|
I'm a macro oriented player as a result I don't really like the first map, the second is ok but the third and fourth are both looking awesome.
There's still enough time to improve them since season 3 starts in a few months. Also I'm interested in how much such blizz maps are used in tourneys (like typhoon peaks, slag pits etc which are used in NASL). Hope blizz is adding some GSl maps (<3 Terminus|Crevasse)
Not really interested in team maps since I play 1v1 but thanks for posting!
|
konadora
Singapore66357 Posts
blizzard sure loves rocks
|
On June 21 2011 20:49 ChickenLips 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. This might all be true, but there's no denying that Zerg is royally screwed on these tiny maps. If there were some viable rushes for Zerg that are an actual challenge to hold off instead of "oh yeah i put these buildings there and those FFs there and I win", I'd be all for rush maps, but at high level play, Zerg rushes suck gigantic dick. You never see cheesy Zergs make it far in tournaments, but cheesy Protoss and Terrans do that all the time, (and even gain notoriety like Rain, choya, TheBest, BitByBit, etc.etc.) because they can beat high-level opponents abusing their race's early game. If Zerg had any viable early game aggression, I might think twice about these maps, but just the current balance of the game combined with Blizzards obsession with "Rush" maps and chokes and rocks fucking everywhere depresses me .. to say it nicely.
Actually, there is denying it. Zerg is already solving ways to deal with early pressure and come out unscathed on most maps. But small maps demand a different play style. Again I refer to Steppes of War, the most 'imba' map. 2 spawns, 17 second rush.
I saw IdrA and GSL stars in 2010 throw games away with 1-base all-ins vs terran, convinced they couldn't win on Steppes.
Yet Catz sat back, thought about it, and came up with a play that hard countered anything terran could do. Pro terrans facing him claimed his play was unbeatable on that map. Yet I never saw anyone even try it in a major tournament (couldn't have been worse than what they were doing), and they then took the map out of ladder and GSL.
There needs to be more time allowed in the game for people to solve problems relating to the game before crying for balance or map changes.
|
Those maps seem terrible to me. I hope they don't try to fix TvZ by adding horrible maps to the pool.
|
We gave close positions a try, the consensus is that they suck.
|
so has there been any word on when season 3 will actually start?
|
On June 21 2011 23:46 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 20:49 ChickenLips wrote: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. This might all be true, but there's no denying that Zerg is royally screwed on these tiny maps. If there were some viable rushes for Zerg that are an actual challenge to hold off instead of "oh yeah i put these buildings there and those FFs there and I win", I'd be all for rush maps, but at high level play, Zerg rushes suck gigantic dick. You never see cheesy Zergs make it far in tournaments, but cheesy Protoss and Terrans do that all the time, (and even gain notoriety like Rain, choya, TheBest, BitByBit, etc.etc.) because they can beat high-level opponents abusing their race's early game. If Zerg had any viable early game aggression, I might think twice about these maps, but just the current balance of the game combined with Blizzards obsession with "Rush" maps and chokes and rocks fucking everywhere depresses me .. to say it nicely. Actually, there is denying it. Zerg is already solving ways to deal with early pressure and come out unscathed on most maps. But small maps demand a different play style. Again I refer to Steppes of War, the most 'imba' map. 2 spawns, 17 second rush. I saw IdrA and GSL stars in 2010 throw games away with 1-base all-ins vs terran, convinced they couldn't win on Steppes. Yet Catz sat back, thought about it, and came up with a play that hard countered anything terran could do. Pro terrans facing him claimed his play was unbeatable on that map. Yet I never saw anyone even try it in a major tournament (couldn't have been worse than what they were doing), and they then took the map out of ladder and GSL. There needs to be more time allowed in the game for people to solve problems relating to the game before crying for balance or map changes.
I agree with this- maybe steppes was completely broken, maybe the warpgate nerf was necessary. But I don't think people spent enough time figuring things out. Like you said, some zergs were simply throwing away games on steppes as they believed it was impossible to win (lol at morrow's 12drone rush though)
I remember on state of the game day9 and tyler were talking about how they were breaking through 4gate and that it probably wouldn't be that prominent at high levels anymore. I would've liked to see what came out for a couple months at least before the nerf, although I can understand the position that 4gate would still be very very strong in lower leagues (i.e. blizzard catering to casuals  )
Maybe I'm a minority; I never vote down maps and I like all different kinds of play. I just wish blizzard would add the gsl maps so I can do some double expanding shenanigans every now and then~
|
On June 21 2011 23:25 ihasaKAROT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:19 [F_]aths wrote:On June 21 2011 23:00 ihasaKAROT wrote:
Dont need many new ideas, hell I would be thrilled with 1 new idea. There is none. Same as last season. 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'.
I agree as I was disappointed, too. I still think it was the right decision – because Blizzard did make this decision. We have many more seasons to come. For now Blizzard obviously wants to keep the ladder maps traditional.
|
Hopefully this means no more scrap station and delta quadrant
|
Slag, DQ needs to go.
The rest are sorta fine for a ladder.
In other words when the "rush maps", the other rush maps need to go, and the macro maps need to stay.
|
On June 21 2011 23:46 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 20:49 ChickenLips wrote: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. This might all be true, but there's no denying that Zerg is royally screwed on these tiny maps. If there were some viable rushes for Zerg that are an actual challenge to hold off instead of "oh yeah i put these buildings there and those FFs there and I win", I'd be all for rush maps, but at high level play, Zerg rushes suck gigantic dick. You never see cheesy Zergs make it far in tournaments, but cheesy Protoss and Terrans do that all the time, (and even gain notoriety like Rain, choya, TheBest, BitByBit, etc.etc.) because they can beat high-level opponents abusing their race's early game. If Zerg had any viable early game aggression, I might think twice about these maps, but just the current balance of the game combined with Blizzards obsession with "Rush" maps and chokes and rocks fucking everywhere depresses me .. to say it nicely. Actually, there is denying it. Zerg is already solving ways to deal with early pressure and come out unscathed on most maps. But small maps demand a different play style. Again I refer to Steppes of War, the most 'imba' map. 2 spawns, 17 second rush. I saw IdrA and GSL stars in 2010 throw games away with 1-base all-ins vs terran, convinced they couldn't win on Steppes. Yet Catz sat back, thought about it, and came up with a play that hard countered anything terran could do. Pro terrans facing him claimed his play was unbeatable on that map. Yet I never saw anyone even try it in a major tournament (couldn't have been worse than what they were doing), and they then took the map out of ladder and GSL. There needs to be more time allowed in the game for people to solve problems relating to the game before crying for balance or map changes.
Catz way of solving that map was just clever all ins. "Solving a map" should not equate to coming up with the most creative all-in possible. Thats just stupid. Idra had a nice strategy for Steppes later on where he pushed with spine crawlers because they could hit the natural from the low ground (lol) but it was still a horrible map.
I can solve the map pool and keep everyone happy at the same time (even the blizz map makers).
So take notes blizz:
Add your blizzard maps fine fine, but also give us the GSL maps. Now, give us enough vetoes so that we can effectively remove all blizzard maps or all GSL maps as we see fit. Slap a big "Expert" warning on the map preview of the GSL maps in the downvote section so all the bronzies can be sure to downvote them.
Problem solved, everyone's happy. These things aren't hard to do ya'know?
|
On June 21 2011 23:46 DaemonX wrote:
There needs to be more time allowed in the game for people to solve problems relating to the game before crying for balance or map changes. I agree. It is a matter of both having to little experience (we don't know how to play on a particular map without dying to a rush) as well as having the wrong mindset. To often when no obvious solution exists, we proclaim that there is no solution, end of story.
It is also the wrong mindset in the sense that we often demand to get a "fair" game where "fair" means I can win easily. Fruitdealer proved that he can win as Zerg versus a Terran at at a time the reaper wasn't nerfed yet. He also proved than he can pull off a win on Kulas Ravine while playing versus a Terran or Protoss. We should be inspired by such role models and not whine about zerg/protoss/terran map imbalance.
|
I personally can't wait for the new maps, although i dislike te 1st 1v1 map as it looks extremely hard to take a third base.
|
On June 21 2011 23:57 vicariouscheese wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:46 DaemonX wrote:On June 21 2011 20:49 ChickenLips wrote: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. This might all be true, but there's no denying that Zerg is royally screwed on these tiny maps. If there were some viable rushes for Zerg that are an actual challenge to hold off instead of "oh yeah i put these buildings there and those FFs there and I win", I'd be all for rush maps, but at high level play, Zerg rushes suck gigantic dick. You never see cheesy Zergs make it far in tournaments, but cheesy Protoss and Terrans do that all the time, (and even gain notoriety like Rain, choya, TheBest, BitByBit, etc.etc.) because they can beat high-level opponents abusing their race's early game. If Zerg had any viable early game aggression, I might think twice about these maps, but just the current balance of the game combined with Blizzards obsession with "Rush" maps and chokes and rocks fucking everywhere depresses me .. to say it nicely. Actually, there is denying it. Zerg is already solving ways to deal with early pressure and come out unscathed on most maps. But small maps demand a different play style. Again I refer to Steppes of War, the most 'imba' map. 2 spawns, 17 second rush. I saw IdrA and GSL stars in 2010 throw games away with 1-base all-ins vs terran, convinced they couldn't win on Steppes. Yet Catz sat back, thought about it, and came up with a play that hard countered anything terran could do. Pro terrans facing him claimed his play was unbeatable on that map. Yet I never saw anyone even try it in a major tournament (couldn't have been worse than what they were doing), and they then took the map out of ladder and GSL. There needs to be more time allowed in the game for people to solve problems relating to the game before crying for balance or map changes. I agree with this- maybe steppes was completely broken, maybe the warpgate nerf was necessary. But I don't think people spent enough time figuring things out. Like you said, some zergs were simply throwing away games on steppes as they believed it was impossible to win (lol at morrow's 12drone rush though) I remember on state of the game day9 and tyler were talking about how they were breaking through 4gate and that it probably wouldn't be that prominent at high levels anymore. I would've liked to see what came out for a couple months at least before the nerf, although I can understand the position that 4gate would still be very very strong in lower leagues (i.e. blizzard catering to casuals ) Maybe I'm a minority; I never vote down maps and I like all different kinds of play. I just wish blizzard would add the gsl maps so I can do some double expanding shenanigans every now and then~
People have been coming up with ways to beat 4gate ever since the beta, and there was always a way to just 4gate better. Even the 3 stalker rush, which was a very elegant solution, could be abused in various ways. Day9 thought he had a FE build in PvP that could hold both a 4gate and a Colossus timing - but it was just his practice partner having bad execution rather than the build being good.
That being said, the Warpgate nerf ended up being stupid as hell, just like the preceding Stim nerf. The implications for PvT and PvZ ended up being more significant than for PvP, which defeats the purpose of the change in the first place.
|
On June 21 2011 23:46 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 20:49 ChickenLips wrote: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. This might all be true, but there's no denying that Zerg is royally screwed on these tiny maps. If there were some viable rushes for Zerg that are an actual challenge to hold off instead of "oh yeah i put these buildings there and those FFs there and I win", I'd be all for rush maps, but at high level play, Zerg rushes suck gigantic dick. You never see cheesy Zergs make it far in tournaments, but cheesy Protoss and Terrans do that all the time, (and even gain notoriety like Rain, choya, TheBest, BitByBit, etc.etc.) because they can beat high-level opponents abusing their race's early game. If Zerg had any viable early game aggression, I might think twice about these maps, but just the current balance of the game combined with Blizzards obsession with "Rush" maps and chokes and rocks fucking everywhere depresses me .. to say it nicely. Actually, there is denying it. Zerg is already solving ways to deal with early pressure and come out unscathed on most maps. But small maps demand a different play style. Again I refer to Steppes of War, the most 'imba' map. 2 spawns, 17 second rush. I saw IdrA and GSL stars in 2010 throw games away with 1-base all-ins vs terran, convinced they couldn't win on Steppes. Yet Catz sat back, thought about it, and came up with a play that hard countered anything terran could do. Pro terrans facing him claimed his play was unbeatable on that map. Yet I never saw anyone even try it in a major tournament (couldn't have been worse than what they were doing), and they then took the map out of ladder and GSL. There needs to be more time allowed in the game for people to solve problems relating to the game before crying for balance or map changes.
This guy called Fruitdealer won some games on steps and kulas back in that era, to call them innovative is ok but those plays they do are plays that usually do not work out if the opponent knows how to defend it.
|
Blizzard, I am dissapoint.
On a serious note. I dislike that 3 of these maps seem so small :/
|
On June 22 2011 00:27 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 23:46 DaemonX wrote:On June 21 2011 20:49 ChickenLips wrote: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. This might all be true, but there's no denying that Zerg is royally screwed on these tiny maps. If there were some viable rushes for Zerg that are an actual challenge to hold off instead of "oh yeah i put these buildings there and those FFs there and I win", I'd be all for rush maps, but at high level play, Zerg rushes suck gigantic dick. You never see cheesy Zergs make it far in tournaments, but cheesy Protoss and Terrans do that all the time, (and even gain notoriety like Rain, choya, TheBest, BitByBit, etc.etc.) because they can beat high-level opponents abusing their race's early game. If Zerg had any viable early game aggression, I might think twice about these maps, but just the current balance of the game combined with Blizzards obsession with "Rush" maps and chokes and rocks fucking everywhere depresses me .. to say it nicely. Actually, there is denying it. Zerg is already solving ways to deal with early pressure and come out unscathed on most maps. But small maps demand a different play style. Again I refer to Steppes of War, the most 'imba' map. 2 spawns, 17 second rush. I saw IdrA and GSL stars in 2010 throw games away with 1-base all-ins vs terran, convinced they couldn't win on Steppes. Yet Catz sat back, thought about it, and came up with a play that hard countered anything terran could do. Pro terrans facing him claimed his play was unbeatable on that map. Yet I never saw anyone even try it in a major tournament (couldn't have been worse than what they were doing), and they then took the map out of ladder and GSL. There needs to be more time allowed in the game for people to solve problems relating to the game before crying for balance or map changes. This guy called Fruitdealer won some games on steps and kulas back in that era, to call them innovative is ok but those plays they do are plays that usually do not work out if the opponent knows how to defend it.
madkipz is your signature accurate? O_O.
|
This might trigger me to leave the ladder Blizzard keeps designing generic "made in Irvine, CA" maps all the time...
|
On June 21 2011 01:06 darthcaesar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://us.media3.battle.net/cms/gallery/JBQAZHIZLOH91308248009376.jpg) This is the macro map for Season 3. Early on, it will be possible to easily take two expansions. This, along with the long rush distances in all start locations, will most likely encourage players to go for a mid- or late-game strategy, rather than a quick, rush-based strategy.
Can you say tanks? I a Terran, and that looks like a Terran Map. Or rather, a tank map.
|
blizzards teammaps are so fuckin bad -.-
seriously... blizzard's taking all the fun out of 2v2s dammit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
2527
757
121
EPT
