Oh, actually, the close positions (horizontal)
on the 3rd map looks like it is too close, but I can't tell. It looks maybe just a few seconds longer than Metal close, but maybe that's all it needs.

But... it looks really narrow, Terran could own with pushes there it seems =O

Swad1000

United States366 Posts

June 20 2011 17:01 GMT

#124

This means that the map won’t be strictly about the rush, even though it’s a rush map.

Hey zergs you wont strictly lose on this map, but your going to lose on this map.

I honestly think blizzard is trolling with this. There is no way in hell that they are this stupid. No way.That or they listen to the people on the bnet forums to much.

Watch them take out Metal/Xnc/Tal'Darim. I will never ladder again.

Fyzar

Netherlands8010 Posts

June 20 2011 17:01 GMT

#125

Meh, they are better than what's there now, but I'm still hoping for Blizzard to just go with the tournament map pools, stuff like Crevasse, Terminus (Especially Terminus!!!), would be great to have on the ladder...

Headnoob

Australia2108 Posts

June 20 2011 17:01 GMT

#126

those maps look very ehhhhhhhhh.

i hope they bump up the amount of veto's to 7

blahz0r

3030 Posts

June 20 2011 17:01 GMT

#127

Interesting maps. Liking some of the 2v2/3v3/4v4 ones

MyNameIsAlex

Greece827 Posts

June 20 2011 17:02 GMT

#128

coudlnt they just add crossfire/creavsse/terminus :S

I dont have confidence in blizz mapmaking skills

Plus it seems close positions are going to be problematic on most of these.

AssuredVacancy

United States1167 Posts

June 20 2011 17:02 GMT

#129

Wait for the second map.. is that a droppable platform with no ramps beside the third? WTF is the point of that besides dropping siege tanks on it?

OptimusYale

Korea (South)1005 Posts

June 20 2011 17:03 GMT

#130

Does anyone else think the 4th map looks like Kulas Ravine?

TheButtonmen

Canada1403 Posts

June 20 2011 17:04 GMT

#131

I'd love to hear their map making team talk about why they feel the lack of rotational symmetry, close spawns and rocked off thirds add to the playing experience.

iaretehnoob

Sweden741 Posts

June 20 2011 17:04 GMT

#132

Why does Blizzard think you need a "rush map" to make rushes viable? It's not like we don't see any rushes on say Terminus RE. And that is a map so big it's probably outside of Blizzard's system of classifying maps.

blackone

Germany1314 Posts

June 20 2011 17:04 GMT

#133

"This is the macro map for Season 3. Early on, it will be possible to easily take two expansions. This, along with the long rush distances in all start locations, will most likely encourage players to go for a mid- or late-game strategy, rather than a quick, rush-based strategy."
I love this comment. Hey, on one of our four new maps, your game might actually include a midgame! I'm pretty diappointed that they decided to only make new maps, instead of using some of the very good ones that are already out there.
Edit: The most important question is which maps are going to be replaced though. If they take Slag Pits, Delta and Scrap Station out, I'm happy. But I have a feeling they won't.

Yoshi Kirishima

United States10378 Posts

June 20 2011 17:05 GMT

#134

This means that the map won’t be strictly about the rush, even though it’s a rush map.

Hey zergs you wont strictly lose on this map, but your going to lose on this map.

I honestly think blizzard is trolling with this. There is no way in hell that they are this stupid. No way.

Watch them take out Metal/Xnc/Tal'Darim. I will never ladder again.

It's quite a misconception that Zergs NEED 1 base ahead. It fits a defensive style yes, but Zergs can be aggressive too on equal base.

Anyways, I think it's a little funny how they call them "Rush", "normal", and "Macro" maps. I mean yes, they make sense, even though a more accurate term for the Rush maps would be "Aggressive Maps", but they call the first one Normal but say it is still a rush map?

Basically this supports one of my theories that whoever describes the maps is different than the ones who make them, or they make a lot of communication errors.

flodeskum

Iceland1267 Posts

June 20 2011 17:07 GMT

#135

1v1 map 2 looks like a map that will be hated by all but will probably make for really good games.

The others... are no doubt better than delta/scrap/slag so I welcome them all \e/

Gescom

Canada3513 Posts

June 20 2011 17:07 GMT

#136

Only happy with the 4th map. These maps with no third are so 2010. -_-

Valckrie

United Kingdom533 Posts

June 20 2011 17:12 GMT

#137

Not too keen on the "Rush" one, distance ooks kind of small. They should just include some of the other GSL maps and Neo Enigma =\

ZAiNs

United Kingdom6525 Posts

June 20 2011 17:13 GMT

#138

Dear Blizzard, please add Crossfire seeing as you made it in the first place any ways!

YourMom

Romania565 Posts

June 20 2011 17:13 GMT

#139

Oh man why do they keep using boring, dark and tiring as ass tilesets for 1v1 and wonderful ones for team games...

Johnranger-123

United Kingdom341 Posts

June 20 2011 17:14 GMT

#140

Cant say yet cause I havent played them, but one game should be all it needs before I veto the shit ones.
I dunno why they dont give community map makers a chance, Blizzards map maker team could be better spent cleaning the toilets or something TT