|
On June 21 2011 15:15 Ubertron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 15:08 Maynarde wrote: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?
Nah, 1base play is easy to execute. It will always be more friendly at the lower levels of play.
Therefore, any map that makes 1base play stronger must be player friendly.
[just to clarify, this is as much a parody of the ideology I'm arguing against as anything.]
|
On June 21 2011 15:15 Ubertron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 15:08 Maynarde wrote: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?
There's no way to know for sure, and it's a personal taste thing imo. The reaction to Blizzards maps are overwhelmingly negative on this forum, and I personally don't think they're anything special but hey I like to give new things a go.
Blizzard are obviously not getting their casual gamer data from here haha, perhaps not that many casual gamers here on TL?
|
Northern Ireland23799 Posts
Haha, true that man.
It's the same with most games these days, they get toned down or have gimmicky things added to "help new players", but 9/10 it only serves to alienate the ACTIVE playerbase. If a player will quit SC2 immediately because of the maps, they'll quit eventually anyway because their mindset is not "I will practice and get better".
I don't know, maybe gaming is far too casual an activity these days. When I started out playing multiplayer games online you only really saw competitive, driven players. Incidentally there was also a lot less rudeness and general idiocy than I see nowadays, but that may well be the green veil of nostalgia ^^
|
Am I the only one who doesn't like the 4th map?
Its just Hard turtle on 3 bases without any posibility to take a 4th. This map is as awefull then the other maps.
|
On June 21 2011 15:22 Ubertron wrote:
Haha, true that man.
It's the same with most games these days, they get toned down or have gimmicky things added to "help new players", but 9/10 it only serves to alienate the ACTIVE playerbase. If a player will quit SC2 immediately because of the maps, they'll quit eventually anyway because their mindset is not "I will practice and get better".
I don't know, maybe gaming is far too casual an activity these days. When I started out playing multiplayer games online you only really saw competitive, driven players. Incidentally there was also a lot less rudeness and general idiocy than I see nowadays, but that may well be the green veil of nostalgia ^^
I am a 26yo gamer, and I remember the old days fondly. I do however, enjoy the hell out of SC2 and have played it every day since the Beta. I've seen a lot of competitive and driven players, I've seen the most mannered pros ever (reference: Moonglade, Sheth) take things on the chin. I've seen genius builds and brilliant posts on TL as well. That said though I've definitely seen the opposite of all that which you obviously have as well 
I think it's fine to be casual, I think it's fine to be active, driven and/or hardcore. But I think all those catagories of players should definitely just take things in stride a little bit and also have a bit of belief in the fact that even if they're unhappy with the state of things now (maps in this case) it will only get better. The community IS being listened to even though it doesn't feel like it at times.
|
they are announcing maps for season 3? does that mean that season 2 is ending in the near future?
|
On June 21 2011 15:07 KingVietKong wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 14:57 DaemonX wrote: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. Maybe you didn't read my other posts. I'll spell out my argument again:
Huge maps with lots of expansion make for long games. This is less evident early in the SC2's lifespan, but as people work out timings and learn to defend pressure stable fast expand builds are worked out for every matchup. Fast expanding with short tech trees like in SC2 leads to skipping tiers, and less emphasis on openings. I have never seen a nexus-first opening end up on zealot-stalker pressure.
Medium maps make for shorter games on average, but if both players play well, you end up with a macro game which both players have 'earned' through having a solid and closely matched opening and mid-game.
Huge maps artificially create a 'macro game' by making fast-expand, high tech games be the correct default for engaging in. I could be Flash himself, but on a 256x256 brood war map the game would still take 20+ minutes against anyone who knows how to defend his FE.
Large maps therefore make most every game have a long, draining and intimidating turn-around. Say I have an hour to play after work. On current blizzard map pool I can expect 3-4 games in that time. If every map was GSL, I MIGHT get 2 in that time, but I probably would be too drained if the first one was 30 mins to play another. I might think twice before I sit down to another 1v1 session after not playing for a week. I don't think I'm up to a 30 minute macrofest. So I play comps or 2v2 or something instead. Eventually I stop playing 1v1.
Large maps make it harder to practice openings for casual players, since 75%+ of games end in long games, practicing my early reaper harass gets awful hard. Computers are useless to practice openings against - I can ALWAYS bunker out a zerg computer, if expands...but he won't even expand most of the time because the AI 1-bases. Useless for practice.
Finally, the game is not correctly balanced around massive maps. Blizzards assumptions about how the economics and racial interaction break down on very large and very small maps. Introduction of GSL maps has meant zerg suddenly has balance issues LATE GAME. Balance issues early game are extremely easy to corecct for blizzard - 50 minerals more on this cost, 20 seconds on this upgrade. But late game balance is nearly impossible to solve on the fly.
Blizzard knows all these facts and is thinking about keeping the game alive and popular amongst the average player for at least another 2 expansions. I'm the average player (even though technically by league I'm in the top 1% of players), and they want to keep me. That's why they're doing what they're doing. And it's smart.
|
does anyone know when season 3 begins?
|
Northern Ireland23799 Posts
On June 21 2011 15:29 Maynarde wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 15:22 Ubertron wrote:
Haha, true that man.
It's the same with most games these days, they get toned down or have gimmicky things added to "help new players", but 9/10 it only serves to alienate the ACTIVE playerbase. If a player will quit SC2 immediately because of the maps, they'll quit eventually anyway because their mindset is not "I will practice and get better".
I don't know, maybe gaming is far too casual an activity these days. When I started out playing multiplayer games online you only really saw competitive, driven players. Incidentally there was also a lot less rudeness and general idiocy than I see nowadays, but that may well be the green veil of nostalgia ^^ I am a 26yo gamer, and I remember the old days fondly. I do however, enjoy the hell out of SC2 and have played it every day since the Beta. I've seen a lot of competitive and driven players, I've seen the most mannered pros ever (reference: Moonglade, Sheth) take things on the chin. I've seen genius builds and brilliant posts on TL as well. That said though I've definitely seen the opposite of all that which you obviously have as well I think it's fine to be casual, I think it's fine to be active, driven and/or hardcore. But I think all those catagories of players should definitely just take things in stride a little bit and also have a bit of belief in the fact that even if they're unhappy with the state of things now (maps in this case) it will only get better. The community IS being listened to even though it doesn't feel like it at times.
Pretty good post man, I mean I agree with most of it overall. I wish more people on TL had a chilled attitude like that. You have to think about all these various factors when making a game, the devs have done a pretty good job thus far. A player's perspective is generally blinkered, by playstyle and ESPECIALLY by their race, sifting between the whines of these players, and more considered, nuanced complaints must be a nightmare.
|
On June 21 2011 15:33 DreamRaider wrote:
does anyone know when season 3 begins?
I don't think so  ... Well *I* don't anyway.
Pretty good post man, I mean I agree with most of it overall. I wish more people on TL had a chilled attitude like that. You have to think about all these various factors when making a game, the devs have done a pretty good job thus far. A player's perspective is generally blinkered, by playstyle and ESPECIALLY by their race, sifting between the whines of these players, and more considered, nuanced complaints must be a nightmare.
I agree completely.
|
On June 21 2011 15:14 Mycl 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. 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
Exactly. And a bigger issue is how the poor design of these new maps will create frustrating and possibly imbalanced situations later on in the game, such as the inaccessibility of expansions in terns of positioning and distance, as well exploitable terrain, and almost compulsory aggression based on the nature of the maps in general (which do not favor zerg at all).
|
I think people are starting to act really stupid. People want the game to cater to one particular playstyle (macro) because they feel that it is the "best" and "least noobish" way to play the game...even though the game is largely based on timing attacks anyway. If you don't like getting rushed, then you should A) work on your early game, or B) veto the damn map.
Blizzard does not have to cater to the competitive crowd like they are a fucking lapdog. This is not YOUR game. It is THEIRS and they will create it how they please.
|
I just don't get why they don't make use of their GomTV relationship and integrate the GSL maps into the mappool. I already stopped laddering because of stupid maps and close position meta and temple, i really wish Blizzard would try a little harder on issues that are so easy and quick to fix.
Another idea (since that is what i interpret into their mapmaking policy) is to make a casual ladder with the current mappool plus their new fancy maps and a competetive ladder using the gsl maps.
|
First post!
I don;t know if this has been asked yet because I didn't read the entire thread, but on the first map, those rocks in front of the natural, are they destructible or part of the terrain?
|
On June 21 2011 01:15 BLinD-RawR wrote:
blizzard making square maps and rotational symmetry?
my god.some sense has been knocked into them.
If only more was knocked into them. sigh. These 1v1 maps are absolute crap.
Map 3 can be moved into 2v2 map pool. It's the worst 1v1 map I've ever seen. Impossible to take third, and then destructible rocks everywhere. I don't want any crazy destructible rocks opening up an easy way into my third! Like the 2 bases on the left and right, look like their allied or something. It looks like Shakuras in a way, but Shakuras is really GOOD!!
Test 2 looks like a smaller Backwatergulch (Not saying its bad) that's been retextured and shifted a little bit to make a terrible map. The destructible rocks making the natural even weirder than it already is. The destructible rocks blocking the third from attacks. (Personally I think it won't do anything, they'll get destroyed as soon as the third is seen.
Test 4 is meh?
Test 1 makes the third base like a gold base for everyone. It's like TAKE THIS GOLD BASE RIGHT HERE!! ITS GOT DESTRUCTIBLE ROCKS TOO!! Every single thing I hate about blizzard maps all put into one expansion. Brush outside natural too. What was the point of that exactly?
Also why is it that they had to make 2 "rush" maps. Why not more macro maps? Or at least maps that don't look like that kind of thing that map 3 is.
|
Rocks :D I think blizzard should add terminus + crevasse into map pool
|
correct me if i'm wrong, they've never had 2 of the same tileset in the 1v1 map pool. This suggests that we might lose XelNaga caverns (to map 1) and Scrap Station (to map 4). Maps 2 and 3 dont have equivalents.
I also cant imagine they'd keep DQ it gets so much hate.
|
Say I have an hour to play after work. On current blizzard map pool I can expect 3-4 games in that time. If every map was GSL, I MIGHT get 2 in that time, but I probably would be too drained if the first one was 30 mins to play another. I might think twice before I sit down to another 1v1 session after not playing for a week. I don't think I'm up to a 30 minute macrofest. So I play comps or 2v2 or something instead. Eventually I stop playing 1v1.
So now we are in a funny situation:
Say I have an hour to play after work. On current blizzard map pool I can expect 3-4 cheesy rush games in that time. If every map was GSL, I MIGHT get 2 good games in that time, but I probably would get to face a few rushers/cheesers even here. I might think twice before I sit down to another 1v1 session after not playing for a week. I don't think I'm up to a 3 minute cheesefest. Eventually I stop playing at all.
so why should they keep you and not me? 
The big difference ist: You can have your cheeses, 1 base play, 2 base all ins on big maps too... on the other hand 1 can't have my 5 base macro games on maps with just 6 mineral fields overall.
so... what makes you a "better customer" than me?
And sorry... you are not the "average player". The "average player" is sitting in Bronze - Gold, is frustrated every time he gets cheesed and resorts to cheese himself because he thinks its the only way to get away from the other cheesers.
|
On June 21 2011 15:14 Mycl 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. 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.
Because...it does? Ok you're not FORCED to macro, the game doesn't slap your hands away from the keyboard and starting expanding for you...but just about.
You can't rush on big maps because you come too late to do any damage. So rushing is just...stupid...to do. The reason for this should be obvious: The game's built-in rush timings (ie how to get a DT built, fastest possible time, etc) are designed to be fair on close positions. They haven't changed since Steppes was removed. So a map with a 15 second push distance (close pos LT) and a map with a 70+ second push (X-pos Terminus Re) have the same build times. Which means it's like I built DTs, then waited outside your ramp for over a minute before going in - you're not going to die to it unless you're a moron.
This won't change unless blizzard rebalance the ENTIRE TECH TREE for every new map.
So sure I can 10-pool pressure cross positions on Tal Darim. And sure it will fail coz he'll have an army by the time I even get there.
|
On June 21 2011 15:30 DaemonX wrote:
Maybe you didn't read my other posts. I'll spell out my argument again:
Huge maps with lots of expansion make for long games. This is less evident early in the SC2's lifespan, but as people work out timings and learn to defend pressure stable fast expand builds are worked out for every matchup. Fast expanding with short tech trees like in SC2 leads to skipping tiers, and less emphasis on openings. I have never seen a nexus-first opening end up on zealot-stalker pressure.
Medium maps make for shorter games on average, but if both players play well, you end up with a macro game which both players have 'earned' through having a solid and closely matched opening and mid-game.
Huge maps artificially create a 'macro game' by making fast-expand, high tech games be the correct default for engaging in. I could be Flash himself, but on a 256x256 brood war map the game would still take 20+ minutes against anyone who knows how to defend his FE.
Large maps therefore make most every game have a long, draining and intimidating turn-around. Say I have an hour to play after work. On current blizzard map pool I can expect 3-4 games in that time. If every map was GSL, I MIGHT get 2 in that time, but I probably would be too drained if the first one was 30 mins to play another. I might think twice before I sit down to another 1v1 session after not playing for a week. I don't think I'm up to a 30 minute macrofest. So I play comps or 2v2 or something instead. Eventually I stop playing 1v1.
Large maps make it harder to practice openings for casual players, since 75%+ of games end in long games, practicing my early reaper harass gets awful hard. Computers are useless to practice openings against - I can ALWAYS bunker out a zerg computer, if expands...but he won't even expand most of the time because the AI 1-bases. Useless for practice.
Finally, the game is not correctly balanced around massive maps. Blizzards assumptions about how the economics and racial interaction break down on very large and very small maps. Introduction of GSL maps has meant zerg suddenly has balance issues LATE GAME. Balance issues early game are extremely easy to corecct for blizzard - 50 minerals more on this cost, 20 seconds on this upgrade. But late game balance is nearly impossible to solve on the fly.
Blizzard knows all these facts and is thinking about keeping the game alive and popular amongst the average player for at least another 2 expansions. I'm the average player (even though technically by league I'm in the top 1% of players), and they want to keep me. That's why they're doing what they're doing. And it's smart.
That's a good post.
It's a really important point that big maps aren't instantly better because they produce macro games if those macro games turn out to be so horribly one-sided they should have ended at the early pressure stage.
The biggest issue I have with these maps isn't the fact that they're not mind-bendingly large. The problem, as a million other people have noted, is just the sheer inaccessibility of expansions past the natural. Again, something like XNC has a shorter distance than some positions on, say, #3... but it's also perfectly viable to take a third if you have map control. I doubt I'll be taking any of the low-ground thirds on #3 unless I literally have the other guy trapped up his own ramp.
That said, these maps are a hell of a lot better than slag pits et al. I'm fairly happy with Blizzard's progress, such as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
