|
On June 22 2011 03:12 virgol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 03:00 [F_]aths wrote: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
I really don't like this logic at all. These maps look the opposite of exciting, they look rush heavy and boring. In fact, the ones they are putting in are more like their existing ones than anything that GSL has made.
2. point is a "carbon copy" of point 1, and the thing is, crevasse, bel' shir, terminus, and crossfire are all GSL Macro maps, but play extremely differently, there is no need for the "CC's" You're talking about.
3. Guess what? Every one of their maps have had rocks and gold bases, noone really likes them, and they have already been tried and tested to the limit and dismissed.
4. Blizzard is not goingto go through all the game histories of the thousands played on their server to find imbalance, especially because the whole ladder system is designed to give you a 50% win rate, no matter what race you play and whether it is OP or UP anyway. They have no good way of analyzing balance except for pro play, which we have knowledge of as well, they havenothing to add to our knowledge of game balance.
5. I have yet to find a dedicated group of people that prefer blizzard maps over the amazing GSL maps
|
Why does every 4v4 map need to have shared mains? Do they not know abut BGH's popularity?
|
As a zerg player, I dont like the third map. the large distance from my main to natural, and all the expansions being relatively far away and hard to defend doesnt make it seem zerg friendly 
|
Idk i cant comment on these maps till i play them and get a feel for them but they look amazing cant wait to test them on PTR
|
Since zerg have a hard time punishing a player that is fast expanding or teching, their only other option is to get ahead economically. So when a protoss or a terran wall in and fe (like on shakuras or tal darim) a zerg needs to take a third in response. If rocks prevent that third, then zerg's options are very limited. Imagine if the 3rd on Metalopolis had rocks on it. Would you consider that a good and balanced map still?
Yea I know that was my point, why put rocks on a third? No one double expands, and for Zerg a faster third is the only way to react to fast expansions. Zerg doesn't double expand (Sheths guide talks about it, or at least why) because that actually hurts them, but taking a faster third may be necessary. Preventing a third for Zerg is like preventing Terran from making vikings - it's not always needed but sometimes it is the 'best' option (bls).
|
Don't want to pass judgement until I play on them, but as a random player I'm really going to pray for terran when I spawn if these maps aren't changed
|
the lava map looks like steppes of war except 4 player..
|
The maps are gearing more and more towards macro style! nice!
|
On June 22 2011 03:11 Big G wrote:
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.
This is a great idea for that map
|
Small maps make fast expand builds impossible, large maps do not make rushes impossible even at the highest levels as demonstrated by the GSL.
These small maps are casual friendly because they pare down the number of possible strategies dumbing down the game. Why even bother with a Grandmaster league if you're not going to foster high level play but instead leave that to the tournaments? If you want to cater to the hardcore and casual audience there's no reason why Grandmaster and Bronze league have to play on the same maps.
|
Well, no third ever unless you have so much map control you have already won the game ...
Do we get more vetoes, or what have they removed from my veto list?
|
I like the new maps. They all look tough for Zerg early on, but I'm looking forward to a change in tactics and strategy anyway.
|
Blizzard needs to let the experts (Korea) handle the map situation. Amateur map makers have no place in sc2. 
|
Can anyone tell me why the 2nd 1v1 map has the SAME feature as original Lost Temple (cliff over expansion), which caused that map to be removed from the pool?!?!
|
They're for sure going to take out delta from the map pool, but that only gives me 1 veto...
I think that Im going to die ZvT
|
Every season I play less ladder and more customs. Once you get into masters maps should be different than these shitty 2 base ones blizzard comes up with.
Seriously, every GSL map even fortress, beach and dual sight have third bases that can be safely taken compared to this shit.
|
OMG, why doesn't Blizzard just kick me in the mouth instead.... -.-°
Are they serious?
Don't they realize that their Maps SUCK, that there are more than enough GOOD Maps circulating in various Tournaments? That even they're own Maps that are being used had to be significantly modified to be good enough for competetive play?
To the Maps specifically:
1st Map: Yeah, very close spawn-positions if not cross and T is able to Siege/Nuke the 3rd in some positions from their main... WTF?!
2nd Map: Probably the one I like most, but again: Why so small?
3rd Map: Again so many rocks, it's small and close-positions again very imba cuz of rush-distances and ability of Terran to Siege/Nuke bases from their main.... C'mon Blizzard!
4th Map.Same as 1st and 3rd. - Why Blizzard, Why? These are total amateur mistakes in making Maps, besides, the Maps are all small and 4 player - what is wrong with u guys?
The only glimmer of hope is that they will change these Maps, that suck, with older Maps they Map that sucked - so at least it will be new stuff that sucks, which is better than old stuff that sucks...
Yeah, I'm ranting a bit, but I'm realy disappointed once again, cuz that's pretty much what we can expect out of Blizzard for the rest of SC2 (if they haven't learned now, I doubt they will) and they even said that there's no balance-patch in sight.
I mean: GSL makes sooooo good Maps and they even make enough new ones, Tal D'arim is by far the best Map in the Mappool of the Ladder and Blizzard still wants to keep making their own, shitty maps.
|
these gonna be tested on the ptr?
|
On June 22 2011 06:12 Teogamer wrote:
Why does every 4v4 map need to have shared mains? Do they not know abut BGH's popularity?
Because the maps without shared mains kind of suck. Rushes are so incredibly strong in team play that the ones without shared mains put you at a severe disadvantage - you often don't have enough time to get from your base to your allies before he's been seriously crippled in the event of a rush.
|
i feel like these maps have ridiculous rotational symmetry problems...im going to give them a shot but i believe that these maps will end up spawn positioning based...depending on where you spawn you are either dead or in an autowin situation...maybe not to that extent but the spawn positions can do a lot on all of these maps
personally i wish they had more 3player 1v1 maps...tau cross, longinus, medusa (would LOVE to see remakes of these maps) and a few more 2player maps done right, much like crossfire being a remake of Peaks of Baekdu, and has created many interesting games...atm though if i end up disliking these maps i will just quit ladder and go to pure customs, tempted to do that anyway since most tournaments (im no pro but i like competing in them ) dont use ladder maps anymore, OR use modified versions which imo are better to play on
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
