|
When does Season 3 start? Sorry if the question has already been answered, but I didn't see it in the thread linked in the OP.
|
yay for more shitty maps -.-
i mean seriously these are all awful, with a bunch of the same stupid flaws from other maps...ugh can i at least get more vetos?
|
Rocks rocks rocks. And then some more rocks. Did I mention the rocks? Obviously Blizzard hates ESPORTS
|
On June 22 2011 02:07 willoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 01:59 Madkipz wrote: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:
[quote]
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/MULETheir 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.
It is off topic, yes, but those aren't "crappy, made-up statistics". Terrans really do get ~200 minerals per minute from mules, which does equate to the difference in minerals per minute of a base on 16 workers and a base on 20 workers. Doesn't make it OP, though.
Back on topic; I really wonder how the rocks that are right on the natural of Kerrigan's wrath will play out for zerg. It's nice to have a closed in natural, but if we leave those up for too long, it'll be very hard to stop a protoss or terran from sieging the location. It'll be interesting.
I like the tilesets, though :D
|
On June 22 2011 02:35 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 02:07 willoc wrote:On June 22 2011 01:59 Madkipz wrote: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:
[quote]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/MULETheir 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. It is off topic, yes, but those aren't "crappy, made-up statistics". Terrans really do get ~200 minerals per minute from mules, which does equate to the difference in minerals per minute of a base on 16 workers and a base on 20 workers. Doesn't make it OP, though. Back on topic; I really wonder how the rocks that are right on the natural of Kerrigan's wrath will play out for zerg. It's nice to have a closed in natural, but if we leave those up for too long, it'll be very hard to stop a protoss or terran from sieging the location. It'll be interesting. I like the tilesets, though :D
I'm pretty sure the part about Mules being 'free' is not true. That makes it made-up. The fact that it's made-up and then additionally whined about in this thread makes it crappy.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 02:38 willoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 02:35 goiflin wrote:On June 22 2011 02:07 willoc wrote:On June 22 2011 01:59 Madkipz wrote: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:
[quote]
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/MULETheir 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. It is off topic, yes, but those aren't "crappy, made-up statistics". Terrans really do get ~200 minerals per minute from mules, which does equate to the difference in minerals per minute of a base on 16 workers and a base on 20 workers. Doesn't make it OP, though. Back on topic; I really wonder how the rocks that are right on the natural of Kerrigan's wrath will play out for zerg. It's nice to have a closed in natural, but if we leave those up for too long, it'll be very hard to stop a protoss or terran from sieging the location. It'll be interesting. I like the tilesets, though :D I'm pretty sure the part about Mules being 'free' is not true. That makes it made-up. The fact that it's made-up and then additionally whined about in this thread makes it crappy. El wrongo, about the free thing (the whining thing is crappy, though). What he intended to say, is that terran doesn't have to invest 400 minerals to obtain the 200 mineral per minute difference. He also doesn't have to spend 17x8 seconds to get that investment. He instead spends 150 minerals/35 seconds to get it. You have to build 8 drones/probes to catch up to a terran with 16 SCV's and a mule. Not exactly free, but a far less of an investment in time and money in comparison to the zerg and protoss options. In any event, it's required for terran to keep up with the production capacity of the other two races, so it's perfectly fine.
Anyways, I'll stop posting about this since it's just going to derail discussions further. The maps, people, the maps.
Anyone here think that tournaments will honestly use the maps? It seems like they have the wrong idea still, fashioning maps around rushing. Do people really play these maps? I'd imagine it'd be the same amount as people who play street fighter online with the "best of" option set to 1 round.
|
On June 22 2011 02:44 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 02:38 willoc wrote:On June 22 2011 02:35 goiflin wrote:On June 22 2011 02:07 willoc wrote:On June 22 2011 01:59 Madkipz wrote: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:
[quote]
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/MULETheir 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. It is off topic, yes, but those aren't "crappy, made-up statistics". Terrans really do get ~200 minerals per minute from mules, which does equate to the difference in minerals per minute of a base on 16 workers and a base on 20 workers. Doesn't make it OP, though. Back on topic; I really wonder how the rocks that are right on the natural of Kerrigan's wrath will play out for zerg. It's nice to have a closed in natural, but if we leave those up for too long, it'll be very hard to stop a protoss or terran from sieging the location. It'll be interesting. I like the tilesets, though :D I'm pretty sure the part about Mules being 'free' is not true. That makes it made-up. The fact that it's made-up and then additionally whined about in this thread makes it crappy. El wrongo, about the free thing (the whining thing is crappy, though). What he intended to say, is that terran doesn't have to invest 400 minerals to obtain the 200 mineral per minute difference. He also doesn't have to spend 17x8 seconds to get that investment. He instead spends 150 minerals/35 seconds to get it. You have to build 8 drones/probes to catch up to a terran with 16 SCV's and a mule. Not exactly free, but a far less of an investment in time and money in comparison to the zerg and protoss options. In any event, it's required for terran to keep up with the production capacity of the other two races, so it's perfectly fine. Anyways, I'll stop posting about this since it's just going to derail discussions further. The maps, people, the maps.
So I was wrong about it not being free and at the end I am right about it not being free...
Some other points to hopefully end this:
a) costs 150 minerals and 35 second to build orbital AND YOU CANNOT BUILD SCVS during this time.
b) costs 50 energy to call down a mule.
c) no chrono boosts.
d) no queen injects.
Over? Onto the maps!
|
Map 4 blink stalker nightmares?
|
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. So how can you know DQ is that horrible, if you lack the experience?
|
On June 22 2011 01:43 TheSubtleArt wrote:
I'm genuinly curious why blizzard won't just implement all gsl maps into the ladder pool O-o Because GSL maps are made for the professional gamer. Blizzard's ladder maps follow other layout rules, more tailored to the casual gamer.
|
On June 22 2011 02:57 Eppa! wrote:
Map 4 blink stalker nightmares?
and with "map 4" you mean shattered temple, right?
....
|
On June 22 2011 02:31 StatikKhaos wrote:
yay for more shitty maps -.-
i mean seriously these are all awful, with a bunch of the same stupid flaws from other maps...ugh can i at least get more vetos? Can you name and elaborate on at least some of the "stupid flaws"? I would like to see how you are more able than the Blizzard map design team.
|
On June 22 2011 02:34 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
Rocks rocks rocks. And then some more rocks. Did I mention the rocks? Obviously Blizzard hates ESPORTS
This is a troll post, right?
|
On June 22 2011 03:01 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 02:31 StatikKhaos wrote:
yay for more shitty maps -.-
i mean seriously these are all awful, with a bunch of the same stupid flaws from other maps...ugh can i at least get more vetos? Can you name and elaborate on at least some of the "stupid flaws"? I would like to see how you are more able than the Blizzard map design team.
This entire thread has been about how these maps fall prey to the same traps (overuse of rocks as a stopgap and a huge range of 1 and 2 base play encouraging elements) that the current ladder pool does.
|
Here's an example of why gold bases and rocks (blocking expansions) are badly managed by Blizzard:
- take map #3 (Shifted Sky)
- replace the gold expos with regular ones
- take out the rocks
...suddenly you have a better balanced map in every relative spawn position, with an accessibile third even in horizontal position (thinking of ZvT).
Honestly I don't know what they're thinking.
|
Except the Icy One i really don't like them.
Btw i want Big game hunters back (like lost temple) for 4v4 mappool.
|
On June 22 2011 03:00 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 01:43 TheSubtleArt wrote:
I'm genuinly curious why blizzard won't just implement all gsl maps into the ladder pool O-o Because GSL maps are made for the professional gamer. Blizzard's ladder maps follow other layout rules, more tailored to the casual gamer.
i can think of a couple of other possible reasons:
1) blizzard wants to introduce NEW, exciting maps - not just copy in existing ones
2) blizzard does not want the exact same style of maps in their ladder pool - 10x tal darim altar carbon copies might be a bit boring, no?
3) blizzard wants to use their freedom as game designers to try out new concepts and ideas - rocks, gold, etc to see how they actually play out before dismissing them
4) bllizzard has statistics that might justify a kind of map, (for example rush) to make up for race (im)balances
5) not everybody likes the GSL maps
|
On June 22 2011 03:08 Wren wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 03:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 22 2011 02:31 StatikKhaos wrote:
yay for more shitty maps -.-
i mean seriously these are all awful, with a bunch of the same stupid flaws from other maps...ugh can i at least get more vetos? Can you name and elaborate on at least some of the "stupid flaws"? I would like to see how you are more able than the Blizzard map design team. This entire thread has been about how these maps fall prey to the same traps (overuse of rocks as a stopgap and a huge range of 1 and 2 base play encouraging elements) that the current ladder pool does. Just because many players don't like rocks does not automatically mean that rocks are actually a bad design decision.
Rocks force you to plan ahead and to have some units not available for defense while you kill the rocks. Rocks add depth since you have to make additional decision. You have to take a risk but you get a reward.
Since SC2 is still relatively new, players are not accustomed to rocks so they don't like them. That does not mean that rocks are bad per se. The usage of rocks now is perceived as overusage. There is no proof yet that Blizzard does overuse rocks by objective measures.
|
The maps don't really titillate me, but there's a lot of priceless comments, especially on the official comments side. Everyone is an expert. Everyone.
|
Is it me, or do all of the 1v1 maps except the last one have fairly short rush distances?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
