EPTSeason 5 Map Pool Changes Announced - Page 23
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
-Cyrus-
United States318 Posts
| ||
|
Sprutking
Sweden18 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20322 Posts
Can literally just FFE to nat, break down rocks to third and take that with a small wall in (still on high ground) and then move down to fourth with an army, take it, and then take the other main, where you have three more bases, on highground, that can be fortified more easily than others using cannons at the front. If it is balanced, i will love that map like no other as it will be far easier to play "Macro Protoss" than on other maps, but im not sure how this will work out. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://us.media5.battle.net/cms/gallery/0UACOWJITJIH1323728260133.jpg) | ||
|
S2Lunar
1051 Posts
Daybreak is such a amazing map and Xel'Naga and metal have been in the map pool way too long. Also, I actually liked Abyssal/Nerazim, they could have just removed close pos. | ||
|
KDot2
United States1213 Posts
https://twitter.com/#!/BlizzardCS | ||
|
dc302
Australia576 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20322 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:30 Toppp wrote: Remove Metal/Xel'Naga and add Daybreak, please, please. Daybreak is such a amazing map and Xel'Naga and metal have been in the map pool way too long. Also, I actually liked Abyssal/Nerazim, they could have just removed close pos. Nerazim was unwinnable for zerg if they spawned counter clockwise vs protoss i beleive - You either had to take a third that was closer to the protoss main than it was to your natural (and he could warp down a cliff to it) or you had to take a third that was way far away, and too easily cut off from your main+nat after protoss warped down the same point. I rolled people with 6gate on that map when they played borderline perfectly and i clearly shouldnt have, taking games from high masters Z while being pretty inactive and clearly not at that skill level. It deserves to go, not only for the massive PvZ imbalance, but for the pain in the ass it is to play PvT on that map... very short rush distance on some positions, and it is extremely hard to place production etc, i thought it was just me being an idiot, but ive seen pros loose on that map because of building placement too. The shape of the mains really does not help things. PvT on that map is an annoyance, still playable, but i think it is one of the few maps that is kinda just broken in PvZ because of the positioning of the potential thirds on some spawn positions. Abyssal close position you either take a third that is shared with your enemy, halfway between your bases, or you break down rocks and take your third at the gold, where it is on low ground i beleive, harder to defend, and because of the map layout, very easy to cut off from the main+nat, i wouldnt want to play zerg on that map, i think close positions favor T/P a bit too much and far positions could favor zerg if not being even, its hard to say without any tournament statistics or a ton of pro games to review on that map though. | ||
|
croQue
Germany7 Posts
| ||
|
FunnelC4kes
Ireland462 Posts
I just hope they don't plan to do it "soon." | ||
|
Badfatpanda
United States9719 Posts
| ||
|
Northern_iight
Canada363 Posts
I really like first map, if only they removed the two watch towers and just use a central one. I think it's hard for players to out manoeuvre the opponent's army with the watch tower granting control over the sides. it just reduces the necessary uses of overlords/observers/sensor towers. I would also remove gold minerals as GSL would have. The second map looks like a remake of searing crater. a lot of opportunity for sneaking a expo, which i like. No gold minerals either. Also like the sneeky attack path by the sides. If this map was Cross Position only, it would make for a lot of good attack paths. Simple ones to begin with but as the game progress, the destructible rocks will open new avenues of attack. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
Papulatus
United States669 Posts
And why is xel naga and shakuras still in the map pool when they are obviously terrible for zerg? | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50604 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:43 aksfjh wrote: I'm not sure this is TL.net... People are actually happy with the maps created by Blizzard. they are better maps than their original crap creations, I mean since antiga they've really been stepping up now.. then again I hope they port bloodbath to SC2. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20322 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:35 ToguRo wrote: everyone tweet Blizzard that you want Daybreak in map pool https://twitter.com/#!/BlizzardCS Quoting this so more people see, hope it is ok | ||
|
MavivaM
1535 Posts
Seriously, is it possible for a terran to cover all the first three bases with walling the natural's side and siegeing on the upper ground? I honestly can't understand if it's positive or not: a map that favors T's macro for better games or a map that will favor timings with siege tech like Taldarim, only even more powerful? No clue. On a side note: Blizzard, bring us Ohana or other TL contest maps! | ||
|
W2
United States1177 Posts
On December 15 2011 11:08 jnkw wrote: Looks like the Season 5 ladder map pool was just unveiled. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/4103100/Title_Season_5_Ladder_Map_Pool_Update-12_14_2011 Notable changes: Removed: - (4) Abyssal Caverns - (4) Nerazim Crypt Added: - (2) Arid Plateau ![[image loading]](http://us.media3.battle.net/cms/gallery/DC1X3RN3MV621323728131743.jpg) - (4) Entombed Valley Plus a little section regarding the maps from the TL Mapmaking contest: Emtombed valley might as well be called Zerg's tomb. I can't wait to play PvZ on it. 1 small ramp leading to natural, easily walled off with FFE. Once rocks are down you get a free 3rd with only entrance being an even tinier ramp. No airspace for mutas: If mutas are to harass your main, they need to pass either 2nd or 3rd mineral line, where you should have cannons/army already. 4th easily accessible less than 1 screen length away... I am salivating already. | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:46 MavivaM wrote: Until someone more competent will correct me, I'll call the first map "Siege Tank" Plateau. Seriously, is it possible for a terran to cover all the first three bases with walling the natural's side and siegeing on the upper ground? I honestly can't understand if it's positive or not: a map that favors T's macro for better games or a map that will favor timings with siege tech like Taldarim, only even more powerful? No clue. On a side note: Blizzard, bring us Ohana or other TL contest maps! Do you call shakuras plateau "Siege Tank" Plateau too then? Because you can cover 3 bases even better with siegetanks on the upper ground. | ||
|
Louis8k8
Canada285 Posts
It has such an awkward cramped natural. Narrow chokes are only good for Protoss when there's 1. With two openings to the nat, it's harder to FF if Terran attacks from both sides, and then the small area will work against them. The 3rd is also hard to take. But easier for Zerg than it is for Toss because they can leave the nat wide open. Any attacks from the 2nd opening can get easily surrounded if there's creep spread. The left and right middle expansions should either not exist or have a wider opening. In TvZ, Marine+tank+1pf+turrets can easily secure main and 3 expos that are almost immediately beside the main base. Only opening would be the 2nd opening into the natural. But that path way is so narrow and can get walled with a rax+addon like on xel'naga. --------------- For Entombed Valley, it's better but they should move the natural's ramp further away from 3rd's ramp. If you take down the rocks in between, that's a haven for siege tanks and colossi (unless intended, then it's a 3 base turtle macro map that I'll have to veto). And mutas cannot harass the nat or 3rd against a toss that has blink at all in diamond+ levels. (Maybe masters+, I don't know what diamond level is like anymore). Both mineral lines are facing towards the main. Only the main's minerals are facing outwards. I hope close spawns are disabled for this map. (Top left vs Top right, and Bottom left vs Bottom right). It looks worse than metalopolis close spawns. | ||
|
MavivaM
1535 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:52 Snowbear wrote: Do you call shakuras plateau "Siege Tank" Plateau too then? Because you can cover 3 bases even better with siegetanks on the upper ground. ...never thought about that, good point. Actually now that you make me realise it, this map is even slightly less walled than shakuras. | ||
| ||
