EPT
Season 3 Ladder Pool Updates - Page 44
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
johngalt90
United States357 Posts
| ||
|
Sixotanaka
Australia191 Posts
| ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
DisaFear
Australia4074 Posts
 | ||
|
Falcor
Canada894 Posts
On June 21 2011 17:23 johngalt90 wrote: Zergs will be singing "where do we go!... where do we go from here!" seriously rocks on the third is beautiful cuz now zerg has to make stuff before third or risk expanding very far away from their natural, I approve if u let zergs expand to a 3rd without forcing any attacking units....you deserve to lose? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On June 21 2011 16:34 akaname wrote: 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. Play a ZvT... At some point you will simply get annoyed when all you do is defend for 20min, to see him either break through, or gg at the moment you crushed a huge push... Play a ZvP... He will have T3 colossi after 10min, while you struggle to have T2 speedroach/corruptor or T2 speedbling/drops or T2 infestor/ling (whatever you need/prefer) in time to combat him. so for Zerg players, anything but a macro game means that you're most likely sitting in your base, controling the map, and waiting for him to get active, as the only units that can break a bunkering opponent, are T3... btw: -) Protoss is not bound by mapsize, when it comes to rushes -) Zerg rushes are bound by choke points, not a lot by mapsize -) Terran on small maps is simply imba (every statistic shows that) | ||
|
FlaminGinjaNinja
United Kingdom879 Posts
All the 1v1 maps look bad, especially with regards to early game: 1. Close rush distences 2. The distance from the main to the ramp means no spines can cover it 3. Tanks can cover the entrance to the natural easily from within the main 2v2 maps: 1. Shared base *facepalm* 2. Rocks into the main on the first one, a nice touch could be interesting 3. In base natural/ rear natural, good for ZX teams 4. Attacking into the main on the second one looks like a Zerg meat grinder 3v3 maps: 1. First one reminds me of megaton and cinder fortress, should be a good map 2. Second one should be good to play once the rocks are broken down 3. Tanks... slow pushes to hold the middle on both maps will be... difficult 4v4 maps: 1. Actually look ok 2. Large open spaces good for run bys/ flanking 3. Natuals placement isn't rediculously hard to defend Overall i think tanks will be a problem but theres space for mutas or drops to do some good damage on all the maps. I expect to see alot of 2 base plays from T and P on most of the maps because other bases are further away then usual and so ill be harder to defend. My 2c | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 21 2011 16:23 Charon1979 wrote: This would not be remedied by an easy-to-defend third. The T and P players would adapt to take a third too. Then the zerg would be required to expand to a fourth. What then?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" | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
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. You make some very good points, nevertheless what I feel that you miss is, that it's not necessarily the "size" of the map that matters (yeah, yeah I know...herpderp) Take Dual Sight for example. I don't think you can call this map "big" by any standards, still due to its clever design it makes for a big variety of useful strategies. To put it this way: a) you are correct in saying that huge maps have the problem of eliminating each and every possibility of rush-based-play which makes the game both more one-dimensional and more exhausting. b) you should also adress that BAD small maps (most of the Blizzard-small-maps) work the other way round: due to inherently bad design they make long-term strategies useless. I think, the community would be much more friendly towards small maps if these were actually designed in a way that would enable DIFFERENT strategies. For example, take xel naga caverns. Now this is a great smallish/medium map, it's difficult to defend one basing, but it's POSSIBLE. I think Xel Naga isn't popular because the expansion is open (duh) or for thirds you have to destroy rocks (duh #2) but because the design of the map enables different strategies to be possible. This is what most of the small Blizz-maps lack: a design that somewhat punishes rush-based play when you, as a defender, know what you are doing. And this is the bottom-line of my argument: nearly all of the Blizzard-maps (at least the small ones) have ZERO defenders advantage! This is, what needs to be changed! | ||
|
Playerone111
39 Posts
On June 21 2011 17:31 Falcor wrote: if u let zergs expand to a 3rd without forcing any attacking units....you deserve to lose? How can i make zerg make units when i go forge expand then? pressure with 1 sentry? or maybe cannons ? | ||
|
rfoster
United States1005 Posts
Map 1: the rush distances don't seem to long, so it should be better than steppes/ close positions but not too long. This map seems O.k. by me. The gold base doesn't seem to hard to take as there is only one entrance to it and it it relatively close to your natural. Can see collosus and tanks sitting on top of the ledge to the third. Not sure how i feel about how easy it is to take a gold base I feel like there should be some risk to taking the gold over than just taking your third. The 4 xel naga towers seems a little off to me on such a small map it seems like if you control the towers you see the entire map Map 2: These rush distances seem even shorter than the first. Am I wrong here? It appears that you can go natural to natural through the gold bases. The third base seems o.K. to take and taking the gold leaves you more spread out. Not sure how the rocks affect the third. The rocks dont block the ramp to the third do they? Regardless the third can easily be tank dropped. Even more so than the first one as there is a cliff over the third rather than the third being a plateau. Overall this map seems O.K. to me I prefer it over the first one because I feel there is more of a risk to taking the gold as your third rather than it just being standard. On a second look at the map, a corner of the main has a place to drop tanks, not reachable from the low or the high ground. This does not seem like it will be significant due to the size of the main but still notable. Map 3: This map I don't like at all. No matter what the spawn positions there does not seem to a third that will be possible to take. The rush distances are decent. They are a healthy medium between short and long. I cant think of anything else about this but would like to say again how much i dislike this map Map 4: I don't see anything wrong with this map. Gold base feels like a risk, No spots to tank drop(which isn`t necessarily a bad thing but i know how much some people hate them), I like rocks on the fourth base rather than the third.(my opinion at least). No exploits that pop out at me. The gold base can be seiged from the high ground, so perhaps it may be to hard for zerg`s to take the gold(we`ll have to actually play on it to decide). I like the third base location on this map. The distances between the natural ramp and the third ramp are relatively short so it seems taking a third wont be impossible on this map. Honestly I haven't liked almost any of the blizzard maps. I like xel naga, shakuras, metalopolis, shattered temple, and one of the maps names is escaping me. + Show Spoiler + It is the map that came out 1.3 and it is a 4 player, the one without a gold base I would really prefer they add in some of the GSL maps. Some GSL maps seem a bit on the large side, but I really like dual sight, belshir beach, xel naga fortress. I wish they would put those in the map pool. + Show Spoiler + Or allow other ladders to be formed like brood war I have no idea how it was but have heard things here and there about letter scores and iccup | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
On June 21 2011 17:11 Charon1979 wrote: 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. ah i see. well i was referring to real top tech like mothership, carriers (as if!), BCs, brood lords, ultras, etc. but yeah, I agree that we don't want a situation where all the maps are so small, top tech NEVER gets used. | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
On June 21 2011 17:37 Big J wrote: Play a ZvT... At some point you will simply get annoyed when all you do is defend for 20min, to see him either break through, or gg at the moment you crushed a huge push... Play a ZvP... He will have T3 colossi after 10min, while you struggle to have T2 speedroach/corruptor or T2 speedbling/drops or T2 infestor/ling (whatever you need/prefer) in time to combat him. so for Zerg players, anything but a macro game means that you're most likely sitting in your base, controling the map, and waiting for him to get active, as the only units that can break a bunkering opponent, are T3... btw: -) Protoss is not bound by mapsize, when it comes to rushes -) Zerg rushes are bound by choke points, not a lot by mapsize -) Terran on small maps is simply imba (every statistic shows that) OK, i fully understand your point, and definitely dont want to go too OT and talk about overall balance, but it's a shame that you zerg should NEED to be able to take 3 bases comfortably to compete. but IMO this is a balance issue and i'd hate to see only big maps as the 'fix' for this. | ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
On June 21 2011 18:01 Playerone111 wrote: How can i make zerg make units when i go forge expand then? pressure with 1 sentry? or maybe cannons ? forge expand by practice is just a more defensive FE strategy for protoss (from what I get, I'm just a zerg~). which because YOU are defensive, the zerg is able to expand more. | ||
|
Maker
Mexico85 Posts
| ||
|
BobMcJohnson
France2916 Posts
Regarding the maps, as said before, there are quite a lot of rocks/golds/stuff, but those are still better than Slag Pits/DQ and al. Good to see that they are improving, a bit slowly but still improving Still lack 2 and 3 players maps though  Now, the thing that i fear more is "what maps are they gonna take out" probably DQ since they acknowledge its bad and its been here since the beginning, but a have a bad feeling about some kind of joke like removing XNC or Shakuras while leaving Slag Pits "because they are there since a long time and Slag Pits is new" or something :/ Hope to be wrong though. As for the date, they had stated that a season was ~3 month long and Season 2 started by ~March 30, so i think we can expect Season 3 in a few weeks | ||
|
DerNebel
Denmark648 Posts
The first map seems okay. If we can get past the initial stages of 4 and 6gates or terran timings. I hope it doesn't turn out that some positions are imbalanced, because that cyclical nature seems to beg for that AND interesting games at the same time. Shifted Sky could be interesting. If it doesnt turn out to be protoss heaven with all the constricted pathways available early game and open HT heaven late game. If I'm wrong here this could be a great map. The last 1v1 map is the one I enjoy the most. I feel it should be just slightly bigger, and I don't want to talk about the goofy "reaper entrance" into the mains, but overall it seems like a good map. Lots of counterattack paths, wraparounds, surrounding possibilities and CHOICE when you decide to attack. This looks like a good map. And how I do hate the "macro map" moniker. There shouldnt be "macro" and "rush" maps. There should be good and bad maps, not intended strategies. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 21 2011 18:09 akaname wrote: I would label it design decision, not balance issue. I agree, as being a zerg myself, I would like to have three bases soon. But I am horrified if the protoss also can get three bases fast. I think, large maps with many easy expansions fix nothing for zerg. The bigger the map, the easier for the protoss to hide a pylon somewhere near my bases to warp-in some harassment forces or DTs.OK, i fully understand your point, and definitely dont want to go too OT and talk about overall balance, but it's a shame that you zerg should NEED to be able to take 3 bases comfortably to compete. but IMO this is a balance issue and i'd hate to see only big maps as the 'fix' for this. As I see it, zerg is behind with equal base count, but somewhat ahead if he has an additional base. There must be a price to secure an additional base for any race, including zerg. | ||
|
Falcor
Canada894 Posts
On June 21 2011 18:01 Playerone111 wrote: How can i make zerg make units when i go forge expand then? pressure with 1 sentry? or maybe cannons ? If you forge first the proper response for zerg is to go a fast 3rd otherwise they get fucked? Most prot then go air to delay the 3rd as long as possible. | ||
|
ihasaKAROT
Netherlands4730 Posts
| ||
| ||
