|
On July 27 2011 12:42 BreakfastTea wrote:
Wow, with the way people bitch here, it's amazing to think that this is the foreign center for BW and SC2. I wonder what people who actually don't like the game think.
How about this: Fuck the GSL maps. Seriously, if you're not on a team and playing tournaments, who cares if you play on them? Because it makes you "cool" to play on the maps "that the pros play"?
Give the new maps a chance. Some of them are actually fun--I particularly like Abyssal Caverns. Getting a third will be easy, just which expansion you get will change due to spawn positions.
And Metalopolis was only considered good because it was the least shitty map to make it out of the beta.
No, not because it makes you look cool. Because they are well designed and offer varied strategic possibilities resulting in greater depth. Is that hard to understand?
|
Abyssal Caverns is a piece of shit and the worst map in the pool. ZvT and ZvP on this map are both nightmares, and I'm at a loss for what to do. Protoss can forge fe so safely and easily on this map, and zerg has no way to pressure, and the architecture of the map makes their pushes really strong. Against a terran whose good at slowpushing, the architecture makes it just as hopeless. Counter attacks are eliminated completely on this map because its so damn easy for them to defend their naturals.
|
I tested out the maps yesterday to be ready for the EU reset (I play Zerg). Will veto Abyssal Caverns and Searing Crates. Abyssal's third is hard to take, and Searing Crates feels kind of small, short distances and kind of cramped around the natural.
The Shipyard map has that weird 3rd reachable by tanks as I understood it (?), but otherwise seems like a nice map. The Crypt map seems very nice, perhaps favoring Zerg a bit too strongly because of very open areas. I will cry about Metalapolis, because it usually produces nice games, even on ladder =( (Except for close spawns)
|
aaah I will miss Metalopolis :/
|
So is Xel'Naga Caverns the only map that lives from ancient times? RIP Metal 
Some of the new 2v2 maps are really fun, still gotta try the 1v1 maps. All the maps have decent names 
|
|
|
Antiga is amazing so far. I have concerns about how close your natural third is to the opponents main. This could easily be abused by siege tanks and viking/medivac. However, so far, the map seems really, really well made, props to blizzard. It feels like shakuras all over again playing on that map :D
However, I wish I could say the same about Searing Center. It's like a slightly more horrid version of Black Water Gulch. Definitely veto as a zerg player. The other two new maps (forgot there names) seem pretty nice too. Will jam some customs with my boyz later.
I think it was a bad move getting rid of metal + scrap. They were both iconic. If anything, xel naga should have been removed.
|
On July 26 2011 06:46 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +Overall balance has also proven to be an issue on Metalopolis -- even factoring in close position spawn issues. It’s among the least balanced maps currently in the ladder pool, and along with Scrap Station (also being removed) and Tal’darim Altar, has a heavy (60%+) bias toward zerg at the highest levels of play. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2878771457Well, kinda serves it right. Zergs whine a lot for nothing IMO.
It reveals Zerg logic. The 'most balanced map' is one that they have 60+% win rate on.
|
So someone can correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Zerg players always be marginally better than their opponents? (lower MMR) due to close spawns meaning the Zerg player will get the occasional free loss to players as good as and go an extent worse than them, meaning when they play on a balanced position/map, the Zerg would win more of the time? (such as on TDA)? Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
|
I don't know if there's a way to figure out from the files, but do any of the new maps prevent any particular spawn locations like Shakuras did? Some of the maps seem like they would have some tough close positions.
|
On July 27 2011 17:10 DroneAllDay wrote:
So someone can correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Zerg players always be marginally better than their opponents? (lower MMR) due to close spawns meaning the Zerg player will get the occasional free loss to players as good as and go an extent worse than them, meaning when they play on a balanced position/map, the Zerg would win more of the time? (such as on TDA)? Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
What you are trying there is cute but there are a ton of people losing to 6-pools in close positions on the ladder too. Or to cross positions on Tal darim.
Anyways, Blizzard is able to account for player skill by gauging it from mirror match results. At least I believe that's how they are doing it for race vs. race stats.
|
On July 27 2011 16:59 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 06:46 Zephirdd wrote:Overall balance has also proven to be an issue on Metalopolis -- even factoring in close position spawn issues. It’s among the least balanced maps currently in the ladder pool, and along with Scrap Station (also being removed) and Tal’darim Altar, has a heavy (60%+) bias toward zerg at the highest levels of play. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2878771457Well, kinda serves it right. Zergs whine a lot for nothing IMO. It reveals Zerg logic. The 'most balanced map' is one that they have 60+% win rate on.
But, it's indeed more balanced than some of the other maps. Isn't that why it's even used in tournaments?
|
What the hell is with Blizzard and making expansions in those "pits"??
|
On July 27 2011 17:51 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 16:59 Thrombozyt wrote:On July 26 2011 06:46 Zephirdd wrote:Overall balance has also proven to be an issue on Metalopolis -- even factoring in close position spawn issues. It’s among the least balanced maps currently in the ladder pool, and along with Scrap Station (also being removed) and Tal’darim Altar, has a heavy (60%+) bias toward zerg at the highest levels of play. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2878771457Well, kinda serves it right. Zergs whine a lot for nothing IMO. It reveals Zerg logic. The 'most balanced map' is one that they have 60+% win rate on. But, it's indeed more balanced than some of the other maps. Isn't that why it's even used in tournaments?
its simply more balanced for tournament play, its not balanced for ladder
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently 95% of the people complaining about the new maps on this forum are Zerg.
Hurm.
|
6/10 of the 1v1 maps are size "small", 3 are "medium", and Tal Darim is "large". Quite a shit selection from a Zerg perspective.
|
On July 27 2011 15:30 Newguy wrote:
Abyssal Caverns is a piece of shit and the worst map in the pool. ZvT and ZvP on this map are both nightmares, and I'm at a loss for what to do. Protoss can forge fe so safely and easily on this map, and zerg has no way to pressure, and the architecture of the map makes their pushes really strong. Against a terran whose good at slowpushing, the architecture makes it just as hopeless. Counter attacks are eliminated completely on this map because its so damn easy for them to defend their naturals. Because you cannot instantly see a way to win the map is "a piece of shit"? What about thinking out of the box and trying unusual approaches? How long did you actually play that map so you are exactly knowing what the races you don't play could do on the map?
|
On July 27 2011 19:51 Gamegene wrote:
Apparently 95% of the people complaining about the new maps on this forum are Zerg.
Hurm.
Zergs do tend to whine alot, but any race would complain if maps they had 60% win ratio on was removed. That is just how it is.
I really don't care how they are balanced at the moment. I am just glad that the new ones seem fun to play on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
