|
On June 22 2011 00:50 sCuMBaG wrote:
blizzards teammaps are so fuckin bad -.-
seriously... blizzard's taking all the fun out of 2v2s dammit...
Seriously, those 2v2 map are just aweful... It's 100% sure I'll veto this 3v3v3 map. WTF...
|
I wish blizzard would do less of half the map /replicate and flip... They are all starting to look the same to me. Just the distance from X to Y is being increased/decreased by Z.
|
On June 22 2011 00:35 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:27 Madkipz wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
yes it is.
|
I like most of the maps this time...2v2 maps are kinda odd but oh well will still be fun.
I like the rush map alot better than there other "rush maps" can't wait to play on it :D
I wonder if HOTS will bring a new "destructible rock" mechanic or something they'd be willing to throw into maps.
|
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 would love to see those 'unbeatable' strategies, but until I see them, I think he just came up with weird all-ins that his opponents weren't prepared for...
|
I personally like the maps overall, Blizzard definately seem to pay some attention to what many would like to see in a map, you could even take a third base on some these 
As a terran player myself, I can't help but feel that the fourth map is favouring my race in TvZ if a terran plays according to the map. It seems like both players can take three bases quite easily, but if the terran then sieges by the tower and slams down a plametary fortress by the gold it would restrict a lot of movement from the zerg, who would have a hard time establishing a fourth base assuming the terran actively denies it. I could of course be wrong though, would have to try the map to make sure. This is only my humble prediction.
|
On June 22 2011 00:53 FaCE_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:50 sCuMBaG wrote:
blizzards teammaps are so fuckin bad -.-
seriously... blizzard's taking all the fun out of 2v2s dammit... Seriously, those 2v2 map are just aweful... It's 100% sure I'll veto this 3v3v3 map. WTF...
I think I rather like Blizzards philosophy of making team maps more cool and casual rather than strictly balanced and competitive. I don't play to much team games though.
|
On June 22 2011 00:59 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:35 crms wrote:On June 22 2011 00:27 Madkipz wrote: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:
[quote]
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. yes it is. It isn't even close to being accurate.
I really hope that the 4th map will replace Delta Quadrant. I have one vote locked down since Beta.
All the maps have easy to defend naturals and obvious third (the Rush map doesn't but it's a Rush map). What's not to like?
|
Is there a poll somewhere on tl?
1st and 3rd map are horrible imo
|
A ledge that is specifically designed to shell my 3rd (gold) base is not cool man. Vetoing that for sure
|
at first glance all these hills n stuff seems great for tank, elevator drop, and blink play. wonder how Z will deal w this stuff. seems like the middle of the map has too much crap in it. we need a map like dual site.
|
Two would be ok if it was slightly bigger, but may be playable. One looks bad but not the worst thing ever. The other two are terrible, on par with Slag Pits. If they don't get rid of some of the bad maps in now and also close pos in shattered and metal the ladder map pool is going to be almost 100% maps which are bad/ok at best.
|
These look great! Glad they finally added some new 2v2s, 3v3s and 4v4s. I wonder which of the old maps they will take out of rotation.
|
I'm genuinly curious why blizzard won't just implement all gsl maps into the ladder pool O-o
|
New maps are cool and most of them look quiet fun. But I wonder how they will "feel". What about rush distances? Are there abuseable spots for certain units?. Are there too much narrow spaces, that aoe attacks are too powerful? these are the question we have to answer later on. But bring it Blizzard - we are waiting for new battlegrounds.
The one thing I already dislike are the distrucible rocks at the gold bases.
|
Finally some new maps for the map pool, tired of having half of them thumbed down..
|
I can already feel the terran 1-1-1 1base all-ins in these maps.
|
On June 22 2011 01:22 Cano wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 00:59 Madkipz wrote:On June 22 2011 00:35 crms wrote:On June 22 2011 00:27 Madkipz wrote: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:
[quote]
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. yes it is. It isn't even close to being accurate. I really hope that the 4th map will replace Delta Quadrant. I have one vote locked down since Beta. All the maps have easy to defend naturals and obvious third (the Rush map doesn't but it's a Rush map). What's not to like?
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/MULE
Their timed life allows 8 or 9 mining trips which totals 240/270 minerals respectively on a blue mineral patch and 336/378 on a yellow one. This works out to 160/180 and 224/252 minerals per game-minute respectively.
from 16 - 24 saturation you gain 200 ish more minerals pr minute. Terran gets this for free.
|
I hate how in their team maps it's always "one player gets screwed" with fewer expansions and such. In high-level games it might be okay, because they can prepare strats that take that into account, but most the time in ladder games, especially with a random ally, it's just messed up.
|
On June 22 2011 01:59 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 01:22 Cano wrote:On June 22 2011 00:59 Madkipz wrote:On June 22 2011 00:35 crms wrote:On June 22 2011 00:27 Madkipz wrote: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:
[quote]
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. yes it is. It isn't even close to being accurate. I really hope that the 4th map will replace Delta Quadrant. I have one vote locked down since Beta. All the maps have easy to defend naturals and obvious third (the Rush map doesn't but it's a Rush map). What's not to like? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/MULEShow nested quote +Their timed life allows 8 or 9 mining trips which totals 240/270 minerals respectively on a blue mineral patch and 336/378 on a yellow one. This works out to 160/180 and 224/252 minerals per game-minute respectively. from 16 - 24 saturation you gain 200 ish more minerals pr minute. Terran gets this for free.
This thread is about the new maps and not about moaning about some crappy, made-up statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
