|
I would agree if every race had teh same mechanics.
You can stay 1 base for a long time as T/P (on a small map)
You have very good two base plays as T/P
You are devastating and your entire techtree lies open to you as T/P if you are on 3 bases
But zerg isnt designed that way.
I agree that the design intention was 3 baseplay max.
But zerg cant just say "ok i stay on 1 base while you are on 2, because you could do it too."
These maps just scream "Go for forge expand!" to toss, while they are whispering to me "look, he expanded quickly take your 3rd... oh... never mind... just all-in and pray"
|
Hey, this is quite fun... Given the current selection, here is my own dream 1v1 map pool, using Bliz' format. Warning, may contain my own opinion:
Rush Maps (3)
Steppes of War - that used to always be the map we picked for friendlies, early SC days. Sorry!
Xel''Naga Caverns - just a great map, so much fun but allows cheese play too
Kerrigan's Wrath - not sure what else counts as a rush map but i'd take this over most other small maps
Normal Maps
Metalopolis - removing close positions of course
Shattered Sky - difficult to take a third, but would be happy to try it out. looks beautiful.
Dual Sight - the non-ladder map that my friends and I all regularly enjoy playing on
Macro Maps
Tal'Darim - i was actually slow to warm to this, but when the action stays high it's great
Crevasse - Such an interesting map, would love to play it more often
Shakuras Plateau - a map that surprised us all in how good it turned out
Apologies if you disagree with my classification. I used http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Maps to remind me of maps available. Would love to hear other people's choices!
Edit: Hall of Shame, 3 awful maps from SC2's history
Delta Quadrant, Incinreation Zone, Kulas Ravine
|
|
|
comments on the 1v1 maps:
-) no good third--> sucks
-) might be OK
-) no good third--> sucks
-) no good third--> sucks
btw the layouts are really boring... Just comparing them to Testbug, Dual Sight, bel shire beach...
|
On June 21 2011 15:30 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 15:07 KingVietKong wrote: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.
Such a smart post. I really think some people watch GSLs, with tasteless and artosis keeping them entertained during 10 minutes of macro, think "that looks cool i could get a mothership and 200/200 army", and decide that is what makes macro maps so great. I'm not saying that's how we all think, but i do think people assume the grass is always greener.
i've said it before and got abuse but... high tier unit and 200/200 play is so so much more exciting when it only rarely happens. Every game, and we'd be like "brood lords? meh" We're currently at a state where high tier is very exciting to see and watch, but should we get too many 'macro' maps this could happen.
|
We're currently at a state where high tier is very exciting to see and watch, but should we get too many 'macro' maps this could happen.
i'am equally excited to see colossi every game as i'am excited seeing marines and tanks
|
On June 21 2011 16:34 akaname wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 15:30 DaemonX wrote:On June 21 2011 15:07 KingVietKong wrote: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. Such a smart post. I really think some people watch GSLs, with tasteless and artosis keeping them entertained during 10 minutes of macro, think "that looks cool i could get a mothership and 200/200 army", and decide that is what makes macro maps so great. I'm not saying that's how we all think, but i do think people assume the grass is always greener. i've said it before and got abuse but... high tier unit and 200/200 play is so so much more exciting when it only rarely happens. Every game, and we'd be like "brood lords? meh" We're currently at a state where high tier is very exciting to see and watch, but should we get too many 'macro' maps this could happen.
The point is that what most of us wants its not for seeing high tech 200/200 armys to be "exciting" but for the awesome skirmishes , strategies and unit control to show us how sometimes armies that would have been crushed easily just crush trough the enemies whit their awesome control and to top it off it isnt the end yet... theres reinforcements on the way for more and more great skirmishes showing the great macro,strategy and micro of the players.
and that kind of games are really hard to see in small maps because of how easy it becomes to just do a 1-2 base timing push to end it.
so i say bring more macro maps... so we can have less boring 1-2 base timings and more amazing long games whit skirmishes all over the place and great unit control combined whit the amazing macro giving the spectator a real show of skill rather than how most of games are now where its just another 1-2 base timing unless for some really odd reason the game manages to get to the late game.
|
I hope im not alone in this. But is anyone else discouraged from playing on the ladder because the map pool there isn't the same map pool in the GSL/MLG/etc.?
Makes it hard to copy my favorite players play style =\
I usually just play in custom with friends so this pool change doesn't change much for me.
|
Does anyone know how big the 1on1 maps actually are? Are they all medium?
|
I want a 1v1 2 spawn map like Xel'naga carvens !!!
|
On June 21 2011 16:44 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +We're currently at a state where high tier is very exciting to see and watch, but should we get too many 'macro' maps this could happen. i'am equally excited to see colossi every game as i'am excited seeing marines and tanks
Sorry Charon, I don't quite get your point. If your point is that you're sick of seeing colossi really often, then in terms of my argument you are saying you want more rush maps, as that'll make it tougher to reach them. In my experience, pvp becomes colossi wars on macro maps, and that's not that interesting any more.
If you're just complaining about colossi in general, on the other hand, that's more about the unit itself?
edit: also by only quoting half of my original message you also make it lose its point...
|
All of you crying need to realize different types of maps allow deeper analysis of race and unit balancing in the long run, allowing for a more balanced experience in competition. This is a new game. You are gamers, yes? Then realize that there is a definite evolution to competitive video games. Adapt or lose, or quit. I myself love the challenge of new maps, challenging growth in different stages of my game-play.
|
The maps actually look good. Let's just wait till we can play in them. When will Season 3 start BTW? 
|
idk why all zergs complain about the 3rd... just send some lings and destroy the rocks... are zergs thinking they can get 3 bases up without an army...? cmon zergs just sends some lings and destroy the rocks... its not to much of a deal i think...
|
have no idea about the maps as havent played them yet!
but i wish blizzard could be a bit more creative and less formulaic with their design
|
I wish they would just add the GSL maps, bel'shir and xel'naga fortress look so much better.
|
On June 21 2011 16:59 akaname wrote:
Sorry Charon, I don't quite get your point. If your point is that you're sick of seeing colossi really often, then in terms of my argument you are saying you want more rush maps, as that'll make it tougher to reach them. In my experience, pvp becomes colossi wars on macro maps, and that's not that interesting any more.
No, I dont. You want to turn my post for the sake of your argument.
You choose, the Broodlord example for a specific reason.
Its very hard to get a broodlord out on just 3 bases. So yes, it gets more common on bigger maps because you can have more bases.
Its NOT hard to get other hightech units out on just as much as 2 bases.
I had never ever a game with broodlords on Steppes (mother of all rush maps), but nearly every game which wasnt decided by the first push saw HT, Clolossi oder Thors.
|
On June 21 2011 16:30 Big J wrote:
comments on the 1v1 maps:
-) no good third--> sucks
-) might be OK
-) no good third--> sucks
-) no good third--> sucks It would suck if any map provides an easy-to-defend third.
|
On June 21 2011 17:02 KOtical wrote:
idk why all zergs complain about the 3rd... just send some lings and destroy the rocks... are zergs thinking they can get 3 bases up without an army...? cmon zergs just sends some lings and destroy the rocks... its not to much of a deal i think...
It is a problem against FFE. You need that third fast. A few lings won't kill the rocks fast enough.
|
Interesting... Thanks for the update.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
