EPT
Season 3 Ladder Pool Updates - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Gingerninja
United Kingdom1339 Posts
| ||
|
SoapSC
Netherlands112 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
As far as macro is concerned, cross spawns on each map actually seem to allow for a easily defend-able 3rd, as long as one controls only 2-3 key locations (much like Shakuras and XC). The only complaint I have is the 3rd map doesn't seem very friendly to any matchup with close air spawns. | ||
|
Wren
United States745 Posts
On June 21 2011 02:34 aksfjh wrote: So, these complaints about distances etc. fail to take into account how closed off all of these naturals are. Sure, there's destructible rocks, but it takes time and dedication to break those down, plenty of opportunity to muster up even more defense. Each natural and main entrance can be easily defended completely by a really small number of defensive structures. Also, the distances actually don't seem bad at all. None of them seem to be as small as close metal or close shattered. The complaint against close positions is that it's anti zerg. Your points about solid chokes also make walling off against zerg easier. It's not that what you've said is wrong, it just makes things worse, not better. | ||
|
TENTHST
United States204 Posts
pretty much just regurgitations of backwater and all of its racial imbalances. | ||
|
ChineseWife
United States373 Posts
| ||
|
skipdog172
United States331 Posts
Doesn't pretty much everybody in the community want big macro maps? | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On June 21 2011 02:51 skipdog172 wrote: What is even the point of these short maps? Is there ANYBODY in the community that likes them? Doesn't pretty much everybody in the community want big macro maps? I like variety. I don't want huge macro maps every game. Some certainly, but not all. | ||
|
yiodee
United States137 Posts
but the last one looks like a typhon peaks with two bases | ||
|
Peekaboo
Canada219 Posts
On June 21 2011 02:17 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Yup, that is a good point. The reason why you "need" 1 base ahead is not actually because you need more income, but because it gives you more larvae and is convenient to just add drones there when you want to pump econ instead of building a hatch in base and building another to expand later. The two extra gas geysers help a lot if you are going gas-heavy units like mutas, infestors, broodlords etc. Zerg isn't about minerals. --- Overall, the maps look pretty good. I wonder what maps they will be removing. Too many destructable rocks and wallable two bases on the face of it, but I can really only understand a map by playing it. | ||
|
TanX
Denmark92 Posts
Feel free to point out my mistakes, I might have misunderstood something in the map layout or whatever. Map1: x: Why are all thirds so siegeable? Kinda reminds me of the Xel'Naga third just that it will be easier for the enemy to get into position due to the mapsize. x: Destructible rocks, yay! Blizzard continues to nerf any kind of Macro play as Zerg, (it is difficult to get a third + drones when you are required to get a ton of units to get the third up at an appropriate timing before some kind of 2 base timing hits) x: 4 watchtowers in the middle... why exactly? Can't really see the reasoning behind adding that many watchtowers on such a small map. Gonna make it hard to get a surround as the enemy will see your army coming a mile away! x: And a personal note, forget hatching first against Protoss as those mineral fields are wayyyy too cannon rush friendly. Map2: x: Worst.... natural.... ever... As a Zerg, this is extremely difficult to defend. This reminds me a lot of Scrap Station and will definitely make 4 gating a pain as you can just take down the rocks and go around the spines. At the same time we have the annoying ramps from Backwater Gulch, a map that very few people actually like - Blizzard will never learn will they? x: Destructible rocks to make the rush distance shorter - why is this needed exactly? x: SO MANY RAMPS, this will definitely fuck up roach/hydra/whatever ground against a sentry heavy protoss army. You'll completely lose control of the middle as you are unable to actually move down your ramp without getting FFed. At the same time attacking is a pain since your army will be cut in half each time you take a look up the ramp. x: Meanwhile, the ramps will definitely favour siegetank play as you can easily control the map by placing a few tanks at key locations. I'm guessing this map will be a mutalisk map for Zerg at least since movement is so restricted either by FFs or Siegetanks. x: The third is not bad at all, even though it has the natural of the old Lost Temple map, I suspect it to be a difficult base to defend against any Terran - not a big fan of the gold though, considering that there's so much space to place drops before running in and killing drones, completely circumventing the spines in front defending against the 3 paths. Map3: x: Difficult to defend your main AND natural with spines, helions will be able to run directly into your main without having to go around the spines just short of the ramp. Will need to place an early creep tumour to get the ramp creep'ed. Else the natural is awesome. x: Third is complete shit! It will be impossible to defend against tanks and any ranged unit will be annoying as they can rain hell upon your workers. x: The Protoss can fuck up any Zerg ground army with FFs in the middle or by the ramps. It is impossible to attack without going past an extremely favoured Protoss choke. Siege tanks positions can be quite evil there as well, but at least that will force the Terran to stay in place whereas the Protoss can move in and out. (Yes, even the destructible rocks are shit to attack through since 2 FFs will fuck you up) Map4: x: Cross position on this map will be pretty good, everything else will be shit though. Close position and you'll be unable to get your third against a Terran as they will be able to drop marines into the third while having siege tank support from the other side of the gap between x player's main and the third. x: Gold is shit as always, the ramp in the middle can seriously fuck it up, much like the watchtower positions in Meta (with tanks), luckily it is a decent sized ramp even though Protoss can still exploit it with FFs and Colossi. x: The natural is going to be subjected to a lot of cannon rushes considering the many fast expanding Protoss' on this map much like on Tal'Darim. x: That's pretty much it, pretty boring map and I don't really see how this is supposed to be a macro map?! Close position will still lead to all-ins and the third (and fourth) is goddamn dumb. General observation: The maps are really bad and they completely miss what many players actually wish for. Blizzard are persistent in forcing their own map designs on the players instead of acknowledging the brilliancy of GSL mapmakers. It is as if Blizzard sees themselves as the 'real professionals' whereas the player made maps are simply just wrong and bad. Instead, Blizzard continues to use gimmicky designs such as destructible rocks, hard to defend bases, a shit-ton of pathways and last but not least the gold minerals. One of the really exciting things will be to see what maps they decide to remove, and it is evidently clear that if they do not remove Scrap Station, Delta Quadrant and Slag Pits then they are simply ignoring the wants and needs of the game community.  | ||
|
brian2sk8t
United States192 Posts
| ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
The second one i like. Naturals are slightly better than backwater gulch, but the rush distances aer a bit too short. No rocks blocking a fast 3rd thankfully. Third one is alright. It looks slightly like shattered temple, but it gives zergs a possible third that is easy to take early if you spawn in cross or close air. Close by ground seems too terran favoured as he can take the lower one, put up a planetary and keep pushing, while the zerg has no real place to take a third. fourth one is obviously the best map, though it has a rather boring center. | ||
|
Lingy
England201 Posts
Or they could just use the standard tourney/GSL maps... | ||
|
zawk9
United States427 Posts
| ||
|
-Jambi-
United States60 Posts
| ||
|
ChineseWife
United States373 Posts
| ||
|
FenneK
France1231 Posts
2nd: without the rocks could be perfectly fine, but with them defending the nat looks super awkward 3rd: taking 3rd seems ridiculously difficult and not a fan of how easy it is to siege with tanks 4th: seems fine, nothing new but nothing bad to be honest, they seem to have completely ignored what the community is asking for, failed to experiment and fallen back on their destructible rock gimmick in a vain attempt to make the maps interesting instead of encouraging solid play. it's just sad, i love this game, but they could at least give the impression that they are listening. i hate being negative, but hopefully this criticism could go towards them taking notice and improving the pool EDIT at least the ramps can all be forcefielded for pvp. | ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6170 Posts
SPECIALLY the second 2v2 map, it's just pure awful | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
 | ||
| ||
