing a zerg opponent who fast expands to the gold is fun? Once again the community at large hasn't a clue. You are accepting blizzards premise that every fucking map needs a gold and the only way to prevent it from being op'd is to slap rocks on top of it instead of having a normal third sans rocks and gold minerals. metalopolis doesnt have rocks at its gold base
Metalopolis does have rocks at the gold bases. However the rocks are just in the form of watchtowers and multiple attack angles, rendering the expansion impossible to take early on.
|
They don't look too bad, though they still have way too much emphasis on destructible rocks which is quite annoying.
|
Well I for one think most of this crying and whinging is bs.
I don't want every single god damned game to be a 40 minute epic that leaves me an exhausted ball of sweat. How can you practice an opening with that going on? How long before droves of players quit playing 1v1 ladder because of the sheer scariness of the macrofest?
Furthermore, with SC2 having such short tech trees compared to sc1, it will just be a tier 3 fest all game. Dimaga is already showing us how to beat fast-expanding players with 11 minute ultras. All the races have some neat tier 1.5-2 action that should be showcased.
Games should develop naturally to long macro if the players playing the games are good enough to counter eachother, not artificially produced by making them spawn 20 minutes away from eachother.
Oh and I hate the GSL maps. They are annoying and generally shit - 4 XNT, huge cliff abuses on your natural and third...TvT is like having teeth pulled on all of them. So stop holding them up as paragons of map design glory.
|
On June 21 2011 13:57 MementoMori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 10:33 Kamais_Ookin wrote:
Maps are shit, swallow your fucking pride and use GSL maps.
I can't believe blizzard actually admits that they are only catering to the casuals in the link from the op, FUCK. I read that quote from Blizz to mean higher level players don't often play 3v3s or 4v4s
That exact line did, but all the keywords like "players of all stripes", "maps that give a lot of variety", and "rush map" mean the same things.
Essentially, they're shoehorning all players into the most basic line of thought:
"This map is small, I need to go kill my opponent quickly."
"This map is huge, I need to max before I leave my base."
This analysis is incredibly ... dumb ... but they wouldn't categorize the maps as they have (rush, normal, or macro)unless they believed all map types limited style choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
