EPTShould shattered temple be removed too? as it favors zerg and makes it very hard for protoss?
Season 3 Ladder Pool Updates - Page 58
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
escruting
Spain229 Posts
Should shattered temple be removed too? as it favors zerg and makes it very hard for protoss? | ||
|
Marsupian
Netherlands455 Posts
btw. I think they should add destructible rocks to the unit counter list for zerglings -.- | ||
|
Gotmog
Serbia899 Posts
On June 28 2011 19:50 escruting wrote: Should shattered temple be removed too? as it favors zerg and makes it very hard for protoss? Am really ? You can't take third with no units (which Z oftens likes to do), you can take a really safe 3ed as T/P, or even gold and siege in front of it efectivly splitting the map in half (which is always good for T/P). I don't find ST imba at all...+ close positions exist. | ||
|
guitarizt
United States1492 Posts
| ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On June 28 2011 20:28 guitarizt wrote: Ladder back and getting points. This thread is about the new maps, not about the ladder. Thanks! | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
Close positions, rocks at your 2nd (delta), rocks at the 3rd, no harassment options before 12:00 because opponents walled-in, takes twice as long to tech to T3, etc. C'mon, you wouldn't honestly choose to play this race unless you had a little sense of humor. | ||
|
Morphs
Netherlands645 Posts
Not for blocking a required 3rd, forcing ling production from the zerg. Instead, use them for creative stuff: Blocking Xel'Naga towers (Testbug) Blocking the mineral line instead of the CC location of the gold (Testbug). This allows you to put up the expo and mine at a lower rate with no delay. Allowing a wider ramp (Crevasse) Really, you can do a lot of creative stuff to give maps certain features, yet Blizzard focusses on the same thing constantly. And the rushcrap. They seem too occupied in providing "fast paced games" at lower levels. The argument against 4 player maps is that it's "too easy to put up a ninja expand" since lower level players can't scout well enough. Sigh, the only good and feasible solution is to increase the mappool more (with GSL maps) and allow for 6-8 downvotes so players can actually customize their mappool. Lower level players will play on the crapmaps and high level players can play on the bigger maps. How can one not like this idea? | ||
|
Papulatus
United States669 Posts
On June 28 2011 19:50 escruting wrote: Should shattered temple be removed too? as it favors zerg and makes it very hard for protoss? It favors Zerg? Wat... You realize that there is an easy to take backdoor 3rd on this map. Thats a dream come true for protoss. There is a gold where, if you defend the gold you are defending your nat. Thats a dream for terran. I don't get why more terran and protoss dont just play a really defensive macro game. After they lose because they never expand, they whisper me after the game and whine zerg op, even though its proven that zerg is the worse race (overall?) on Blizzards ladder. | ||
|
Mithrandror
Belgium85 Posts
| ||
|
butter
United States785 Posts
On June 28 2011 22:28 Mithrandror wrote: cant see the maps somehow and the blizzard link doesn't work for me, can anyone link the european bnet version of this? Tried to find on bnet but no luck... You didn't look very hard?  http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2483318#blog | ||
|
Latty
Germany567 Posts
| ||
|
DarkenedLite
United States188 Posts
Speaking of over-indulgences of mechanics, looking at the second map I really think they over-did it with the destructible rocks. It could make for some interesting games and it's harder to judge this one, but there are so many attack paths, I don't see any kind of wall-off build being viable here, which could seriously disadvantage Protoss players. I don't see this being nearly as focused on two-bases as the first, but it will be a very hard map to defend on when players figure out how to properly utilize all the attack paths. This may end up being a boon, it remains to be seen. On the third map, I do like the use of rocks and the ability to open up attack patches to circumvent narrow chokes that may already be held by the enemy. Like Metalopolis, it will likely be difficult to take a third when spawning in close positions and I expect a lot of 1 and 2base play there, but what really disappoints me is how hard it seems to be to hold a third in general. There is a huge open area between your natural and the blue mineral third base location and holding both seems like it would be a constant struggle, especially due to the fact that the third is on the low-ground. The gold bases seem to be extremely vulnerable, again, because they are on the low ground which would open them up to easy attack from units like Stalkers, Colossus, Siege Tanks, and Infestors as well as any sort of drop. Siege Tanks in particular seem to have a little too much viability in this map and I worry that the balance might swing in favor of Terran somewhat. The main issue, of course, is just how hard it is to take any sort of third base and hold it, as previously mentioned. The first thing that sticks out for me about the macro map is how easy the natural will be to hold. This doesn't seem to be a huge issue, but I worry that it may create some situations where, like the old map Kulas Ravine, turtling was just a little too easy and if extended, almost impossible to break. I'm not sure how someone would fight into Siege tanks on the high ground and a strong wall to guard the natural. Even the third can be easily turtled on and fighting through the narrow choke between all three bases seems to be incredibly difficult. I have no other real issues with it and I like how the center is designed. Unfortunately, overall I'm not really happy with these maps at all. I feel like they can't really be called improvements on the current ones that we have. Obviously these seem to be far from fleshed out and it's too early to make a call, but I for one won't be pleased if maps like Tal'Darim and Shakuras are taken out in favor of anything similar to what we see here. There just seems to be a few too many design flaws, from my perspective and I hope that Blizzard picks up on those. I may be making a bigger deal about it than what is warranted, but I freely admit that I don't feel like I could practice my game to the fullest capacity with the limitations that most of these maps present. These maps aside, here's how I'd like to see things played out... Remove Scrap Station Backwater Gulch Delta Quadrant Slag Pits Typhon Peaks Keep Xel'Naga Caverns Metalopolis Shakuras Plateau Tal'darim Altar The Shattered Temple Add Terminus RE Crevasse Testbug Dual Sight | ||
|
Soluhwin
United States1287 Posts
4th map looks fine, 2nd is interesting. 1st is just unacceptable for zergs and 3rd would need disabled close positions and even then bases seem a little bit wonky. On June 28 2011 20:08 Marsupian wrote: Looks like it's time to perfect that 2 base all-in.... btw. I think they should add destructible rocks to the unit counter list for zerglings -.- As much as I laughed, it's depressingly true. | ||
|
WinteRR
Australia201 Posts
On June 28 2011 22:27 Papulatus wrote: It favors Zerg? Wat... You realize that there is an easy to take backdoor 3rd on this map. Thats a dream come true for protoss. There is a gold where, if you defend the gold you are defending your nat. Thats a dream for terran. I don't get why more terran and protoss dont just play a really defensive macro game. After they lose because they never expand, they whisper me after the game and whine zerg op, even though its proven that zerg is the worse race (overall?) on Blizzards ladder. That is the most ignorant comment I've ever seen. Shattered without close positions is definitely good for zerg....... Oh wait I'm mistaken. It's actually impossible for there to be a zerg favored map... | ||
|
fraktoasters
United States617 Posts
On July 07 2011 17:14 WinteRR wrote: That is the most ignorant comment I've ever seen. Shattered without close positions is definitely good for zerg....... Oh wait I'm mistaken. It's actually impossible for there to be a zerg favored map... You know I was just going to make some sarcastic comment and relate close positions shattered to close positions lost temple or old shakuras plateau, but now I'm just actually curious why you think close positions shattered can be good for Zerg. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On July 07 2011 17:14 WinteRR wrote: That is the most ignorant comment I've ever seen. Shattered without close positions is definitely good for zerg....... Oh wait I'm mistaken. It's actually impossible for there to be a zerg favored map... I'm protoss and shattered temple is really great for PvZ - if it's close positions then you can quite literally warp in units in their face without even needing a proxy pylon....if it's any other position you get 4 bases for free, none of those can be harassed except for drops. | ||
|
Dubpace
United States251 Posts
On July 07 2011 17:14 WinteRR wrote: That is the most ignorant comment I've ever seen. Shattered without close positions is definitely good for zerg....... Oh wait I'm mistaken. It's actually impossible for there to be a zerg favored map... Yeah you don't really know what you're talking about, sorry. | ||
|
Tommylew
Wales2717 Posts
| ||
|
ScvOfAiur
Sweden15 Posts
| ||
|
Ryder.
1117 Posts
Or am I just way off track? | ||
| ||
