EPTSeason 3 Ladder Pool Updates - Page 47
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
| ||
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
Seriously, in Bronze rush distance doesn't matter, so why be stubborn and add maps in which taking more than 2 bases is stupid? Choosing a 1-2 base all-in and executing well when your opponent is being greedy is great, being forced into it by map design isn't good. It's like PvP, where the "safest" build (1 base colossus,3-4 gate blink) is actually very all-in in other matchups. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 21 2011 20:32 ihasaKAROT wrote: Right, Slag is not very popular.They have rules for maps yes, but the basic foundation is the melee requirement. Look at xelnaga fortress for example, a different watchtower, with a timer that selfdestructs... Still its a Meleemap. Its within the rules but Blizzard never puts forward any of these things. Theres hardly any risk-reward situations and alot of the maps are only encouraging 2base allins. Look at slag pits for example, that map would have never made it in a players poll. I personally like the map, it is even my second favored map with Scrap Yard (now called Scrap Station) being my favorite map. Both maps suit my play style. Currently I did not downvote any map so I still get those large macro maps but I feel lost on them. I cannot grasp all the possibilities while on smaller maps I can somewhat predict the consequences when I expand there at that point in time or when I control that area. Also many users still try to get a sneaky hidden expansion while my map control is often good enough to deny it, which gives me an advantage. Bigger macro maps are often too large for me to maintain any reasonable map control. Day[9] did a daily for Slag Pits, he discussed the third. Most TL users would probably say that this map does not provide a third. In truth there is just no obvious third. Both maps (Slag and Scrap) are probably not too good for tournament use, but I like to have them in the ladder. Some of the current tournament maps are too gimmicky for my taste. I don't have the time to play as much to memorize all the map features just for the ladder maps. More unusual stuff would overtax my ability more so. It took me some time to get accustomed to two-base play, I incorporate a third just since some weeks. A third base means more area to defend. It means more larvae injects. It means to get better at avoiding having 1000 minerals. It also allows a lot of tech options which I am not used to. Many maps still promote two-base play which should hit the sweet spot for the majority of gamers. On June 21 2011 20:32 ihasaKAROT wrote: I agree that third-party rock use can be innovative. For example I like Crevasse where rocks can be killed to turn a small ramp into a wide ramp. I think this is an excellent use: You can try to kill the opponent's rocks so he has a harder time to defend the wide area, but you will be under fire while you work on the rocks.Even if they want to use destructible rocks, theres other things you can do with it. They are behind on maptrends even there with making the 'easy' 3rd accessible thru rocks. Look on the forums, really, theres so much more stuff that can be done with rocks (or anything destructable). On June 21 2011 20:32 ihasaKAROT wrote: Who is "people" who will them thumb down? It is more likely that the unsatisfied guys post, also the Bnet forums are full of map complaints. I think that the majority of the SC gamers don't even read the Bnet forums or TL. Now I see a kind of philosophical issue. Lets say one conducts a survey of many users who don't regularly read (or post on) forums. If the majority would approve the maps, is it because they just don't know better ones? If on the other hand the majority disproves the maps, is it because the maps are bad or because the majority of players consists of imbalance whiners?The blizzardmaps are just another list of maps that people will thumb down, theres nothing new, nothing special and nothing innovative. Its the same old thing over and over, but with rocks in different places. whooptidoo. Making an easy way to play is not only done with making the maps as straightforward as you can. There are maps posted here that you can make as simple and as complicated as you want, depending on your aggresion, tactics and speed. Personally , the maps are boring and old. But thats just me, altho looking at the comments, its pretty much the general opinion. About balance, I consider rotational symmetric maps to be inherently imbalanced even in mirror matches, depending on spawning positions. My solution to this issue is to think about how I could turn a perceived unfavorable spawning position into a possible advantage. Because if the opponent finds me and considers himself at an advantage, he will probably chose from a limited number of options, leaving him vulnerable at some points or times which I may be could exploit. Overall I see the Blizzard map issue on a larger time scale. We don't even have a game expansion out yet. In the long run we should seek to get more variety for ladder maps. For now Blizzard is still trying to get us into particular situations where they can monitor balance issues. | ||
|
Garnet
Vietnam9047 Posts
| ||
|
ihasaKAROT
Netherlands4730 Posts
On June 21 2011 21:59 [F_]aths wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On June 21 2011 20:32 ihasaKAROT wrote: Right, Slag is not very popular.They have rules for maps yes, but the basic foundation is the melee requirement. Look at xelnaga fortress for example, a different watchtower, with a timer that selfdestructs... Still its a Meleemap. Its within the rules but Blizzard never puts forward any of these things. Theres hardly any risk-reward situations and alot of the maps are only encouraging 2base allins. Look at slag pits for example, that map would have never made it in a players poll. I personally like the map, it is even my second favored map with Scrap Yard (now called Scrap Station) being my favorite map. Both maps suit my play style. Currently I did not downvote any map so I still get those large macro maps but I feel lost on them. I cannot grasp all the possibilities while on smaller maps I can somewhat predict the consequences when I expand there at that point in time or when I control that area. Also many users still try to get a sneaky hidden expansion while my map control is often good enough to deny it, which gives me an advantage. Bigger macro maps are often too large for me to maintain any reasonable map control. Day[9] did a daily for Slag Pits, he discussed the third. Most TL users would probably say that this map does not provide a third. In truth there is just no obvious third. Both maps (Slag and Scrap) are probably not too good for tournament use, but I like to have them in the ladder. Some of the current tournament maps are too gimmicky for my taste. I don't have the time to play as much to memorize all the map features just for the ladder maps. More unusual stuff would overtax my ability more so. It took me some time to get accustomed to two-base play, I incorporate a third just since some weeks. A third base means more area to defend. It means more larvae injects. It means to get better at avoiding having 1000 minerals. It also allows a lot of tech options which I am not used to. Many maps still promote two-base play which should hit the sweet spot for the majority of gamers. On June 21 2011 20:32 ihasaKAROT wrote: I agree that third-party rock use can be innovative. For example I like Crevasse where rocks can be killed to turn a small ramp into a wide ramp. I think this is an excellent use: You can try to kill the opponent's rocks so he has a harder time to defend the wide area, but you will be under fire while you work on the rocks.Even if they want to use destructible rocks, theres other things you can do with it. They are behind on maptrends even there with making the 'easy' 3rd accessible thru rocks. Look on the forums, really, theres so much more stuff that can be done with rocks (or anything destructable). On June 21 2011 20:32 ihasaKAROT wrote: Who is "people" who will them thumb down? It is more likely that the unsatisfied guys post, also the Bnet forums are full of map complaints. I think that the majority of the SC gamers don't even read the Bnet forums or TL. Now I see a kind of philosophical issue. Lets say one conducts a survey of many users who don't regularly read (or post on) forums. If the majority would approve the maps, is it because they just don't know better ones? If on the other hand the majority disproves the maps, is it because the maps are bad or because the majority of players consists of imbalance whiners?The blizzardmaps are just another list of maps that people will thumb down, theres nothing new, nothing special and nothing innovative. Its the same old thing over and over, but with rocks in different places. whooptidoo. Making an easy way to play is not only done with making the maps as straightforward as you can. There are maps posted here that you can make as simple and as complicated as you want, depending on your aggresion, tactics and speed. Personally , the maps are boring and old. But thats just me, altho looking at the comments, its pretty much the general opinion. About balance, I consider rotational symmetric maps to be inherently imbalanced even in mirror matches, depending on spawning positions. My solution to this issue is to think about how I could turn a perceived unfavorable spawning position into a possible advantage. Because if the opponent finds me and considers himself at an advantage, he will probably chose from a limited number of options, leaving him vulnerable at some points or times which I may be could exploit. Overall I see the Blizzard map issue on a larger time scale. We don't even have a game expansion out yet. In the long run we should seek to get more variety for ladder maps. For now Blizzard is still trying to get us into particular situations where they can monitor balance issues. Thats all fair n all, but if they want to balance things out, they can use the maps available , instead of releasing 'new' maps. New maps are supposed to be new, not old with a coat of paint on them. As for yours Bnet TL forums comment, Its ofcourse not correct to see the opinion of a couple thousand nerds as 'thats how it is' , but it should be a good guideline for what the general opinion will probably be. Its not like TL is full of mapmakers only, or GM players only. The variaty makes TL for example a good selection to base an opinion on. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 21 2011 21:53 AimlessAmoeba wrote: What I like about Scrap is that some things are obvious: "Wide ramp = zerg can sixpool." "Close air = opponent will use banshee / voids / mutas".As much as Scrap Station isn't really in my "I LOVE THIS MAP" list, I appreciate the fact that it's a unique style, and for that matter, why doesn't Blizz make any two spawn point only maps anymore? I mean, would it really hurt to just throw one weird map in the mix? You could always just pull it if it doesn't work out. But a terran can close his wall before the lings from a sixpool arrive. And if there are reasons to expect air, any race can get reasonable air defense in time. Now the gameplay gets interesting: May be the opponent will think I never go air because it is standard to defense it, get no air defense so I can wreck havoc with mutas? May be he considers the island or the gold a good spot to "secretly" expand while I of course always maintain sight over these areas? May be he will try to open the shortcut and is going to kill the rocks? I can have an overlord there in time. Even though Scrap is no standard map, I feel that my abilities decide the outcome of the game, not an imbalanced map feature. | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
| ||
|
Noxie
United States2227 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:16 ihasaKAROT wrote: Thats all fair n all, but if they want to balance things out, they can use the maps available , instead of releasing 'new' maps. New maps are supposed to be new, not old with a coat of paint on them. As for yours Bnet TL forums comment, Its ofcourse not correct to see the opinion of a couple thousand nerds as 'thats how it is' , but it should be a good guideline for what the general opinion will probably be. Its not like TL is full of mapmakers only, or GM players only. The variaty makes TL for example a good selection to base an opinion on. For me it looks like the developers don't want too many new layouts yet, or they just need to make some small adjustments. We, as the community, often ask Blizzard "Y U NO ...?" implying that Blizzard did a mistake. But we have a very narrow view on the matter while the Blizzard staff has access to all data including facts like actual downvote percentages. I also miss fresh ideas in the new maps, many layouts seem familiar. But what if Blizzard would bring out many new ideas for each season? We would be required to adapt, now the community would complain that Blizzard took out proven maps in favor of some weird new ones. New coat on familiar layouts is probably still perceived as new content. I think this is important to keep the interest of the casual-oriented players. They feel that they still get new content without having to pay for it. About the opinion of the forums posters: I believe that Blizzard would love to hear criticism – if it is legit. Not only "no easy third = crap" or "too close rush distance = crap". Even longer postings are often very one-sided in favor of one race. I feel that very few posters (even on TL) are good enough to have an educated opinion. I also dare to say that the more confident an opinion is voiced, the more likely it is an uneducated opinion. See postings with pro-tips from Sheth, Spanishiwa or others: While they offer legit high-level advice which just works, they word it carefully and express even some self-doubt. | ||
|
ihasaKAROT
Netherlands4730 Posts
| ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
I really don't understand why they don't want to use community made maps more... do they think they lose their power, do the Blizz map makers just want to keep making 1v1 maps? I don't get it. About the maps, I hate maps 1-3 for various reasons. 4 seems fine tho, but I am not sure if rotational symmetry maps should have mirrored middles. Kinda seems like even more positional imbalance to me. | ||
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:42 TheBB wrote: Do the maps have names? Yes, most say it in the description | ||
|
Neubii
Austria5 Posts
| ||
|
Excessive
Denmark151 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 21 2011 23:00 ihasaKAROT wrote: I can see some small new ideas in the sense of new (however small-scale) map features. Nothing big, but more than "none".Dont need many new ideas, hell I would be thrilled with 1 new idea. There is none. Same as last season. On June 21 2011 23:06 Ragoo wrote: I can think of two reasons: 1) Because those maps don't follow the map rules Blizzard established for ladder maps like expo placement, rock usage, gold base / watch tower usage and so on. 2) Because those maps, as tournament maps, don't fit the ladder maps requirements for the average gamer. Tournament maps are tailored to be played by professional gamers, ladder maps mostly target to the average (bronze-diamont) player.What I really don't understand is that Blizzard says they don't want to use those very big GSL maps cause scouting of noobs sucks and so on, and thus it's not good for ladder, yet the GSL map makers have made small maps (Bel'Shirt and Dual Sight come to mind) as well as the iCCup guys... I really don't understand why they don't want to use community made maps more... do they think they lose their power, do the Blizz map makers just want to keep making 1v1 maps? I don't get it On June 21 2011 23:06 Ragoo wrote: If you could elaborate on it, with actual game knowledge, and post it in the Bnet forums, someone from Blizzard will probably read it and bring the stuff up to the Blizzard map team.About the maps, I hate maps 1-3 for various reasons. | ||
|
RDaneelOlivaw
Vatican City State733 Posts
 | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 21 2011 23:13 Neubii wrote: A season will be about six months.actually how long is one season?? <.< | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
Unfortunately, you have other races--like zerg--whose design requires that they build as few fighting units as they can until the 10:00 mark just to stay even on harvester counts. This means that they cannot take out the destructible rocks as easily as their opponents. This also means that they need time to prepare for incoming attacks. With short rush distances and close spawns, the zerg is not given enough time to do so. Zerg cannot 'rush' like the other races because they have only one low-ranged tier 1 unit, and their opponents are walled in. They also have a much heavier initial time investment in tech, meaning it's 15:00+ before they're seeing T3, while the other races can get there in half the time. On smaller maps, they will be fighting T and P's T3 units with their lower tech. | ||
|
ihasaKAROT
Netherlands4730 Posts
On June 21 2011 23:19 [F_]aths wrote: I can see some small new ideas in the sense of new (however small-scale) map features. Nothing big, but more than "none". Again, big difference in 'new idea' and 'variation on something old'. | ||
|
Canell
8 Posts
| ||
| ||
