|
Only really bad new map is searing crater, and that's just one veto, I don't see what the big fuss is about.
Backwater isn't as bad, but I might as well veto that too ... didn't veto any maps last season and was happy with that, but searing crater is just so sick that I need to veto it for my own sanity's sake, so I might as well get rid of that too.
I really like some of the new maps so I think it's overall quite okay.
|
Those maps are way better then the old ones. gj blizz
|
I've seen a million people complain about spawn positions, losing in close spawn positions, how horrible spawn positions are etc.
I admit that I have trouble understanding this hate. Different spawning positions are supposed to entail different strategies. A good player should be able to defend cheese, macro-up, all-in, etc. Basically adapt playstyle to not only the race and scouting information but also particularities of the map, including the spawning position. Sure the games may not be oh-so-awesome-long-macro-games in close positions on some of these maps, but imo sc2 wouldn't be as fun without crazy cheese, all-in styles and unexpected rushes, especially on the pro scene.
|
On July 28 2011 00:04 Malyce wrote:
I've seen a million people complain about spawn positions, losing in close spawn positions, how horrible spawn positions are etc.
I admit that I have trouble understanding this hate. Different spawning positions are supposed to entail different strategies. A good player should be able to defend cheese, macro-up, all-in, etc. Basically adapt playstyle to not only the race and scouting information but also particularities of the map, including the spawning position. Sure the games may not be oh-so-awesome-long-macro-games in close positions on some of these maps, but imo sc2 wouldn't be as fun without crazy cheese, all-in styles and unexpected rushes, especially on the pro scene.
Difference is on close positions, zerg is gonna have to cheese as playing standard is el oh el. And as we've seen, there's plenty of cheese on the GSL maps, even Terminus and Crevasse, so close positions are totally unnecessary.
|
What I really dislike is that you have so little place for buildings in your home base on several maps. This is a severe problem for Terran.
I think I have to change my downvotes just so I get enough place for my buildings.
|
On July 27 2011 23:40 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 22:36 Deadlift. wrote: To streamline the complaining process, I've developed the following template for all complaints:
I can't believe Blizzard put <Blizzard map> into the map pool! It is so biased against <race you play> because of fundamental flaws such as <too big/not big enough/too many chokes/too much open space/too close of rush distances/too long of rush distances/too many ramps/not enough ramps/third base too hard to take/third base too easy to take/color of map is all wrong>. Instead of fixing these glaring fundamental flaws that even my <grandmother/grandfather/pet/newborn baby> can see, Blizzard tries to fix maps with gimmicks such as <Xel Naga watch towers/High Grass or smoke/Destructible Rocks/Gold Minerals/Random jab at World of Warcraft> Even <Blizzard map that used to be in the map pool that just a week ago you said was the worst map of all time> was better than this!
<GSL map/iCCup map> is clearly a superior map due to <opposite of whatever fundamental flaws you selected above>. <irrelevant race bashing comment, preferably with elitist attitude and posting of your rating and league>. ROFL truer words were never spoken. Random jab at WoW had me rolling haha
I say the following pretty much every time new Blizzard maps are released and unfortunately it will probably always be true. If these new maps were called iCCup Nerazim Crypt, iCCup Searing Crater, iCCup Antiga Shipyard and iCCup Abyssal Caverns most of the people currently complaining would instead be saying how great they are and how Blizzard needs to make maps like them.
|
On July 27 2011 12:42 BreakfastTea wrote:
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"?
.
because they are balanced and fun to play on
|
After playing some Coop and some 4v4s is it just me or are the new team maps just terrible ? They are standing outside my base quicker than fuck.
|
Interesting to note is that all the ladder maps are now 4player except for xel'naga caverns. It's strange to see that blizzard is so against 2player maps.
|
On July 28 2011 00:06 Entropic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 00:04 Malyce wrote:
I've seen a million people complain about spawn positions, losing in close spawn positions, how horrible spawn positions are etc.
I admit that I have trouble understanding this hate. Different spawning positions are supposed to entail different strategies. A good player should be able to defend cheese, macro-up, all-in, etc. Basically adapt playstyle to not only the race and scouting information but also particularities of the map, including the spawning position. Sure the games may not be oh-so-awesome-long-macro-games in close positions on some of these maps, but imo sc2 wouldn't be as fun without crazy cheese, all-in styles and unexpected rushes, especially on the pro scene. Difference is on close positions, zerg is gonna have to cheese as playing standard is el oh el. And as we've seen, there's plenty of cheese on the GSL maps, even Terminus and Crevasse, so close positions are totally unnecessary. What does standard mean? Make 70 drones and 5 bases undisturbed while going for broodlords/ultras? That was the guys point....adapt your play based on map/position. Every damn map every damn time this is the only "strategy" zerg goes to...5 base/ultra/blord. If they cant do that they go Omg nerf marines, nerf map, buff drones, buff ovies, gief mules, make blords the highest dps unit in the game ^^. Try doing something else for a change. If that really doesnt work blizz will take notice and finally fullfill your wet dreams - put boobs on queens...
|
On July 28 2011 00:14 Bluerain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 12:42 BreakfastTea wrote:
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"?
. because they are balanced and fun to play on Hahahahhaha says who? Check TLPD...NONE of the GSL maps are even close to balanced at the "highest level of play"....
|
Artosis not going to like Metalopolis getting removed.
|
these maps are fucking shit
|
as a protoss player I like all the new maps exept for the lava one, its hard to defend ur natural with 3 ways to attack, and I'm glad metalopolis is gone, so imba for zerg and got boring after a whole year, good move by blizz
|
On July 28 2011 00:23 sadyque wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 00:14 Bluerain wrote:On July 27 2011 12:42 BreakfastTea wrote:
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"?
. because they are balanced and fun to play on Hahahahhaha says who? Check TLPD...NONE of the GSL maps are even close to balanced at the "highest level of play"....
Indeed. Even Tal'Darim on ladder, with it's zerg-hated destructable rocks, is incredibly biased for Zerg at the highest levels of play. This isn't July 2010, Zerg doesn't automatically suck anymore.
|
On July 28 2011 00:23 sadyque wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 00:14 Bluerain wrote:On July 27 2011 12:42 BreakfastTea wrote:
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"?
. because they are balanced and fun to play on Hahahahhaha says who? Check TLPD...NONE of the GSL maps are even close to balanced at the "highest level of play"....
To say it's bias, don't you have to point out a feature of the map that favors a race more than another race? Saying it's bias simply because zerg has a good win rate is kinda silly when tal'darim IS one of the most balanced maps in the ladder pool(Pretty much an undoubted fact before blizzard made the badly phrased statement). Besides, doesn't larger maps favor protoss more than zerg?
Doesn't the TLPD show the win rates of either side being close to 45-55% That's pretty balanced, imo.
|
I'm not going to say anything original but
1. I don't like the 4 new maps. When I first looked at them, I thought they were really boring. 2. I would have rather seen Terminus, Crevasse, Testbug, Dual Sight, stuff like that 3. I like the removal of Delta Quadrant, Slag Pits, and Scrap Station
Blizzard maps are so gimicky that they limit the styles of play that are viable on them. I play Terran and even I don't like rush maps just because they're less fun. You can rush on big maps, but you can't macro on small maps.
|
On July 28 2011 00:04 Malyce wrote:
I've seen a million people complain about spawn positions, losing in close spawn positions, how horrible spawn positions are etc.
I admit that I have trouble understanding this hate. Different spawning positions are supposed to entail different strategies. A good player should be able to defend cheese, macro-up, all-in, etc. Basically adapt playstyle to not only the race and scouting information but also particularities of the map, including the spawning position. Sure the games may not be oh-so-awesome-long-macro-games in close positions on some of these maps, but imo sc2 wouldn't be as fun without crazy cheese, all-in styles and unexpected rushes, especially on the pro scene. Would you say it's fair to start a soccer game 20m closer to one of the teams goals? Sure might be fun for the spectators to see a fast goal and some fast action and maybe a nice counter goal if the first attack isn't successful, but how do you feel the team starting closer to their own goal feel? Close spawns on meta for example isn't about bringing variety to the game but giving a specific race a disadvantage right from the start.
|
On July 28 2011 00:48 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 00:23 sadyque wrote:On July 28 2011 00:14 Bluerain wrote:On July 27 2011 12:42 BreakfastTea wrote:
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"?
. because they are balanced and fun to play on Hahahahhaha says who? Check TLPD...NONE of the GSL maps are even close to balanced at the "highest level of play".... To say it's bias, don't you have to point out a feature of the map that favors a race more than another race? Saying it's bias simply because zerg has a good win rate is kinda silly when tal'darim IS one of the most balanced maps in the ladder pool(Pretty much an undoubted fact before blizzard made the badly phrased statement). Besides, doesn't larger maps favor protoss more than zerg? Doesn't the TLPD show the win rates of either side being close to 45-55% That's pretty balanced, imo.
Pretty much correct on all counts. The flaw is that your argument is limited by logic. Unfortunately, that puts you at a severe handicap when debating with some of the ppl here (who have none).
|
On July 27 2011 13:48 hmunkey wrote: I don't really mind their reasoning for removing Metal, but why they kept Backwater over it is mind-boggling. Surely removing close positions would've been superior to BWG.
Everyone is hatin on Blackwater gluch but it's actualy a way better map than Metalopolis...
|
|
|
|