|
I'm only high plat so I'll just give some general critique on the maps so far.
I've only experienced rushes on Map 1. Without almost any opportunity for a third in close spawns most people just opt for all inning you. If this was a strictly cross spawn map or the expansions were more bunched towards the corners it would make the map at least somewhat feasible for a macro game. But currently taking thirds seems extremely difficult, even with the lesser threat of being attacked due to the larger map size. Cross-spawns I found this map to be okay but a bit difficult to keep watch on with observers given the numerous routes through the middle, I found it a bit confusing recognizing the attack path with the various almost seemingly random placed crevasses around the map, but this may well just be due to my inexperience/noobiness.
The nat2nat distances on close spawns of 1v1 Map 2 are ridiculously close, closer than Steppes of War where you at least had to walk around the enemy's cliff face to get to the nat. The rocks at the third of this map are also oddly placed and lend themselves to some pretty awkward battles from my experience.
Map 3 is decent but close spawns are still as unpleasant as they were on metalopolis, taking a third (gold) is very risky and so the game almost always ends up in
And 1v1 Map 4 while not really broken is an extremely boring map to play, there is very little room to play a positional game because the whole center is completely open with almost no walls or blockades of any sort to take advantage of. The third is also extremely easy to take while the fourth is extremely difficult to take a la Tal'darim Altar, however in this case the map is so small that defending the fourth becomes quite a task.
|
Shifted Sky and the first map makes it hard to take a 3rd for Zerg. Guys, it's just hard to take, not unwinnable. Then again, I wish they reduce the frequency of rocks at 3rd bases. Screws up timings for Zergs. Protoss might have a hard time too, because the maps now have larger openings, allowing more Zergling run-bys.
|
On July 17 2011 22:21 Utinni wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 22:15 Lennon wrote:On July 17 2011 22:10 Utinni wrote:
Why do people complain about free content that they haven't even tried. *shrugz* You don't need to try them to predict what will happen on these maps. Also, it's not free. We've bought the game and Blizzard makes money out of how many users are actively playing on Battle.net due to sponsorship deals. Better ladder maps = more players willing to ladder = more revenue. Any of that cross your mind? It's still FREE to you. You paid for the original game... NOT the patches. All these patches and maps are gravy. I have seen good and bad thoughts on the PTR thread where people have ACTUALLY played the map but it's dumb to jump to conclusions. 'Edit: Assuming sucks monkey balls, Lennon 
Yes it is free but we paid to play on the ladder and these maps will dictate our ladder experience. If they make bad maps for us to play on the game becomes less fun to play. It's not just added value, it changes value. We pay for a ladder experience and these maps are a part of that, not a bonus to it. If they let the community make their own "ladders" and allow us to make our own map pool than yes this is just bonus content but right now you just can't look at it this way.
It's also the disappointment that they make new maps but keep making the same mistakes we told them about when the game first released. You can rush on macro maps (if they are not too big) but you can't macro on "rush" maps so why not make maps that cater to both styles? Why block expansions with rocks and force players into a specific way of playing? Shouldn't you allow players to grab early expansions if they want to take that risk? If you add to that the "tricks" and "special features" they try to add to their maps all the time but just end up being exploited and imbalanced than yes we get a little bit disappointed.
I'm not saying it's bad that they make new maps (I could see some of these maps being better than slag pits, delta quadrant etc.) and I applaud the work they put in to improve the experience of the game and keep it fresh. Some of these maps might actually turn out ok and stay in the game a long time. I just feel they could have done a better job if they'd listen to our criticism and thus I'm disappoint.
|
On July 17 2011 22:30 Lennon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 22:21 Utinni wrote:On July 17 2011 22:15 Lennon wrote:On July 17 2011 22:10 Utinni wrote:
Why do people complain about free content that they haven't even tried. *shrugz* You don't need to try them to predict what will happen on these maps. Also, it's not free. We've bought the game and Blizzard makes money out of how many users are actively playing on Battle.net due to sponsorship deals. Better ladder maps = more players willing to ladder = more revenue. Any of that cross your mind? It's still FREE to you. You paid for the original game... NOT the patches. All these patches and maps are gravy. I have seen good and bad thoughts on the PTR thread where people have ACTUALLY played the map but it's dumb to jump to conclusions. 'Edit: Assuming sucks monkey balls, Lennon Of course idiots are going to make wrong assumptions. On one of the new maps, it's obviously difficult for any race to take a 3rd base which is going to hurt Zerg the most. I don't need to play the map to know that.
Huh? 3rds are really close by on the first two maps, and on the latter two they look quite easily defendable. Why would taking 3rds be hard?
|
Blizzard likely knows more than you lot do. I'm sure they've taken the current balance data into account when making these maps.
|
On July 17 2011 22:31 roflpie wrote:
Terrible maps. Rocks, rocks everywhere. Why should players be killing rocks while they could attack their enemies instead? Bullshit boring maps.
Rocks are the creeps of SC^^
|
New maps is good maps. Although keeping the maps the same is good for ironing out strategies, its always more fun to have new stuff going on,
|
I am a zerg user and so I will point out some problems I see on those 1v1 maps.
map 1: extremely hard to get 3rd base if you follow the natural progressing way and if you take a hidden 3rd it will be hard to defend it. even if you take your nat. 3rd it is very easy to siege (the cliff behind the gold mineral patches) and the zerg has almost no attack surface if he trys to clear it. Also the map control will be very hard as soon as tanks or colossus are out and stand on one or multiple watchtowers in the middle.
map 2: the distance from natural to natural looks as close as on steppes of war (no matter the spawing points) and therefore a zergs nightmare.
map 3: all I see is chokepoints. all over the map you have gaps were the units are forced to clump together and aoe damage will be very powerfull at those positions. the distance looks ok, when you spawn cross-position.
map 4: siege units will be sick strong on the map, since you can turtle and get an easy 3rd. From there you can max out and push when Terran/protoss are the strongest. And it looks like siegetanks/colossus can fire from the main to the 3rd of another spawnlocation, which is bad.
|
When in doubt just add rocks everywere.
|
I don't get the problem with maps were the third bases aren't bascially free.
In my opinion a third base should be something contested, it should force people to gain map control. People basically want to get easy expansions, be safe, and get high tech.
That's not how it should work in my opinion.
What i read from zergs especially is: "i want a third, i don't want to be attacked until i have my 70 drones and tech out".
You can play zerg without getting everything at once, the same for the other races. When you take a third, you're other places have to be attackable, that makes for dynamic games.
Where map control actually matters.
I'm a protoss, and from my race point of view, i have absolutely nothing against easy third, that lets you defend your main and natural, while you don't need any mapcontrol while teching to your deathball. But these games are boring.
And the GSL maps also tend to spread the third out a bit more, the beach map, dual sight, xel'naga fortress etc. and the games i see there are in my opinion most of the time better than on terminus for instance.
|
On July 17 2011 23:37 Elefanto wrote:
I don't get the problem with maps were the third bases aren't bascially free.
In my opinion a third base should be something contested, it should force people to gain map control. People basically want to get easy expansions, be safe, and get high tech.
That's not how it should work in my opinion.
What i read vom zergs especially is: "i want a third, i don't want to be attacked until i have my 70 drones and tech out".
You can play zerg without getting everything at once, the same for the other races. When you take a third, you're other places have to be attackable, that makes for dynamic games.
Where map control actually matters.
I'm a protoss, and from my race point of view, i have absolutely nothing against easy third, that lets you defend your main and natural, while you don't need any mapcontrol while teching to your deathball. But these games are boring.
And the GSL maps also tend to spread the third out a bit more, the beach map, dual sight, xel'naga fortress etc. and the games i see there are in my opinion most of the time better than on terminus for instance.
We're...well at least I'm not...asking for easy Tal'Darim/Terminus 3rds. While those are kind of nice, having the map pooled filled with them would get stale. However, the first and third maps' thirds are stupidly hard to get...especially if you get fucked over by position. You need a balance. Maps like Dual Sight, Beach, ect. have a good layout. Getting a fast third spreads you out, but it is still a valid option and they don't have any stupid ledges or anything to abuse the third. Xel'Naga Cavern's third should be the limit of hard thirds in the map pool imo.
|
On July 17 2011 23:53 Whole wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 23:37 Elefanto wrote:
I don't get the problem with maps were the third bases aren't bascially free.
In my opinion a third base should be something contested, it should force people to gain map control. People basically want to get easy expansions, be safe, and get high tech.
That's not how it should work in my opinion.
What i read from zergs especially is: "i want a third, i don't want to be attacked until i have my 70 drones and tech out".
You can play zerg without getting everything at once, the same for the other races. When you take a third, you're other places have to be attackable, that makes for dynamic games.
Where map control actually matters.
I'm a protoss, and from my race point of view, i have absolutely nothing against easy third, that lets you defend your main and natural, while you don't need any mapcontrol while teching to your deathball. But these games are boring.
And the GSL maps also tend to spread the third out a bit more, the beach map, dual sight, xel'naga fortress etc. and the games i see there are in my opinion most of the time better than on terminus for instance. We're...well at least I'm not...asking for easy Tal'Darim/Terminus 3rds. While those are kind of nice, having the map pooled filled with them would get stale. However, the first and third maps' thirds are stupidly hard to get...especially if you get fucked over by position. You need a balance. Maps like Dual Sight, Beach, ect. have a good layout. Getting a fast third spreads you out, but it is still a valid option and they don't have any stupid ledges or anything to abuse the third. Xel'Naga Cavern's third should be the limit of hard thirds in the map pool imo.
Yeah, i can agree with that, but from this thread i get the general view that thirds should be free.
But the 4th map looks reasonably well from the distance and layout of the third.
|
On July 17 2011 23:37 Elefanto wrote:
I don't get the problem with maps were the third bases aren't bascially free.
In my opinion a third base should be something contested, it should force people to gain map control. People basically want to get easy expansions, be safe, and get high tech.
That's not how it should work in my opinion.
What i read vom zergs especially is: "i want a third, i don't want to be attacked until i have my 70 drones and tech out".
You can play zerg without getting everything at once, the same for the other races. When you take a third, you're other places have to be attackable, that makes for dynamic games.
Where map control actually matters.
I'm a protoss, and from my race point of view, i have absolutely nothing against easy third, that lets you defend your main and natural, while you don't need any mapcontrol while teching to your deathball. But these games are boring.
And the GSL maps also tend to spread the third out a bit more, the beach map, dual sight, xel'naga fortress etc. and the games i see there are in my opinion most of the time better than on terminus for instance.
I don't want free thirds, I want third bases that are reasonably close to by natural without having rocks on them. I don't mind if they are not guarded by a shared choke like terminus or taldarim. I just wan't them reasonably close, without rocks and without abusable ledges or really close proximity to my opponent.
This gives players the option to take a fast third if they feel they can defend it and doesn't allow players to guard one or two chokes and sit on 3 bases all day every day. Best of both worlds imo.
|
I'm waiting for Blizzard to add a Dig-Dug map that's just a 100x100 square filled with rocks.
"The game opens with both players in easily defended positions, but destructible debris can be knocked down to open multiple attack paths!"
|
On July 18 2011 00:13 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
I'm waiting for Blizzard to add a Dig-Dug map that's just a 100x100 square filled with rocks.
"The game opens with both players in easily defended positions, but destructible debris can be knocked down to open multiple attack paths!"
lol reminds me of crysalis from BW, where u had to mine minerals to get to the gas and mine more minerals to get to ur opponent. that map was sooo gay cuz a terran just massed tanks
|
On July 17 2011 13:11 BoxedLunch wrote:I played on the PTR ladder for an entire day. and these maps are pretty damn good. my thoughts after a bunch of games on them: + Show Spoiler +
Map one is actually pretty macro favored. the natural is defendable, and the abundance of expansions lead to some long macro games.i think the center is a little bland though. 4 watchtowers on high ground and nothing else? meh. also i think it's worth noting that the low ground thirds are not gold anymore, nor do they have rocks. rotational symmetry is pretty irritating, but the map is big enough for it not to be a huge factor. I may veto this map due to the wide open center (I play protoss) but it's not a bad map by any means.
Map two totally surprised me. looking at it, I had nightmares of steppes of war and blistering sands wrapped into one. but after several 30 minute macro games against zergs, I began to reconsider. the natural is... weird, yes. but the wall... thing allows for some interesting exploits to defend. I was plugging the tiny hole with a forge/cannon, and walling the bottom as well. I could see zergs putting a spine crawler at the small gap to prevent any force field/bunker pressure from coming through there. finally, the thing that surprised me most about the map, was the despite the cramped feeling of the map, the expansions all felt very safe. the gold bases and thirds at twelve and six are very close by, and if you take the base furthest from your opponent, it becomes quite tough for them to actually apply pressure to it without your army being nearby. I don't think I will end up vetoing this map. I was actually quite impressed by how easy it was to take and defend bases.
map three is the best in the pool I think. the natural is safe, third is far, but defensible and the numerous attack paths allow for some interesting games. I kept thinking 'this is metalopolis without close spawns' every time I played the map. I'm definitely going to play this one.
map four, the macro map, is also indeed just that. the natural reminds me a bit of shakuras. the ramp is wider, but fast expands will still be safe on this map. the third is also very easy to take, as it's basically just down the ramp from your natural. once again, there are some strange features that I don't quite get though. the tiny cliff behind your smoke vents seems... unnecessary. I can't imagine why it would be there, other than for tank or maybe reaper usage. a piece of terrain that screams 'abuse me with tank drops' doesn't make much sense. maybe we will see other uses for it, but I'd like to see it removed. it doesn't need to be there. also, the gold bases are a bit odd as well. I feel like if a player can control the center of the map long enough to get a gold base up and operational, they should already be in a position to win the game. plus, two gold that close is a bit strange. it's easy enough to take the other if you've already got one going.
any ways, those are my thoughts. I got a bit annoyed of all the QQ from people who haven't really tried the maps yet so I figured I'd do a little writing. also to everyone complaining about the size, the maps are deceptively big, apart from the lava one.
glad to hear i'm not the only one having a good time on these.
I really really enjoyed the cross-spawn games i played on 1 (pvp) and 3 (zvz). though i'm sure they have their high end balance issues (and yes, you have to fight for your thirds) all this naysaying from people who've not even played them seems a bit far...
|
is the PTR on??
cuz i want to play something...
|
lol
so what is in store for season 4, rocks on your natural?
>
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/scXuQ.jpg)
Whyyyy
Same with the La Mancha copy...
|
QQ Zerg perspective:
-Oh great, destructible rocks. Only takes Zerglings a few centuries to destroy those.
-Oh great, impossible-to-take thirds. Because 2-base Terran and Protoss were too easy to beat as it is.
-Oh great, lowground 3rds. That won't be annoying against Colossi and Siege Tanks.
-Oh great, gold bases. Infinite 3/3 stim + shield Marines for Terran thanks to MULEs, meanwhile I'm 200/200 and out of gas.
Its hard out here for an overmind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
