|
These 1v1 maps hurt my brain badly. Badly.
Map 1: REALLY? This map could be decent if cross position is the only possible spawn, but in the other scenarios all-ins and rush builds are far too powerful because of the ridiculously short rush distance. Tank pushes especially are going to be ridiculously powerful, given how easy it is to access the ledge below your main. And the gold base is on the low ground, blocked by rocks? This is just silly.
Map 2: ...Wow, all-in paradise numero dos. I like the idea of having destructible rocks on the sides, but right by the natural? So all-in pushes can run right into your expansion ezpz? Why does Blizz think short maps and destructible rocks to "alleviate" this problem equate to fun maps?
Map 3: Decent in cross positions and close air, absolutely awful in close positions. At least forcing players to attack through those bottom ramps to rush in close positions makes it easier to defend or force the enemy to take the long path. The gold expansions are too vulnerable to be taken for a sneaky comeback though... but at least the natural choke is quite small, and thus forge fast expand will be rampant here.
Map 4: Not bad, but this feels way too close to Backwater Gulch with a more easily defendable natural and third. But why the hell are the natural and main areas of other bases so close? That's just begging to be abused with tanks and incessant drop play. Not cool Blizzard.
As a whole: NO. The community wants GSL-style maps, not this 1 basing cheese inducing garbage. Macro maps lead to better games and encourage more people to participate in this game at a higher level instead of coin-flipping a rush build over and over. Why so stubborn on this point, Blizzard?
|
On June 21 2011 14:34 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:22 PromKing wrote: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.
This is an excellent point. The only thing about the new maps I don't like is SOME of the expansion blocking rocks. Shrink the map and remove the rocks imo. Metalopolis is a great map, and foo to all the meta-game whiners like IdrA that can't stand close-positions.
|
On June 21 2011 14:42 Ayrie wrote:
As a whole: NO. The community wants GSL-style maps, not this 1 basing cheese inducing garbage. Macro maps lead to better games and encourage more people to participate in this game at a higher level instead of coin-flipping a rush build over and over. Why so stubborn on this point, Blizzard? Well, probably to keep people like me playing the game. I HATE the GSL maps, and if these were the ladder rotation I'd become a SC2 spectator rather than a player overnight. My reasons for this are, I believe, quite legitimate and rational. I almost never 1-base, either.
But it's fashionable to listen to the latest meta-game whining and not think of what happens to the game/community 2 weeks, let alone 2 years down the road. What happens if you turn-off every player who can't be fucked playing draining 40 minute macro-fests EVERY SINGLE GAME? What happens when the any but the most hardcore who don't have 4 hours a day to play can no longer practice openings on ladder anymore becasue the game turn around is 30+ mins? What happens when you have the opening minutes of every game the same boring repeat because there is no early aggression possible? What happens when players realise that half of the possible strategies, openings and units they make are useless because if you don't jump to tier 2.5 you don't actually have a valid playstyle?
The community dies in the ass before anyone really learns to play the game, that's what.
Blizzards choices have been excellent up till now, on the whole, with SC2, and I do not exempt the maps from that commendation.
|
On June 21 2011 14:41 DaemonX wrote:
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.
The two 6pools from Dreamhack were on the two biggest maps available, so...
BTW, if all you're interested in practicing is your opening, use custom maps vs. the computer.
|
On June 21 2011 14:41 DaemonX wrote:
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.
You can go for some kind of 2 base all ins on most of currently existing maps on ladder so i dont exactly see what you are moaning about. It's up to you how you "develop" on those maps. It's not up to you how you play tho when there is a a map when 3rd is impossible to take and there are shor rusht distances. Map dictates playstyle in that case to way too big extent.
Also you complain that you don't want long macro games and you belive that bigger maps always/usually lead to that and AT same point you bring in existing possibility to rush and punish those fast expanding macro players. That maybe means game balances itself in that kind of play? And that maybe means Blizzard should not introduce short distance maps/extremly hard to take thrid's which choke the players options how they want to play.
|
Northern Ireland25976 Posts
When does season 3 come into effect anyway?
These maps don't look amazing, not sure they can be worse than Slag Pits or DQ though so that's a bonus
|
On June 21 2011 14:49 Narw wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:41 DaemonX wrote:
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. You can go for some kind of 2 base all ins on most of currently existing maps on ladder so i dont exactly see what you are moaning about. It's up to you how you "develop" on those maps. It's not up to you how you play tho when there is a a map when 3rd is impossible to take and there are shor rusht distances. Map dictates playstyle in that case to way too big extent. Also you complain that you don't want long macro games and you belive that bigger maps always/usually lead to that and AT same point you bring in existing possibility to rush and punish those fast expanding macro players. That maybe means game balances itself in that kind of play? And that maybe means Blizzard should not introduce short distance maps/extremly hard to take thrid's which choke the players options how they want to play.
Learn to read, please. What I'm moaning about is the MOANING in this thread. I like the current map pool! I dont like the demands of the 'community' bandwagoners. If this thread was Blizzard's map selection method, we'd all be playing on the 4 GSL maps only. I never said I don't like macro games. I do. That's good starcraft. What I don't like is being forced to play a macro game no matter what my opponent does becaus the map demands it to be the only way to play.
|
On June 21 2011 14:54 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:49 Narw wrote:On June 21 2011 14:41 DaemonX wrote:
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. You can go for some kind of 2 base all ins on most of currently existing maps on ladder so i dont exactly see what you are moaning about. It's up to you how you "develop" on those maps. It's not up to you how you play tho when there is a a map when 3rd is impossible to take and there are shor rusht distances. Map dictates playstyle in that case to way too big extent. Also you complain that you don't want long macro games and you belive that bigger maps always/usually lead to that and AT same point you bring in existing possibility to rush and punish those fast expanding macro players. That maybe means game balances itself in that kind of play? And that maybe means Blizzard should not introduce short distance maps/extremly hard to take thrid's which choke the players options how they want to play. Learn to read, please. What I'm moaning about is the MOANING in this thread. I like the current map pool! I dont like the demands of the 'community' bandwagoners. If this thread was Blizzard's map selection method, we'd all be playing on the 4 GSL maps only.
No, you're raging against the perceived threat of big maps in the ladder pool.
|
On June 21 2011 14:55 Wren wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:54 DaemonX wrote:On June 21 2011 14:49 Narw wrote:On June 21 2011 14:41 DaemonX wrote:
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. You can go for some kind of 2 base all ins on most of currently existing maps on ladder so i dont exactly see what you are moaning about. It's up to you how you "develop" on those maps. It's not up to you how you play tho when there is a a map when 3rd is impossible to take and there are shor rusht distances. Map dictates playstyle in that case to way too big extent. Also you complain that you don't want long macro games and you belive that bigger maps always/usually lead to that and AT same point you bring in existing possibility to rush and punish those fast expanding macro players. That maybe means game balances itself in that kind of play? And that maybe means Blizzard should not introduce short distance maps/extremly hard to take thrid's which choke the players options how they want to play. Learn to read, please. What I'm moaning about is the MOANING in this thread. I like the current map pool! I dont like the demands of the 'community' bandwagoners. If this thread was Blizzard's map selection method, we'd all be playing on the 4 GSL maps only. No, you're raging against the perceived threat of big maps in the ladder pool.
No, I am raging against idiots want ONLY massive maps so they can hide their terrible micro and poorly developed openings behind a shield of 'macro' and feel like they're playing well because the game gets past 15 minutes every time.
These players should just go back to practice league and get the NR20 map.
|
This is what happens when blizzard gets involved in there games post production. Thankfully they neglected the fuck out of BW. For those who played WoW arena, you will know fucking awful blizzard is at decision making when it comes to maps/balance/ect. SC2 is going to be no different unfortunately since there is still plenty of opportunities for them to earn massive amounts of $$$.
|
If this thread was Blizzard's map selection method, we'd all be playing on the 4 GSL maps only.
Ohh, that would be horrible. I mean, its not like everytime i spawn on close spawn position as zerg vs protoss/terran on meta i actually think if i should bother playing or just leave at start and save myself frustration.
|
Northern Ireland25976 Posts
I do sympathise with Daemon up there but a lot of people here have a point re Blizzard stubbornly refusing to use 3rd party maps, insisting on modding them or whatever. It'll save Blizz time and indeed MONEY if they allow more of this to happen, I don't get why they persist in the stubborn way they do
|
On June 21 2011 14:58 Narw wrote:Show nested quote +If this thread was Blizzard's map selection method, we'd all be playing on the 4 GSL maps only. Ohh, that would be horrible. I mean, its not like everytime i spawn on close spawn position as zerg vs protoss/terran on meta i actually think if i should bother playing or just leave at start and save myself frustration.
Maybe you should listen less to IdrA, a guy who so narrow-minded he ggs himself out of winning tournaments, and think for yourself. Commentators do no favours by announcing how terrible the spawns are for the races just because they have nothing else to say at the start of the match, and people blindly follow what they're told instead of thinking outside the box.
What was Catz' strongest ZvT map? Steppes of Fucking War. (yep, that's its name). He had every terran he practiced against saying that the match was broken! Stealing that build it became mine too.
Did I ever see anyone try his build in the GSL? No? Why? Coz they took the map out.
|
On June 21 2011 14:54 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:49 Narw wrote:On June 21 2011 14:41 DaemonX wrote:
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. You can go for some kind of 2 base all ins on most of currently existing maps on ladder so i dont exactly see what you are moaning about. It's up to you how you "develop" on those maps. It's not up to you how you play tho when there is a a map when 3rd is impossible to take and there are shor rusht distances. Map dictates playstyle in that case to way too big extent. Also you complain that you don't want long macro games and you belive that bigger maps always/usually lead to that and AT same point you bring in existing possibility to rush and punish those fast expanding macro players. That maybe means game balances itself in that kind of play? And that maybe means Blizzard should not introduce short distance maps/extremly hard to take thrid's which choke the players options how they want to play. Learn to read, please. What I'm moaning about is the MOANING in this thread. I like the current map pool! I dont like the demands of the 'community' bandwagoners. If this thread was Blizzard's map selection method, we'd all be playing on the 4 GSL maps only. I never said I don't like macro games. I do. That's good starcraft. What I don't like is being forced to play a macro game no matter what my opponent does becaus the map demands it to be the only way to play.
How bout letting everyone chose to either play on either a blizzard map pool ladder or a GSL map pool ladder and then you can be happy, the "moaning people" will be happy and then we'll never have a thread complaining about blizzards/GOM's maps again. I think that would be nice so blizzard should do that.
|
On June 21 2011 15:01 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:58 Narw wrote:If this thread was Blizzard's map selection method, we'd all be playing on the 4 GSL maps only. Ohh, that would be horrible. I mean, its not like everytime i spawn on close spawn position as zerg vs protoss/terran on meta i actually think if i should bother playing or just leave at start and save myself frustration. Maybe you should listen less to IdrA, a guy who so narrow-minded he ggs himself out of winning tournaments, and think for yourself. Commentators do no favours by announcing how terrible the spawns are for the races just because they have nothing else to say at the start of the match, and people blindly follow what they're told instead of thinking outside the box. What was Catz' strongest ZvT map? Steppes of Fucking War. (yep, that's its name). He had every terran he practiced against saying that the match was broken! Stealing that build it became mine too. Did I ever see anyone try his build in the GSL? No? Why? Coz they took the map out.
I like how you conclude that couse i do not like playing meta close spawn im Idra fanboy. Shu, troll.
|
On June 21 2011 14:57 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:55 Wren wrote:On June 21 2011 14:54 DaemonX wrote:On June 21 2011 14:49 Narw wrote:On June 21 2011 14:41 DaemonX wrote:
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. You can go for some kind of 2 base all ins on most of currently existing maps on ladder so i dont exactly see what you are moaning about. It's up to you how you "develop" on those maps. It's not up to you how you play tho when there is a a map when 3rd is impossible to take and there are shor rusht distances. Map dictates playstyle in that case to way too big extent. Also you complain that you don't want long macro games and you belive that bigger maps always/usually lead to that and AT same point you bring in existing possibility to rush and punish those fast expanding macro players. That maybe means game balances itself in that kind of play? And that maybe means Blizzard should not introduce short distance maps/extremly hard to take thrid's which choke the players options how they want to play. Learn to read, please. What I'm moaning about is the MOANING in this thread. I like the current map pool! I dont like the demands of the 'community' bandwagoners. If this thread was Blizzard's map selection method, we'd all be playing on the 4 GSL maps only. No, you're raging against the perceived threat of big maps in the ladder pool. No, I am raging against idiots want ONLY massive maps so they can hide their terrible micro and poorly developed openings behind a shield of 'macro' and feel like they're playing well because the game gets past 15 minutes every time. These players should just go back to practice league and get the NR20 map.
They're not idiots for wanting good maps. If you're going to invalidate yourself through childish name calling, at least have a good argument. You'd nary find a person who wouldn't be totally down with a GSL style map pool on ladder. Furthermore, a big map != forced long game. I've seen plenty of short games on large maps, but I can hardly remember the last time I saw a good sized game on something like Steppes of War.
Half your post is you try to position yourself as a detractor to some mob with wild demands and to raise yourself above it. I wonder how much you actually give a shit about this to even post.
|
On June 21 2011 15:01 Ubertron wrote:
I do sympathise with Daemon up there but a lot of people here have a point re Blizzard stubbornly refusing to use 3rd party maps, insisting on modding them or whatever. It'll save Blizz time and indeed MONEY if they allow more of this to happen, I don't get why they persist in the stubborn way they do
Tal'Darim Altar? I get that it's been modded but it's definitely not a complete refusal of all third party maps. I see a chance for more 3rd party maps in the future
|
On June 21 2011 14:58 grungust wrote:
This is what happens when blizzard gets involved in there games post production. Thankfully they neglected the fuck out of BW. For those who played WoW arena, you will know fucking awful blizzard is at decision making when it comes to maps/balance/ect. SC2 is going to be no different unfortunately since there is still plenty of opportunities for them to earn massive amounts of $$$.
i dont really see what this argument is, WoW team is different than sc2. they didnt neglect bw, the korean scene just made their own maps, and so will they today for sc2(which they have obviously). not really sure where the money comes in. bad maps=more money i guess
|
On June 21 2011 14:54 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:49 Narw wrote:On June 21 2011 14:41 DaemonX wrote:
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. You can go for some kind of 2 base all ins on most of currently existing maps on ladder so i dont exactly see what you are moaning about. It's up to you how you "develop" on those maps. It's not up to you how you play tho when there is a a map when 3rd is impossible to take and there are shor rusht distances. Map dictates playstyle in that case to way too big extent. Also you complain that you don't want long macro games and you belive that bigger maps always/usually lead to that and AT same point you bring in existing possibility to rush and punish those fast expanding macro players. That maybe means game balances itself in that kind of play? And that maybe means Blizzard should not introduce short distance maps/extremly hard to take thrid's which choke the players options how they want to play. Learn to read, please. What I'm moaning about is the MOANING in this thread. I like the current map pool! I dont like the demands of the 'community' bandwagoners. If this thread was Blizzard's map selection method, we'd all be playing on the 4 GSL maps only. I never said I don't like macro games. I do. That's good starcraft. What I don't like is being forced to play a macro game no matter what my opponent does becaus the map demands it to be the only way to play.
The map could have a 1minute walk distance and you still wouldn't be forced to macro. You can simply rush anyway or proxy or do some cheesy fast tech to dts/banshee. I don't fully understand why people think a well designed map blocks you from flipping the rush coin.
My biggest issue with these 4 new maps aren't exactly the rush distance but they are just plain and boring. Maybe I just don't get the rush of adrenaline killing rocks which others get:S
|
Northern Ireland25976 Posts
On June 21 2011 15:08 Maynarde wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 15:01 Ubertron wrote:
I do sympathise with Daemon up there but a lot of people here have a point re Blizzard stubbornly refusing to use 3rd party maps, insisting on modding them or whatever. It'll save Blizz time and indeed MONEY if they allow more of this to happen, I don't get why they persist in the stubborn way they do Tal'Darim Altar? I get that it's been modded but it's definitely not a complete refusal of all third party maps. I see a chance for more 3rd party maps in the future
It's more their interviews on the topic though, namely "oh we know what the casual player wants", especially if Browder is involved. If anything surely close rush distances vs half decent cheese will turn off noobs 10x faster than maps which negate openings a bit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
