Plus a little section regarding the maps from the TL Mapmaking contest:
TL Open On the subject of new maps, TeamLiquid.net recently hosted a map contest to offer map makers a chance to show off their skills. This past weekend, the top contenders in the TL Open battled it out on the top maps that emerged from that contest. The TL Open tournament has now concluded, but you can still see these new maps in action by checking out the replays and VoDs. We’re carefully reviewing the maps that were featured in the tournament, and those which meet our standards have a chance to be included in future ladder seasons.
The maps look pretty interesting. Not sure how I feel about all the ramps on entombed valley. Seems like it could be easy to abuse forcefields/tannks vs zerg with all those ramps, but we'll see. Both maps certainly look better than the 2 that are being removed in my opinion.
Actually both maps look not bad. I think Arid will end up not being anything remote to tournament quality but it's one of the most interesting design's I have seen from a Blizz map.
On first glanced Entombed looks to be actually not bad.
Major T_T tho that the maps form the TLMC can't make it in until S6.
The 2 player map looks pretty good, but on entombed valley, if you can shell the natural hatch from the low ground down those narrow paths Zerg is fucked in vertical positions it'll basically be slag pits vertical positions all over again. Or like close positions where your back is to the terran's ramp except you don't have watchtowers to keep an eye out for the push and it's too narrow for a flank.
I dont know how toss is going to get a third on the 2 player map... its not going to be easy, looks like a great map it just might lead to a lot of 2 base timing attacks.
They can't be serious. They admit that the community makes fantastic tournament maps, yet they are still going to add their garbage maps? In what world does that make any sense to create your own faulty bad maps when there are people and tournaments dedicated to create the most interesting / balanced maps possible through experience and intensive testing. I'm not surprised though, Blizzard has proven multiple times now that their perception and that of the community are worlds apart. Still, i'm disappointed, again.
First map doesn't look too good, really hard to take natural in PvZ but the second map (Entombed valley) looks quite good. Fairly easy three bases and an accessible 4th and 5th for vertical and cross spots on the map. Really like it.
Okay that's over the line Elefanto. We haven't even played the maps yet you can't just automatically label them as garbage. I have my own reservations about them but at least wait for them to be available for play before completely denouncing them as trash.
Edit- just for the record I will be vetoing these maps at first and I think I'll only play Arid wastes or whatnot if I'm in the mood for timing attacks with roaches pushing the side while zerglings do a runby into the main.
When will blizzard realize that 2 entrance naturals have never yielded a half-decent map... like ever. I don't get it. The 2nd map; however, does look pretty good. 3 bases relatively easy to take.
I like the removal of Abyssal, it was easily my least favorite map; not sure how I feel about removing Nerazim though. The new maps are interesting, but it sees super easy to turtle off 3 bases for both of them.
I like that they keep removing bad maps but they need to stop adding their own random maps. There are so many great maps like dual sight, daybreak, and bel'shir beach that need to be in the ladder pool.
So when bizzard says the maps that 'meet their standard' will be considered, do you think they mean the ones with the most rocks? but seriously i like these new maps, look nice :D
Whoah. 4p looks nice, that 2p I'm insta-banning for PvZ. Huge and open middle of the map with not one but two gaping entrances to the natural, and the nat is a million miles from the main. Dude. I don't think they could have designed a more anti-P map if they tried lol.
Unless Entombed is as big as TDA or something, horizontal spawns could be a problem since they're basically close spawns on other maps. The other positions look alright.
I'm undecided about Arid. All I know is that Protosses are gonna bitch so hard because they can't FFE.
On December 15 2011 11:27 v3ctor wrote: The hell, the natural on Arid is worse than Xel'naga Caverns... 6-7gate TvP will be so hard to hold. Gonna veto that ASAP
On December 15 2011 11:27 v3ctor wrote: The hell, the natural on Arid is worse than Xel'naga Caverns... 6-7gate TvP will be so hard to hold. Gonna veto that ASAP
It's nowhere near as bad as Xelnaga.
Well, instead of having a huge front entrance and a narrow backdoor, you now have two medium sized entrances. Pretty bad :/ The other map doesn't look bad though.
im alright with the maps they removed..but Arid Plateau will definitely be veto'd. that third looks horrible to defend if terran gets a siege right at that choke leading to the third.
i might give it a shot, but will likely be veto'ing it :/
as for entombed valley im not sure how i feel about it. too many rocks, though sheesh. starting to get sick of the gimmicky design. i just want straight up play. nothing fancy. GOM seems to have the idea down, unfortunately blizzard seems to disagree with that notion
Most important of this: They only took out the non-tournament maps, so you can still downvote the two new maps, and have a downvote left for a tourney map, like before. I approve.
Arid Plateau: Hated it, then realized it was 2-player. That's a hard natural, but also a long rush distance, which mitigates that a bit. Beyond that.....this is actually really good! Easy third, fourth...even the fifth isn't two hard, so it naturally lends itself to a macro game. Nice and open, too.
Entombed Valley: ROCKS. But, actually, these rocks are used a lot better than I'm used to. You can take the third, and then kill the rocks while the hatch is morphing. In vertical and cross positions, there's an easy progression of bases. Horizontal positions I'm less fond of, but it's not terrible.
On the whole, these two maps are actually much, much better than what I've come to expect from Blizzard. It seems like they're getting better at this. Kind of sucks that the TL Open map won't be in this season, but I guess the next one's only in like March.
Hmm overall not that happy with the changes, I liked the two maps that they removed so sad they are gone, and the new 2 player one (Arid Plateau) looks really weird, looks tricky to FFE on it as well...
I do however like the 2nd new map, Entombed valley
On December 15 2011 11:32 Keldory wrote: They removed two of the only maps that you can FFE on. Thanks, Blizz, as if PvZ wasn't hard enough already.
I didn't know FFE was an opening for PvP or PvT.
He specifically mentioned PvZ, are you trying to be a smartass or something? I can't see what there is to be happy about when your opening for 1/3 of your games is gimped.
I never played on abyssal caverns (except for one time, and I hated it). I actually kind of liked Nezarim Crypt, but Entombed Valley looks really nice.
I'm happy that metalopolis is still in the pool. I fucking looooove that map.
Arid possibly has the hardest to take third for not zerg since Crossifre. The close 3rd is just soooooo open that I cant imagine being able to hold it but its the one thats going to have to be taken since taking the far 3rd opens you up to way too many counterattack routes should you ever choose to move out.
Entombed Valley has a cool idea that I wonder how it will balance out for a 3rd. I can imagine fully walling off the ramp to the other 3rd vs zerg and its still a pretty safe expansion to take as either protoss or terran in PvT. I can imagine the 4th being a little tricky but managable to take if it came to that and like most 4 player maps after 4th leads to an easily splittable half map game. The routes around the middle will probably need to be pylon/depot walled like the backdoor in xel'naga if it goes into a half map. Im also a little curious if that lowground patch below the natural can be landed on
I liked that they removed two horrible maps but imo they added two more shitty ones... Why must they insist on making the maps.... GSL map creators are so much better TT grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. They are just trolling us with the rocks at this point...
(4) Entombed Valley looks like a pretty horrible map tbh. Its super super easy to take 3 bases, and rly easy to go up to 7 maps. Then the middle is just extremely open! Out of proportions open! But there is rly only the one way through the middle and two very tiny run-by pathes... So how will this play out: 1. turtle 2. get 200/200 3. attack 4. lose army 5. go to 2. Unfortunately people will like it cos it's so easy to macro...
(2) Arid Plateau is quite solid I guess. Again the third is a bit easy, the nat is probably a bit hard to defend properly PvZ and the gold ... well it's a gold... The middle overall is quite nice tho. It's nothing outstanding, new or fresh really, it's solid work with some flaws that will likely ruin it.
I'd not want either of them in tournaments and I really really hope no tournament will use them just because they are on ladder.
Entombed Valley idk if you can FFE on it in PvZ while it seems like zerg will still be able to get a quick 3rd soo will have to keep an eye on that.. Arid idk if you can FFE either unless maybe a pylon fits in between gas and that gap while again zerg can get an easy 3rd
It looks like hellion builds will be really... interesting on arid plateau with those two entrances to the natural. And wtf is with the poll above me? Choose some less biased options. Instead of hate, try dislike/veto.
These maps are actually not bad! They still look weird and a bit awkward but I hope they're not that bad.
I forgot the first one was 2 players so i looked at the base with the rocks behind it and i was like... the natural is so far... and it... IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE ENEMY? oh nevermind it's 2 players only ^^
2nd map has no gold =O
Again they look weird but they might actually be decent. Hopefully they are.
Anyways they probably are better than nerazim/abyssal caverns, and if not, those 2 weren't the shittiest maps around, much better than blistering sands and kulas and jungle basin, haha. And searing crater (for recent map comparison).
On the first map I don't see anyone moving to take the gold expansion or the one just above it.. I don't think it is even possible to defend with all of the open space in the center.
I have a really bad impression of the first map. Two attack paths to the natural make it look impossible to FFE. It's like Searing all over again. Also the middle is basically flat ground T_T
Second map looks okay, but I think 2 base all ins are going to be really common on horizontal positions, what with the rocks and the really awkward alternative thirds.
Any better Toss than me have thoughts about FFE on these?
good thing they got rid of those 2 shitty twilight maps. the 4 player one looks pretty nice but taking a 3rd as toss on the 2 player one looks like it will be tough
I can see Zergs really hating Arid Plateau. But really loving Entombed Valley. I am looking forward to the maps was hoping for more to be honest like 4-5 new maps.
On December 15 2011 11:44 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: HOLY SHIT!!!
These maps are actually not bad! They still look weird and a bit awkward but I hope they're not that bad.
If Blizzard continues the "6 tournament maps, 2 blizz maps" philosophy, I actually like the new maps being weird and experimental. I can always downvote them if they don't work, and if they do, then a tournament mapmaker can steal and polish the concepts.
On December 15 2011 11:44 Frozenhelfire wrote: It looks like hellion builds will be really... interesting on arid plateau with those two entrances to the natural.
It still seems defendable with 2 Spine Crawlers and 2 Queens. Xel'Naga was much worse, and Hellions weren't auto-win there.
On December 15 2011 11:13 Encrypto wrote: I like the removed maps, but wtf is that arid one? It looks bad as shit.
I agree, the removed maps I haven't played once but the new maps aren't the best either. I think I just need to get used to it and actually play on it. ^-^
Arid looks like the most interesting sc2 map Blizz ever made. Is the way to bottom left/top right mineral blocked by the geyser at the nat ? This map will need some adjustment before it can make to a tournament pool.
The side entrance to the nat on Arid is really really narrow, and ought to therefore be easy to wall off. You should keep an overlord there to watch for sneaky bunkers. The third base is a good place to proxy rush.
Hm. I'm not sure how much the open natural will actually matter. It's a really awkward angle to attack from, and it's easy to get flanked. I think it's just something to be aware of.
At first I looked at Arid Plateau and assumed it was a 4player map and thought, "seriously, wtf, and of COURSE they're not going to disable close spawns..." then saw it was a 2player map, and was pleasantly surprised.
Am i the only one who wants gsl maps on ladder instead of these blizzard maps? I love Daybreak/Terminus and the new bel shir winter is awesome as well, anyone prefer those maps to these?
On December 15 2011 11:48 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: I can see Zergs really hating Arid Plateau. But really loving Entombed Valley. I am looking forward to the maps was hoping for more to be honest like 4-5 new maps.
I feel like zerg wouldn't be too good on that map as sure it is open in the middle and easy to grap a quick natural there seem to be a lot of really good defendable chokes around the bases. It looks like terran could take an easy 4 bases and defend them pretty well.
But otherwise I like the look of the second map but the 2 player one looks really bad I will probably just end of vitoing it or I will just vito both again because the two maps they took out I already vito'ed.
Well, guess I'll have to transfer over one of my vetos from Nezarim to Arid, because it looks pretty bad for us zergs. As for entombed, we'll probably have to see how that one plays out. Looks balanced with the third setup, but i dunno.
On December 15 2011 11:55 Conquerer67 wrote: Well, guess I'll have to transfer over one of my vetos from Nezarim to Arid, because it looks pretty bad for us zergs. As for entombed, we'll probably have to see how that one plays out. Looks balanced with the third setup, but i dunno.
oops wrong map was looking at i think i'll veto valley
I like entombed valley, and I'm happy they are considering some of the maps from the TL map tourney.
But arid plateau ....... did they test PvZ on that map?? Cause within 5 seconds of looking at it I realized there is no way to forge expand, and therefore no way protoss will be able to deal with muta ling on that map (how will you ever defend a 3rd against muta ling when your natural is so much later than the zergs) Because protoss will need quit a bit of units just to defend that natural. I can see zergs taking a lot of bases on that map once mutas are out. Look how much ground toss would have to protect to defend his probes at main and natural + buildings from muta harass.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious here (just got off work am I'm tired) so someone help me out here.
OP should include the little blurbs they wrote about each map. The maps may or may not be better, but it sounds like Blizzard have really tried to listen to community responses and balance issues for these maps
Arid is getting a straight Veto. PvZ is going to be horrific on that map.
edit: arid was terrible Idea. It never should have been made. Forge FE is impossible. Wiiide wiide open natural. and that third... imagine mutalisks....
Backdoor of Arid Plateau could be a problem. Very favorable for runby lings or terran pushes. It's kind of reminiscent of xelnaga cavern's natural...slighlty worse
On December 15 2011 11:55 Conquerer67 wrote: Well, guess I'll have to transfer over one of my vetos from Nezarim to Arid, because it looks pretty bad for us zergs. As for entombed, we'll probably have to see how that one plays out. Looks balanced with the third setup, but i dunno.
I'm curious what there is about arid that Zergs actually don't like. I look at it for PvZ at least and see about the hardest FFE I've ever come across, plus a huge, flat plain perfect for surrounds and a tremendous, un-blink-able separation between main and nat.
I think the first map Arid will not be chosen by most of Protoss players because it looks so hard to defend 3rd base against drops/mutas/zerglings/... Even the 2nd base has 2 entrances. Zerg players won't like this map too because it not easy to have the 3rd base. So, I expect only TvT on this map then, lol.
The second map Entomed look pretty solid. I think that there is a chance this map can become a tournament map like Antiga.
Also on Entombed Valley, what is with all that dead space ground at the very top centre/bottom centre of the maps? Looks like there is land that can be walked upon but no entrances to it by ground. Could maybe be used by blink stalkers or something?
"We’re carefully reviewing the maps that were featured in the tournament, and those which meet our standards have a chance to be included in future ladder seasons."
On December 15 2011 12:00 Shiori wrote: I'm enjoying the ability to take a third on Entombed. On Arid, however....
On Arid? Getting the natural will be a little awkward, but not too bad because of the rush distances
The rush distance on this map is comparable to Shakuras Plateau or the longest distance on Metalopolis.
If the rush is about the same as Cross Metal, then it's not so bad. As Zerg, once you have that nat, you have a choice of two fairly easy thirds, the other one of which you can use as a fourth.
I really like the new maps they look pretty cool, The thing I really like though is the recognition blizzard gave to the tl map contest maps. <3 Blizzard always improving.
Beginning with Season 4, we experimented with prioritizing tournament-style maps on the StarCraft II ladder. This has been working out very well not only because it’s allowed pro players better opportunities to practice on the ladder, but also because players across all skill levels can now experience the tournament feel when playing on Battle.net. Given the success of these changes, we’re removing the last two maps in the current map pool that aren’t tournament-viable, and will be replacing them with new, tournament-ready maps.
I'm not sure if Arid is "tournament ready", and Entombed is probably going to need horizontal spawns disabled, but the fact that Blizz is now explicitly trying to get good maps in the pool instead of casual friendly rush maps is something to be celebrated. They're doing an okay job of it, as well. These maps aren't as good as GSL maps, but they're leaps and bounds ahead of Searing Crater or Blistering Sands. Once blizz's team has some practice...maybe they're be just flat-out great, especially if they let community maps in as well.
I feel like Blizzard is deciding that the e-sports community is a Big Deal(tm), and they're willing to cater to us now. I like that.
wow no rocks on the second one? Blizz is getting better, little by little lol. Anyways, they are taking out the maps I never really cared about anyways, so I am interested to see how those will play out.
On December 15 2011 12:15 susySquark wrote: 2 entrance natural = sad times. If they wanted a 2player map they should've gone for something tried and true like Daybreak.
FFE is impossible on Arid, airplay vs. a fast Zerg 3rd is not super viable because there doesn't seem to be a place to have void rays hover behind their main/nat that is out of range of queens (though needs testing ofc), but the relatively long distance by ground between nat and 3rd will make 4-7gate timings to punish fast 3rds pretty viable. I'm actually kinda happy that theres a decently large 2player map now that forces P to go a different route than FFE.
PvZ on Entombed valley, double Stargate seems pretty strong vs a fast 3rd. No way there is gonna be creep spread to the third before 3 void rays w/ phoenix hits, and zerg doesnt want to be making units to take those rocks down. If it's a gateway timing attack, the ramp to the 3rd makes it pretty easy to FF off units.
Love they are considering the TL maps. I also like that the rocks are used to block the fast path to the 3rd, rather than the 3rd itself. I also like the ramp on arid plateau.
On December 15 2011 12:19 Plansix wrote: Love they are considering the TL maps. I also like that the rocks are used to block the fast path to the 3rd, rather than the 3rd itself.
Yeah, better use of rocks generally....except the center expos in Entombed being rocked off. That just exacerbates the horizontal spawn problem.
On December 15 2011 11:59 Belisarius wrote: un-blink-able separation between main and nat.
Whoa. Did NOT see that. That's gonna be problematic. Only option is MOAR CANNONS. Or, maybe, I might have split may army ^^. Seriously though it's an interesting feature. I don't know of any map that has that, and I'm curious to see how it plays out.
I feel like Entombed Valley cross positions will have lots of split map situations, with lots of contesting for top middle and bottom middle expos. I'm glad that Abyssal and Nerazim are being removed, but atm it seems like there are so little maps (equal amount of maps next season too), and damn, I feel like we need more. I love that they're considering TL maps, though.
These look like some of the best maps Blizzard has put out yet.
Notice how they are actually addressing some of the big community complaints: they stress that the 2-player map has a long rush distance, and the 4-player map is actually symmetrical this time. I don't think people are giving Blizzard enough credit, each iteration of their maps is better than the last.
I wish they would just get rid of Xel'Naga in addition to the other two maps. With regards to the new maps, Arid Plateau looks a bit tough to judge; it's pretty different from every other map in the ladder/MLG/GSL pools. Entombed Valley looks very interesting, but close positions (players spawn horizontally) seem a little daunting. Those might have to get removed for tournament use in my opinion, but we'll have to see how it plays out first.
On December 15 2011 12:16 Arterial wrote: No daybreak ><
Although it's good they removed two maps that I have veto'd.
Shattered temple I still really don't like, even though they removed close-positions.
Daybreak has an expansion with a nonstandard amount of mineral patches! So you should stop hoping it will be selected
Blizzard is convinced the majority of the population will not understand that a base with less minerals will give them less minerals it is way to complicated.
I'm not convinced of this I don't think a base like that would bother people that much everyone will be playing people who have the same skill to handle the same situation and win half the time anyways. They get less minerals when they lose workers or forget to build them so I don't think the majority have carefully planed economies based only on the number of expansions they have that would get ruined.
Am I the only one that thinks the 4 player map will be INCREDIBLY easy for Terran or Protoss to get to 3 bases vs Zerg? This is a problem because most of Zerg strategy revolves around denying/delaying the enemy 3rd for as long as possible.
What the fuck? Do they not realize that FFE is becoming the new standard for PvZ? There's no way in HELL you're going to cover that vast distance between the natural and the ramp on Arid.
Also holy shit: Entombed Valley, it looks super easy to defend your third. Place some tanks where the rocks are and you cover both chokes, that's going to be super fun bwahahaha.
TL Open On the subject of new maps, TeamLiquid.net recently hosted a map contest to offer map makers a chance to show off their skills. This past weekend, the top contenders in the TL Open battled it out on the top maps that emerged from that contest. The TL Open tournament has now concluded, but you can still see these new maps in action by checking out the replays and VoDs. We’re carefully reviewing the maps that were featured in the tournament, and those which meet our standards have a chance to be included in future ladder seasons.
LOL!@!
so in other words if they are short rush maps, they will be included into the map pool.
Also thumbing down the 2 player map, does not look like fun to have a backdoor entrance in the nat for anyone.
Why is it so difficult for Blizzard to include tournament maps like terminus, testbug, and dual sight> or any of the other GSL maps i can't think of off of the top of my head? Makes 0 sense.
Nice. One map I can't stand and one that I feel so-so about are gone. These 2 new maps look passable if not an improvement on past designs. Blizzard seems to at least understand that many of us like being able to take a third.
On December 15 2011 12:34 ClysmiC wrote: Am I the only one that thinks the 4 player map will be INCREDIBLY easy for Terran or Protoss to get to 3 bases vs Zerg? This is a problem because most of Zerg strategy revolves around denying/delaying the enemy 3rd for as long as possible.
It's comparable to Tal'darim or Antiga, and zerg does just fine on those maps.
I'm not seeing huge issues with these maps, my only concern is that securing 4 bases as terran or toss might be a tad too easy. Besides that, seems like ffe works well, hellions aren't too hard to defend, a fast 3rd is possible because no rocks blocking it, no obviously bad cliffs or areas for bunkers. They looks pretty strong.
On December 15 2011 12:33 AnxAir wrote: I wish they would just get rid of Xel'Naga in addition to the other two maps. With regards to the new maps, Arid Plateau looks a bit tough to judge; it's pretty different from every other map in the ladder/MLG/GSL pools. Entombed Valley looks very interesting, but close positions (players spawn horizontally) seem a little daunting. Those might have to get removed for tournament use in my opinion, but we'll have to see how it plays out first.
Maybe it's just my eyes...but the adjacent spawns seem the same distance, regardless of where they are.
I know people didn't like the two maps that were removed, but at least you can forge FE on them. I like how big these are but arid looks near impossible to forge expand PvZ. I'd rather them remove Xel Naga but at least I have veto's.
At first glance, I'll be removing (2) Arid Plateau. The rocks at the nat look like they are completely abusive/stupid.
(4) Entombed Valley looks like it could be okay (nat can be still be abused, but at least there are rocks instead of some brush). Will need some testing.
On December 15 2011 12:46 Dhalphir wrote: upon closer inspection, these maps are still fucking rubbish.
Two vetoes out, two vetoes in. GG idiots.
I like how we have the same attack paths from Abyssal Caverns, which I fucking hated. The main route covered by the watch tower, the long winding hallway and the Gold path (now blocked 2 fold by DEM ROCCKSS).
entombed looks like a sick macro map! exciting, barring the close positions of course, but heres hoping they will not allow close position on any map, since its terrible.
This is how I imagine it went down at Blizzard office.
"Hm, we need a good 2 player map and a good 4 player map to replace Abyssal and Nerazim in our next ladder season. Hey! I know! Instead of using Daybreak and Calm Before the Storm, two well-tested and well-received maps from the GSL, lets make our own terrible maps and confirm how retarded we are!"
On December 15 2011 12:52 Dhalphir wrote: This is how I imagine it went down at Blizzard office.
"Hm, we need a good 2 player map and a good 4 player map to replace Abyssal and Nerazim in our next ladder season. Hey! I know! Instead of using Daybreak and Calm Before the Storm, two well-tested and well-received maps from the GSL, lets make our own terrible maps and confirm how retarded we are!"
fucking pathetic.
Did we expect any less? Blizzard believes the grand illusion that they are actually good mapmakers.
2 player map looks kinda silly, 4 player looks totally sweet. I really like Nerazim Crypt, disappointed by it's removal. I'd rather them get rid of antiga.
Overall, even though i barely played in s4, I think the map pool was very well done and I expect s5 to be no different. Good work blizz!
On December 15 2011 12:57 Hoodlum wrote: Would like to see XNC go away but thats just my opinion
and yes I'm Terran
yes I get the irony
yeah I think XNC has just run it's course. It was an OK map that wasn't horrible or fantastic, just lead to a lot of boring games. Either 10 minute quick ones or drawn out stalemates that don't have any sort of big epic center clashes like shakuras.
Not a fan of Arid Plateau at all. Not too sure what I think of the 4 player map. Will want to play that one a bit, but I don't see Arid being fun. Will give it the chance it deserves though. (till I lose on it probably and rage xD)
On December 15 2011 12:52 Dhalphir wrote: This is how I imagine it went down at Blizzard office.
"Hm, we need a good 2 player map and a good 4 player map to replace Abyssal and Nerazim in our next ladder season. Hey! I know! Instead of using Daybreak and Calm Before the Storm, two well-tested and well-received maps from the GSL, lets make our own terrible maps and confirm how retarded we are!"
fucking pathetic.
Stop expecting daybreak it has a nonstandard expansion they will never use it unless someone can convince Browder or david kim that they are wrong about the majority of players not being able to handle or plan for something like that.
They probably disqualify calm for the "games will be decided by hidden bases at most skill levels to much" that Browder gave so you need to convince them that people will learn to patrol a worker around the bases or something.
On December 15 2011 13:00 VirgilSC2 wrote: I don't think any of the TL Map Contest maps will make it into ladder, since they didn't have enough destructible rocks.
I think we should go with my idea for the Dustin Browder's Player's Improving Maps Program.
Through the Dustin Browder's P.I.M.P. we can teach our mapmakers how to create proper maps with rocks everywhere.
Despite all the shit I will give Blizzard for these maps, and all the complaining about them I'm going to share with my friends and ladder opponents, I'm glad they're seriously considering putting in community maps.
On December 15 2011 12:52 Dhalphir wrote: This is how I imagine it went down at Blizzard office.
"Hm, we need a good 2 player map and a good 4 player map to replace Abyssal and Nerazim in our next ladder season. Hey! I know! Instead of using Daybreak and Calm Before the Storm, two well-tested and well-received maps from the GSL, lets make our own terrible maps and confirm how retarded we are!"
fucking pathetic.
Stop expecting daybreak it has a nonstandard expansion they will never use it unless someone can convince Browder or david kim that they are wrong about the majority of players not being able to handle or plan for something like that.
They probably disqualify calm for the "games will be decided by hidden bases at most skill levels to much" that Browder gave so you need to convince them that people will learn to patrol a worker around the bases or something.
It's not that hard to turn Daybreak's non-standard expansion into a standard expansion.
Arid looks pretty terrible for terran. Third impossibly difficult to secure. Natural difficult to defend without tank play, and very tight corridors making it basically impossible to attack into a protoss. Would bet on alot of 2 base tank allins in all MUs.
Entombed Valley looks really good to me. Arid valley doesn't look great though. But now I can downvote that and also downvote Xelnaga Caverns. Great update. I'm so glad Bliz is looking at TL maps.
It's amazing how disappointed I am with every new season in terms of maps. There are literally dozens of high quality maps out there that should be used on ladder. Dozens. And we get shit on every time. Granted, I'll probably play Entombed but the design looks utterly mediocre.
It's sad that I'm more excited about what they took out than what they put in. -_-
Interesting maps. Next season hope to be more active enough to play these maps. last season way too on and off so played other maps and vetoed the 2 i hated. Hope these are nicer.
On December 15 2011 13:06 willyallthewei wrote: Would it really hurt them to add in universally loved maps like Belshir Beach and Daybreak? I mean who doesn't love Belshir beach?
Any non-zerg? Its one of the most imbalanced GSL maps ever.
On December 15 2011 13:06 willyallthewei wrote: Would it really hurt them to add in universally loved maps like Belshir Beach and Daybreak? I mean who doesn't love Belshir beach?
Any non-zerg? Its one of the most imbalanced GSL maps ever.
You must not watch a lot of GSL.
Bel'shir has been fixed since the days of it being OP for Zerg. It's pretty balanced these days.
hahaha people on the front saying the arid map is good. if you look closely, you can see how hellish it is going to be trying to keep hellions out of the nat.
On December 15 2011 12:52 Dhalphir wrote: This is how I imagine it went down at Blizzard office.
"Hm, we need a good 2 player map and a good 4 player map to replace Abyssal and Nerazim in our next ladder season. Hey! I know! Instead of using Daybreak and Calm Before the Storm, two well-tested and well-received maps from the GSL, lets make our own terrible maps and confirm how retarded we are!"
fucking pathetic.
Stop expecting daybreak it has a nonstandard expansion they will never use it unless someone can convince Browder or david kim that they are wrong about the majority of players not being able to handle or plan for something like that.
They probably disqualify calm for the "games will be decided by hidden bases at most skill levels to much" that Browder gave so you need to convince them that people will learn to patrol a worker around the bases or something.
It's not that hard to turn Daybreak's non-standard expansion into a standard expansion.
But then there are now multiple versions of daybreak, resulting in possible confusion if all tournaments don't standardize on one version. If all tournaments should adopt the ladder version hopefully a change designed at simplifying things for low level players doesn't upset the balance or the awesome games it has been giving at the highest level of play. There must be a reason they made it have less minerals in the first place right?
I also remember a video interview with david kim a while ago saying they won't be changing the tournament maps anymore after people complained about what they did with tal'darim but I'm not going bother finding it again.
On December 15 2011 12:52 Dhalphir wrote: This is how I imagine it went down at Blizzard office.
"Hm, we need a good 2 player map and a good 4 player map to replace Abyssal and Nerazim in our next ladder season. Hey! I know! Instead of using Daybreak and Calm Before the Storm, two well-tested and well-received maps from the GSL, lets make our own terrible maps and confirm how retarded we are!"
fucking pathetic.
Stop expecting daybreak it has a nonstandard expansion they will never use it unless someone can convince Browder or david kim that they are wrong about the majority of players not being able to handle or plan for something like that.
They probably disqualify calm for the "games will be decided by hidden bases at most skill levels to much" that Browder gave so you need to convince them that people will learn to patrol a worker around the bases or something.
It's not that hard to turn Daybreak's non-standard expansion into a standard expansion.
But then there are now multiple versions of daybreak, resulting in possible confusion if all tournaments don't standardize on one version. If all tournaments should adopt the ladder version hopefully a change designed at simplifying things for low level players doesn't upset the balance or the awesome games it has been giving at the highest level of play. There must be a reason they made it have less minerals in the first place right?
I also remember a video interview with david kim a while ago saying they won't be changing the tournament maps anymore after people complained about what they did with tal'darim but I'm not going bother finding it again.
There are already multiple versions of Daybreak, and most tournaments can take the extra two seconds to type GSL Daybreak instead of Daybreak LE.
On Ladder, people complained about the changes to Tal'Darim because rocks are terrible. If it's just making Daybreak's non-standard expansion into a standard expansion, I don't think there would be much outcry at all.
On December 15 2011 11:44 Frozenhelfire wrote: It looks like hellion builds will be really... interesting on arid plateau with those two entrances to the natural.
It still seems defendable with 2 Spine Crawlers and 2 Queens. Xel'Naga was much worse, and Hellions weren't auto-win there.
Hmm, maybe. I guess the back door is looking a little smaller than I originally thought because it kind of gets blocked by the resources, but that means hellions can easily shoot those patches. Xel'Naga Caverns may have been much worse, but I have had it vetoed for quite a while now. Xel'Naga kind of had an excuse being such an early map.
Both maps look terrible.... They just need to choose GSL and TL maps and I think mostof us would be content
But like seriously? What's with the ugly textures all the time? Why can't they take a note out of Bel'shir Beach. Despite its imbalances its got a beautiful tile set. Also the design on these maps is horrid. They are too obsessed with rocks and short games (herp derp 2 base all-in maps).
First map looks tough to hold off mutas, but with no easy third for zerg, I think it will be a good map.
The 4 player map looks awesome! Should allow for some maneuvering around terran siege lines making it easier for zerg. Turtle expanding terrans might be able to expand siege bunker push all the way across the map though.
I still remember that one interview with Kennigit (I believe it was) and Dusty, where he was asked about maps and why the fuck their mappool always is such a fucking joke and not related to anything remotely competitive. I wonder what Dusty did that day. Maybe he went home to his other multi-billion-dollar-company homies and told them, that he had the greatest idea ever and that is change the mappool to something useful.
Thank you Kennigit ... I am absolutely sure, that you deserve the credit for this change !
Now we can at least veto all the shit maps and be left with pretty good ones :-D
both maps are horrible...no defendable natural for protoss in ffe and arid is even horrible with 1gate expo in pvz...now Zerg is gonna dominate toss even more! Why didnt they remove XNC
I'm liking these new maps and how they are introducing some new 2 player maps instead of 4 player. Next Step for blizzard: To introduce some maps from the teamliquid map contest into the map pool.
Ho and I forgot in my previous post....adria has gold expos on a wide area...PF terran is gonna be impossible on this one too...poor toss no love in the map pool!
On December 15 2011 13:28 pure_protoss wrote: both maps are horrible...no defendable natural for protoss in ffe and arid is even horrible with 1gate expo in pvz...now Zerg is gonna dominate toss even more! Why didnt they remove XNC
Your a protoss and you want XNC removed? what? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. XNC is way more favoured for terran and protoss against zerg.
On December 15 2011 13:28 pure_protoss wrote: both maps are horrible...no defendable natural for protoss in ffe and arid is even horrible with 1gate expo in pvz...now Zerg is gonna dominate toss even more! Why didnt they remove XNC
Your a protoss and you want XNC removed? what? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. XNC is way more favoured for terran and protoss against zerg.
ZvP on XNC isnt that bad its TvZ on Xel'Naga that has become imbalanced.
Edit: TvP on Xel"naga also might have its issues with the 1/1/1 being harder to hold on that map in particular.
People shouldn't be so judgemental of these maps that have just been introduced. Please Give it some time to try it out and test what works and what doesn't. I feel people don't like change and that is all they are complaining about, bringing up balance arguments before having any proof.
On December 15 2011 13:28 pure_protoss wrote: both maps are horrible...no defendable natural for protoss in ffe and arid is even horrible with 1gate expo in pvz...now Zerg is gonna dominate toss even more! Why didnt they remove XNC
Your a protoss and you want XNC removed? what? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. XNC is way more favoured for terran and protoss against zerg.
ZvP on XNC isnt that bad its TvZ on Xel'Naga that has become imbalanced.
Edit: TvP on Xel"naga also might have its issues with the 1/1/1 being harder to hold on that map in particular.
protoss is uber weak in PvZ on XNC since you literally CANT take a third base...that combined with the fact that zerg can take the whole map with no danger at all since the map is so small...and finally combine this with the middle air where you can park BL'S and we literally invincible with little infestor micro (to counter voids)
and yes 1-1-1 is already very hard to counter on any maps and XNC is worst...everytime i play a terran on this one I lose cuz they all go for 1-1-1...so I vetoed it...
On December 15 2011 13:29 Zoler wrote: 1st map is soooo destination, how come no1 commented on this? o.O It's not the same but definitely some resemblance
Because destination was a great map, and this map looks like crap.
I think entombed would be decent if it was forced cross positions. On Arid it's pretty good other than the gold. I'm not sure about the weirdly restrictive nat, but I'm willing to see how it plays out. I hope that Arid is altered a bit and used in some tournaments.
Map Maker: "so Dustin what do you think of our new maps we are planning to launch?" Dustin: "Hmm there is something missing I cannot quite put my finger on it......." Map Maker: "Oh? I think Arid should stay as it is" Dustin: "Hmm yes but what can we do about that other map? Hmm..... ah hah! Widen the chokes to the bases in the middle and add more rocks! YES MOAR ROCKS! 4 sets of rocks 2 on each ramp from both sides MUHAHAHAHA YES MOARRRRRRR ROCKS!" Map Maker: "Umm I thought we didn't want to use more then 8 sets of rocks in a given map" Dustin: "Hmm you are right my boy that's why now we'll never make a map with more then 12 sets of rocks in them! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA"
But in all seriousness looks cool. Glad they really paying attention to the community shows that a lot of the communities hard work is starting to pay off and make a difference. :D
I think those maps are recycled. Arid Plateau looks to me like a mauled version of Bel'shir Beach, the one with the 2 paths into the natural, while Entombed Valley seems to be a Typhon Peaks/Searing Crater hybrid.
In my opinion Arid Plateau is horrible for PvZ because you can't forge expand. So you can't even open with a strong timing and take the game from there. I don't think shark mode works on here and I don't see Protoss armies coming back home against Zerg since there are no choke points beyond the natural. The only good option would be to take a fast 3rd but the 3 bases are so spread out that Zerg drop play and Mutas have it really easy to pick shit apart. I'm pretty sure I don't wanna play this map.
Entombed Valley invites for a giant turtle-fest with 5 easy to take bases. Also it seems almost impossible to do any drops here whatsoever. Terran might have a very hard time being aggressive. Mutas also don't look very good here.
On December 15 2011 13:30 pure_protoss wrote: Ho and I forgot in my previous post....adria has gold expos on a wide area...PF terran is gonna be impossible on this one too...poor toss no love in the map pool!
Seriously? We got a lot of love on the 4 player map imo
i like the new maps, but i really hate big 4 player maps where you have to scout all the other bases ( tal darim / antiga ) so much. so i hope this new 4 player map isn't too big or only has 1 or 2 possible spawn locations
On December 15 2011 13:50 coL.drewbie wrote: i really hate big 4 player maps where you have to scout all the other bases ( tal darim / antiga ) so much.
Looks like good changes for the Season 5 map pool, except I really wanted to see XNC go. I also really want a map with the island (Bel'shir Beach) tileset. Getting so tired of the same boring tilesets, at least the desert makes a return.
On December 15 2011 13:50 coL.drewbie wrote: i really hate big 4 player maps where you have to scout all the other bases ( tal darim / antiga ) so much.
are you being serious?
Of course he is, he has never been a fan of those.
First the 4-player map reminded me of Shattered Temple (easy to take 2nd, but hard to take 3rd), but then i saw that though the 3rd base has the rocks to break down, you have this ramp entrance which gioves you access to this bases. So its a n easier version of Shattered regarding taking bases
Well, we will see how this turns out in the end. At least one of my downvoted maps (Abyssal) will be taken out
As a protoss, I wouldn't FFE on Arid Plateau, but it's like that with many other ladder maps. I'll probably veto it.
Entombed Valley looks great. Still needs 3 building and a zealot to complete wall, but long rush distance makes it alright. Easy to take nat and 3rd. Love that they are both high ground!
I was planning on using my 4k post on something special, but at this rate I might as well save it for my 5k post.
Anyways, Arid Plateau looks a lot like one of the HotS maps that Blizzard previewed at Blizzcon.
The Blizzcon HotS map in question:
There are obviously some differences, but I guess the overall feel is quite similar.
If you just take the HotS map, add a natural expansion in the north and south where the lava is, rotate the middle high ground things, change the Xel Naga upper grounds to holes, move the golds out a bit farther, and tweak the ramps a bit, then you get Arid Plateau.
Both of 'em look interesting; feels like each of them is channeling different aspects of Shakuras...All the rocks on Entombed made my head hurt at first, but it could actually end up playing interestingly.
Nice! Personally I didn't mind Nerazim Crypt and was only ambivalent about the other one but it seems I'm in the minority in that regard.
The new maps look interesting. The natural on Arid Plateau is pretty open, but I like that instead of just being wide open like Metalopolis it's kinda broken into two fair-sized chokes that can each be walled off. Perhaps not ideal for FE, but unique. Also, I'm now noticing that if you wall off behind the geysers it gets in the way of expanding to the 1/7 o'clock expansions. Interesting. I'd have to see how exactly it works in game to really pass judgment on it.
Entombed Valley is interesting, how much I like it may depend on whether horizontal spawns are enabled. I'm guessing they will be because Blizzard seems to like having the game play out differently based on map spawns. On the other hand, they HAVE disabled close spawns because some spawn positions are too radically different. But yeah, I look forward to playing on these maps, even if it is just once or twice before vetoing them.
EDIT: Just realized Entombed Valley isn't rotationally symmetric, but symmetric about the Y and X axes. Much better.
Entombed Valley reseambles Searing Crater. Am I the only one seeing this? Also horizontal spawns looks pretty bad. Arid Pleateu looks maybe feasible. Blizzard would do better adding in tournament maps that are currently used. Still don't understand why they don't, unless they don't have rights to them or something.... Calm before the Storm would be amazing.
On December 15 2011 13:28 pure_protoss wrote: both maps are horrible...no defendable natural for protoss in ffe and arid is even horrible with 1gate expo in pvz...now Zerg is gonna dominate toss even more! Why didnt they remove XNC
Your a protoss and you want XNC removed? what? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. XNC is way more favoured for terran and protoss against zerg.
ZvP on XNC isnt that bad its TvZ on Xel'Naga that has become imbalanced.
Edit: TvP on Xel"naga also might have its issues with the 1/1/1 being harder to hold on that map in particular.
XNC has always been Protoss favored in TvP.
OT: I like the fact they removed Abyssal Caverns, that map was ridiculously Zerg favored and I vetoed it after the 2nd time I played TvZ on that map. Not sure about the new maps, guess will see how they play out.
Looks good. We will have to see how these play out, but I am certain they are better than the ones we currently have.
2 new maps a season still isn't good enough though. They need to have a map of the month or something like it. We have only scratched the surface in map possibilities and the rate blizz is going at isn't fast enough.
I don't know if it has been said, but on arid you can wall off one of your natural chokes with a pylon gate geyser, and the other can be walled with a pylon and two gateways. It is more difficult to FFE than several of the current maps, but it is easier than xel'naga or metal
First one is utter crap for toss and i decided to veto right when i saw where the nat is, i want to kill the re...person who made it. Second one is... meh, i like it but Calm b4 the storm or Day break would fit better. I have XNC ST and Meta vetoed atm purely since they are so vulnerable to early chees in both PvZ and PvT compared to even nerazim and abysal but guess ill have to remove the veto from ST in favoro that one. Also, blizzard still is not getting enough shit for using only 4 GSL maps -_-
Biggest news in that post was the willingness from blizzard to at least take a look at some of them to possibly include on the ladder. At the very least they should be able to steal some of the concepts and improve the quality of their in house maps
I'm actually looking forward to the 4 player map. The 2 player map however looks TERRIBLE for balance. Seriously terrible. The natural is far from the base ramp AND it has a huge opening at the side. How can blizzard mappers not see the implications of this? no FFE for toss, no rax FE for terran, zerg probably will have an extremely difficult time stopping cheese since you have to cover a lot of area with your spine crawlers. I honest don't understand why blizzard would make maps like that...
edit: on a closer look, I hope they get rid of horizontal position for the 4player map, that could be very problematic for zerg in ZvT imo..
I like the Arid Wastes, as it seems like a better remake of Xel'Naga Caverns. I think that PvZ will be a very difficult match-up due to the open natural, the hard to harass third and super open middle, as it seems to make all their common strategies much more difficult. Plus, the fact that the gold is easier to secure on this map then on Xel'Naga Caverns might mean that Zergs will actually be able to secure it (either as a fourth following a fast/safe third or as a somewhat delayed third after holding off two base play or doing 2 base play).
Basically, it looks like a really great new addition to the map pool as does the other map! Can't wait!
EDIT: Also THANK GOD THAT ABYSSAL CAVERNS IS GONE! Easily my least favorite map in the pool, that map was one that I tried to play for a while before using my vetoes. I was fairly indifferent about Nerazim Crypt, but I guess the new maps look better.
the two player map is bad because of the huge backdoor entrance to the natural. The reason it was ok in XNC was because the backdoor route was kind of roundabout and took some time. This is a huge direct path.
second map has the same problems that typhon peaks/abyssal caverns had, where if both players were to spawn at either top or bottom, it becomes really hard to take a third without over extending. plus it has the natural setup of that lava map no one played where you expand toward the center. it's like if they took the lava map and combined it with typhon peaks. if this map was forced cross positions it would be fine.
will sadly be downvoting both of these. the news about blizzard's interest in community maps is probably the best update about maps we've seen since release
but really, im not going to go out of my way and beg for any changes... the map pools these days are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than before.
I can't really asses the maps at a single glance, but I am just excited to play on new maps. I always enjoy playing on new maps and figuring out how the terrain will effect the game. They both look fairly Zerg friendly, but I worry about hidden cheeses on Entombed Valley, so I'll have to be diligent with my scouting on that map. Arid Plateau looks like a blast to play on though c:
Entombed Valley looks insanely good, can't wait to see some games on that! And as for the 2 player map, the funkiness with the natural will most likely make this a one-basing kinda map in its present form, or at least will require a shift in the usual thinking as far as expo-taking goes.
Well my vetos probably won't change, I'll just veto the two new maps instead. Though I will give them a try first. It looks like you could really easily do tank siege elevator into the opposing natural expansions really safely because of that narrow hallway but it's hard to tell exactly how wide the back path is without playing it. The 2-player map looks odd but I would test it before making any judgements.
Well the new maps look somewhat interesting. I wonder if a collosus can walk between the two closest spots of the third and main on entombed valley or if you can blink between those two points, they seem fairly close.
On December 15 2011 14:51 Scisyhp wrote: Any word on existence of close spawn on entombed valley?
Blizz's description of the map suggests that all spawns are possible, but I don't think it is a problem because the rush looks reasonably long regardless.
Arid Plateau looks like shit. Rocks into my main, really? Gonna veto that right away >>. It looks like a really strong map for counter attack and flanks for zerg too. The other one looks pretty neat for being a Blizzard map tho!
On December 15 2011 15:33 Termit wrote: Arid Plateau looks like shit. Rocks into my main, really? Gonna veto that right away >>. It looks like a really strong map for counter attack and flanks for zerg too. The other one looks pretty neat for being a Blizzard map tho!
Are you sure you are looking at the right bases? The top right and bottom left bases are expansions, not mains. I don't really see rocks into the main on that map.
We need to see the dimensions of these maps to fully judge various possible issues, but I think things like fast banshees might be hard to defend with spores and queens with such a long main and distance from natural to main. I like the aesthetics of both though. That little hole in the path on Entombed Valley could be a huge pain if the map isn't all that big (so it should be at least 140×140), partly because those split paths won't actually be very wide once split, but also because if you were trying to avoid fighting in that location as zerg, you'd like the base-base distances not to be short either so that you can fight a little closer to the middle of the map, so the very straight paths might result in relatively short rush distances, which could mean that trying to fight in the middle will mean you have to intercept the forces quite a bit sooner.
EDIT: Termit clearly hasn't read the rest of the relies and is making unrealistic assumptions about main base positions. Aside from the backdoor rocks at the third bases to indicate which base must be the main and which the third (potential third, not necessarily everyone's), there's also the base size. The real main is clearly a lot bigger, so it's pretty obvious that it IS the main.
Arid valley is going to be one of the most miserable looking ZvT maps when it comes to Hellion Harass. Actually, it looks like Hellions will be really strong early game for both maps.
Looks like I have two more maps to veto. Blizzard, for the most part, dismantles my confidence in their ability to get the job done right. I agree with Plexa, the (2) player map is completely ugly. I have no shame in calling them their design team, "horrible mapmakers".
I don't think the changes can be for the worse - at least removals were good. Maps look decent, they can't be worse than the two. I think acid plateau has a lot of xnc-likeliness to it, could've just replaced xnc imo. XNC gotta go pretty soon anyway, seeing it's not exactly well balanced for such actively played map.
On December 15 2011 16:02 gogatorsfoster wrote: Hopefully season 6 has community maps:D! It looks like that is what blizzard is leaning toward due to their final statement.
They'll just add a few destructable rocks and we're golden.
As for the new maps, they look pretty good. Look forward to try them out.
I can see Protoss doing 2 base Blink timings on Arid Plataeu. The expansion below the main seems like the place to Blink in from and abuse. It looks like there is such a long distance between defending the natural and main that it could make it interesting.
The more I look at Entombed Valley it feels like an adjustment to Searing Crater. You have the big ramp into the Natural and small ramp into the main and the 3rd off to the side of the natural. I certainly think it is an improvement but it will be interesting to see how it plays out once it hits ladder.
I almost like the changes. I hated Abyssal and Nerazim. New maps look good, but I am not a big fan of 2 players maps - too many rushes / allins on Ladder.
I think assume Entombed Valley is the size of Taldarim Altar or thereabouts. Look at the xel'naga tower in the center, imagine how much map that would reveal if you held it, and you can kind of gauge the scale of the picture.
We’ve seen that rotationally symmetric four-player tournament maps can provide an advantage depending on where you start compared to your opponent and which races are involved in the match-up. This is feedback that we received from the community as well.
Hm, on Entombed Valley if both players spawn top or both spawn bottom, I feel like taking a third, especially as zerg, is going to be really hard when playing vs a terran. Seems like they could just tank push for their own third, with double height differencial.
On December 15 2011 16:48 ReboundEU wrote: The coolest part i see is they are starting (slowly but steadily) to accept future maps from the community. Rest are details
I think it has a lot more to do with TL's (and with its community's help!) ability and feat in running a tournament with a decent prize pool, attracting many Code S koreans to play on the maps to see if there's any huge imbalances. Otherwise, according to what Dustin has said, they would not have considered community maps much at all since they would need to balance test them internally anyways (vs making their own).
Still, it seems like they like to use their own maps. Either there is something they're not telling us or something... it's probably just that they feel they want to create their own maps, perhaps they want to even become the "dominant" map makers themselves in the future, so that community maps won't have to compete against each other and instead there can be 1 centralized "power" to make maps (sort of like what GSL is doing now). That and they like maps revolving around the use of more rocks and golds and etc. instead of "plainer" maps like in BW or even GSL's
Anyways HUGE improvement, imo. They both look like great maps. Maybe they're not as good as the top community ones, who knows. But they're getting better and better. You can tell just by seeing that there are only like 10% hate posts in this thread (and on Battle.net forums) instead of like 80% hate, and 15% neutral xD
Horizontal spawns on Entombed looks like an interesting third base to take...
Also I'd have thought they'd have learnt from Shakuras that an expansion which has two ramps to it both blocked by destructible rocks is just a nothing feature, it never really becomes relevant except on stupidly long games or when one player is so far ahead...
Also I really don't like this double downward ramp in to expansion stuff especially where a 3rd / 4th location is ambiguous...
On December 15 2011 13:50 coL.drewbie wrote: i like the new maps, but i really hate big 4 player maps where you have to scout all the other bases ( tal darim / antiga ) so much. so i hope this new 4 player map isn't too big or only has 1 or 2 possible spawn locations
that 4-player map looks like it has a really long scout distance due to the main being way at the back of two ramps.
Arid Plateau is pretty much a Xel'Naga Caverns... I dont like it because you cant forge expand
Entombed Valley, 2nd ramp pretty big = very hard to forge fast expand
That means I'll probably "Thumbs down" new maps + Xel'naga... I dont get it how Blizzard is so stubborn and did not take any maps from GSL (CALM BEFORE THE STORM FFS), dont get me wrong I still see progress from steppes of war and other maps but its still not even for all races. A lot of Pro protoss players said that if P dont Forge fast expand in PvZ then its almost impossible to win (f.e Naniwa) I agree its not maybe auto lose but your very behind (and 1g + exp is bad)
those 2 blizzard maps actually look pretty fun and particularly balanced/interesting at least at a first glance compared to previous seasons.
Edit: Didnt think about FFE, zvp seems easier on these 2 maps, although the entombed one has plenty of chokes, probably a lot of 3gate and 6 gate timings.
Finally rid of Abyssal Caverns Nerazim was ok, but nothing special.
New maps look... interesting, only one way to find out if they're good or not I guess. Plateau looks cool, but I fear the gameplay on it won't be. Entombed Valley is looking sweet though
i really hope for entombed valley that it's up and down only or cross position because the 3rd seems really hard to get for zvt. but then i'd guess that we'd just kill the rocks on the closed off 3rd but terran would still do a strong push in the narrow area of the 12o'clock
I've got a question about the arid one: I suppose the spawn points will be upper left and bottom right, right? Because, if you spawn, say in the bottom left, the natural expansion (whatever it might be), will be pain in the ass to protect.
On December 15 2011 17:56 Bulkers wrote: Arid Plateau is pretty much a Xel'Naga Caverns... I dont like it because you cant forge expand
Entombed Valley, 2nd ramp pretty big = very hard to forge fast expand
That means I'll probably "Thumbs down" new maps + Xel'naga... I dont get it how Blizzard is so stubborn and did not take any maps from GSL (CALM BEFORE THE STORM FFS), dont get me wrong I still see progress from steppes of war and other maps but its still not even for all races. A lot of Pro protoss players said that if P dont Forge fast expand in PvZ then its almost impossible to win (f.e Naniwa) I agree its not maybe auto lose but your very behind (and 1g + exp is bad)
not a fan of these maps at all. ffe'ing looks painful on both of them, so they will most likely be vetoed. but then i'll have to unveto metal and have to play pvz on there t.t
I have a ton of respect for Blizzard, their keeping the maps that have a proven track record, and realized the last maps they released weren't so great. So awesome to see them acknowledge that they weren't good, and try to come up with something better!
For some people who are saying its difficult to FFe on Arid.. Please remember than you cannot generalize a build for all maps.. This is a good sign that you have to give respect to the map and terrain structure and I am not ranting because I am T or Z... I am protoss and I <3 FFE. but sometimes, you just need to 1gFE or 3gFE
FFE is an opening and not a build. 1 gate expo is not viable when zergs go 14gas 14pool. That leaves only 3gate expo or 1base tech unless you're comfortable building 6 or 7 cannons when roaches show up.
On December 15 2011 18:16 Gesh wrote: I've got a question about the arid one: I suppose the spawn points will be upper left and bottom right, right? Because, if you spawn, say in the bottom left, the natural expansion (whatever it might be), will be pain in the ass to protect.
It's a two player map, with spawns in upper left and lower right. You can tell by comparing the ramp sizes from those locations to the wider ramps of the other two. The others are wider.
On December 15 2011 18:16 Gesh wrote: I've got a question about the arid one: I suppose the spawn points will be upper left and bottom right, right? Because, if you spawn, say in the bottom left, the natural expansion (whatever it might be), will be pain in the ass to protect.
It's a two player map, with spawns in upper left and lower right. You can tell by comparing the ramp sizes from those locations to the wider ramps of the other two. The others are wider.
Oh, yes, you are right, I haven't paid attention to this detail. Thank you very much!
On December 15 2011 18:43 Ravomat wrote: FFE is an opening and not a build. 1 gate expo is not viable when zergs go 14gas 14pool. That leaves only 3gate expo or 1base tech unless you're comfortable building 6 or 7 cannons when roaches show up.
Dont get so technical on me yo! You know what I mean. You just cannot FFE every map.. We as tosses need to learn better openings/builds other than FFE..and thts how the game should work..Its really crappy sometimes to FFE and then see a zerg get on 3 base EZ PZ..3 base zerg with 6 gas is a nightmare to handle many times, unless you do a 2 base strong timing. Anyways.. I am looking fwd for Arid and how it plays out..Just need to smarten up and add finesse to your opening/BO
I have very mixed feeling of Arid plateu. As any protoss, I hate the natural layout (yes, there are screechots of wallings, but they are, to be honest, quite crappy and not safe at all), but the other bases are SO close to each other. I want to have six bases, all of the easy to cover with the main army! Who is gonna do anything about it?
Anyone thinks the 2 watchtowers on (2) Arid Plateau should get reduced to 1 ? They cover so much space if you have mapcontrol, that it will be almost impossible to drop ?
Lol. I liked Nerazim crypt because I found out that in certain spawning positions 1/1/1 was almost unbeatable. It was just so easy to destroy all protoss structures from the side of the base. :DDD
I am so pleased they got rid of those two maps. I'm glad they're are trying to rotate the maps until they find good maps to put in there instead, it is a pity that they wont go to the community for maps though :/ there are some really good ones out there!
well i can expand on both, and they got rid of two of my vetos so atleast this will make it a little more fresh, i'm fed up of playing on xelnaga, lost temple/shattered and metal.
My two least favorite maps removed However I think I'm going to dislike Entombed Valley, from the looks of it, it's a remake of Typhon Peaks, which wasn't all that bad, however I'd prefer Nerazim Crypt over it any day. Probably going to have to veto it. On the other hand, Arid Plateau looks very promising and I'm excited to be playing that.
Also, congratulations to TeamLiquid and all of the map makers for such an honor
mmh, i actually liked Abyssal Caverns & Nerazim Crypt, but let's see. the new 2player-map looks interesting, but Entombed Valley seems very hard for a zerg-fellow like me to take a 3rd (vP FE) with all those rocks...
On December 15 2011 11:13 Encrypto wrote: I like the removed maps, but wtf is that arid one? It looks bad as shit.
Why ? Its very technical map imo , many good spots to make trap , or surround. Its look's very nice to me
Hard to FFE, incredibly open natural, hard to take a 3rd as protoss(either incredibly open to the mid or incredibly far away from the main which spreads your units out)
I think zergs will absolutely love that map but I really can't see a sane toss that wants to play beyond 2base not veto'ing that.
edit: I also want to say that I definitely think Entombed is P favoured, just as much as I think Arid is Z favoured. Seems alright overall but I guess we could do with slightly more balanced maps as opposed to (imo) blatantly favouring one/two races.
On December 15 2011 22:09 ToguRo wrote: All I want for Christmas is Daybreak ..............
So true. I adore that map right now... 1v1 map, potential for cheese BUT huge rush distances.. great macro map as well as the potential for shorter games.
As for the maps at hand.. 4 player one looks fine.. Arid looks dire -_-
7 base protoss vs zerg on Entombed Valley... wow, that will be fun.
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.
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.
it's good to see that they acknowledge the efforts put forth by TL. Seems like they really care about the community's opinion. Want to see more work between bliz and community in the future to really push SC2. I really hope they do consider the maps. Happy to see they removed the two least popular maps.
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.
Really nice to see another 2 player map. Both of these maps look pretty damn good. I think Blizzard may have finally figured out how to make maps. Only took them 2 years.
And why is xel naga and shakuras still in the map pool when they are obviously terrible for zerg?
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!
TL Open On the subject of new maps, TeamLiquid.net recently hosted a map contest to offer map makers a chance to show off their skills. This past weekend, the top contenders in the TL Open battled it out on the top maps that emerged from that contest. The TL Open tournament has now concluded, but you can still see these new maps in action by checking out the replays and VoDs. We’re carefully reviewing the maps that were featured in the tournament, and those which meet our standards have a chance to be included in future ladder seasons.
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.
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.
Arid Wastes look terrible. Maybe it's to make TvP easier for T since that Protoss buff patch? It's also T favoured in TvZ and there's no explanation for that.
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.
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.
...never thought about that, good point. Actually now that you make me realise it, this map is even slightly less walled than shakuras.
I am worried about the big map: toss can get 3 bases and there is NO WAY that you can attack him. His can forcefield the 2 ramps leading to his nat / main and everything will clump there, which is perfect for storms and collossus splash damage.
On December 15 2011 23:03 Snowbear wrote: I am worried about the big map: toss can get 3 bases and there is NO WAY that you can attack him. His can forcefield the 2 ramps leading to his nat / main and everything will clump there, which is perfect for storms and collossus splash damage.
I agree, that's pretty much what it is. Unless you went mech terran (which is already close to impossible to pull off against an equal-levelled or high level toss) and contain them in 3 bases, or if Zerg, get 4 base before 10:00. Like double expand after saturating main+nat with lair tech. Zerg does have a nice North/South arc of 7 resource nodes reached by 2 paths closer than Metalopolis and equivalent to Shakuras Plateau. But that's really late game oriented and doesn't justify how weak Zerg will be in the offensive at early game.
On December 15 2011 23:24 BraneSC2 wrote: Entombed looks nice, but arid... Looks just like a bunch of scattered grass and hills..
Arid
adjective 1. being without moisture; extremely dry; parched: arid land; an arid climate. 2. barren or unproductive because of lack of moisture: arid farmland.
Ummm, is it just me or the 4-player map not even symmetrical!?
Look above bottom left natural and the middle-left path. The ground goes around and lets you put tanks and siege the natural's mineral line. now look at the right side? There's a huge chasm and there's no way to siege the natural (only 1 gas). I hope it's a big screenshot screw-up. or somehow the cliffs on the left side are invisible. If it actually not symmetrical, then the map is worse than Blistering Sands.
Yay, after that MLG where Browder was interviewed and talked about the ladder map pool, Blizzard has been incredibly progressive regarding map pool and ladder changes. Thanks so much
On December 15 2011 12:35 Gamegene wrote: What the fuck? Do they not realize that FFE is becoming the new standard for PvZ? There's no way in HELL you're going to cover that vast distance between the natural and the ramp on Arid.
Also holy shit: Entombed Valley, it looks super easy to defend your third. Place some tanks where the rocks are and you cover both chokes, that's going to be super fun bwahahaha.
It's not a god given right to FFE and you can do other openings Watch some of SaSe's games, he never does it
On December 15 2011 12:35 Gamegene wrote: What the fuck? Do they not realize that FFE is becoming the new standard for PvZ? There's no way in HELL you're going to cover that vast distance between the natural and the ramp on Arid.
Also holy shit: Entombed Valley, it looks super easy to defend your third. Place some tanks where the rocks are and you cover both chokes, that's going to be super fun bwahahaha.
It's not a god given right to FFE and you can do other openings Watch some of SaSe's games, he never does it
He has also stated several times that PvZ is his worst matchup.
On December 15 2011 23:41 Louis8k8 wrote: Ummm, is it just me or the 4-player map not even symmetrical!?
Look above bottom left natural and the middle-left path. The ground goes around and lets you put tanks and siege the natural's mineral line. now look at the right side? There's a huge chasm and there's no way to siege the natural (only 1 gas). I hope it's a big screenshot screw-up. or somehow the cliffs on the left side are invisible. If it actually not symmetrical, then the map is worse than Blistering Sands.
I'm pretty sure the greyish land area after the trees are unpathable by land.
why am I not feeling both of these maps...even more so, why does it look like zerg is going to have a field day with the first one, meh anything is better than first two they removed, blizzard you never cease to amaze me <3
It took me a while to see this, so il upload a picture showing it for anyone wondering.
Map is not symmetrical due to weird ground near the naturals on some positions, but not others. I made boxes around all 4 of the areas, and dotted the ones where it happens (sorry for my shit art skills, wasnt sure how else to show it)
On December 15 2011 23:41 Louis8k8 wrote: Ummm, is it just me or the 4-player map not even symmetrical!?
Look above bottom left natural and the middle-left path. The ground goes around and lets you put tanks and siege the natural's mineral line. now look at the right side? There's a huge chasm and there's no way to siege the natural (only 1 gas). I hope it's a big screenshot screw-up. or somehow the cliffs on the left side are invisible. If it actually not symmetrical, then the map is worse than Blistering Sands.
I'm not sure about whether they made a mix up with the screenshot, but i opened the map in the editor and both sides are exactly the same and they part on the left side isn't there.
Well yeah, people hate cheese and want long macro games, and want maps that are macro oriented. Toss is terrible at expanding. FFE is the best way to catch up to T (mules, hiding in-base, PF), Z (faster build time, cheaper cost). Toss saved a probe for warping it in, but it's not that much help. Cannon is more reliable.
1 rax expand can't defend against any big 1-base aggression unless you build bunkers. Gasless pool expand can't defend any big 1-base aggression anything unless you build crawlers. 1 gate expand is the same. Except you can't build cannons at all for having 1 gateway. You need an extra forge. And when you get that forge, you're behind. So people have to skip gateway tech and go completely cannons. I'm not saying gateway opening is obsolete against FE Terran or Zerg, it's just not even close to the reliability of FFE.
On December 15 2011 23:57 Exstasy wrote: I'm not sure about whether they made a mix up with the screenshot, but i opened the map in the editor and both sides are exactly the same and they part on the left side isn't there.
Okay, then it's just something wrong with the screenshot. It would be nice if OP could re-post that 4-player map screenshot.
So cool that they might include player made maps. I'm also glad abyssal and nerazim are gone. No idea whether these new maps are good or not, but blizzard has definitely made huge improvements from previous seasons.
Are these maps cross spawn? Where are they? Arid Plateau looks like a Protoss early aggression map...otherwise a zerg map. And Entombed valley!!!!!!! 4 EASY BASES!?!?!? NERDGASM!!!!!!! Thankyou for the new zerg maps!!!!
On December 16 2011 00:10 CageMonkey wrote: Are these maps cross spawn? Where are they? Arid Plateau looks like a Protoss early aggression map...otherwise a zerg map. And Entombed valley!!!!!!! 4 EASY BASES!?!?!? NERDGASM!!!!!!! Thankyou for the new zerg maps!!!!
-Tommy-
REFLEX.500
Im glad someone thinks its a zerg map with protoss being able to take 7 untouchable bases
Right off the bat i don't like Arid Plateau, something feels off there. Really open bases too. The other map looks alright though. Not gonna complain because i hated those maps they took out.
On December 16 2011 00:07 hitpoint wrote: So cool that they might include player made maps. I'm also glad abyssal and nerazim are gone. No idea whether these new maps are good or not, but blizzard has definitely made huge improvements from previous seasons.
Season 6 Map Change: All ladder maps are replaced with Jungle Basin.
I will veto them both. I don't understand why Blizzard doesn't realize that simple macro maps are a lot easier and convenient to play on for every skill level. There should never be 2 entrances to your natural and you should never have to defend as much cliff space as on Entombed Valley because it makes Stargate and Blink plays way to effective while it will be very hard to scout the main with reapers without an entrance on the back. I don't understand what their standards for maps exactly are. They seem to be utterly retarded because every map that meets them has basically the same problems.
Z can try their optimal econ build--15 hatch--on you, but it's pretty risky due to the possibility of a cannon rush. So they can take that risk or they can go pool first and be safer.
There's nothing written in stone that says you are entitled to a 100% safe FFE on every map. The game should have risks. That's what makes it a game.
On December 16 2011 00:27 jdsowa wrote: Hey, Protoss. Here's a little food for thought.
Z can try their optimal econ build--15 hatch--on you, but it's pretty risky due to the possibility of a cannon rush. So they can take that risk or they can go pool first and be safer.
There's nothing written in stone that says you are entitled to a 100% safe FFE on every map. The game should have risks. That's what makes it a game.
I'm not too sure about arid plateau, it looks really strange so can't judge about it.
Entombed vally looks very Protoss favored, FFE the first ramp, gateway wall at the second ramp. Free 3 bases and a relatively easy 4th and 5th, we are probably gonna see some great macro games from all races on it
The first map looks very small..dunno how that would look ingame. At first look I dont like it that much. The second map looks cool but close spawns are unaccaptable. Definetly better map then abysal/nerazim looking forward to see this one ingame.
On December 16 2011 00:49 Jakkerr wrote: I'm not too sure about arid plateau, it looks really strange so can't judge about it.
Entombed vally looks very Protoss favored, FFE the first ramp, gateway wall at the second ramp. Free 3 bases and a relatively easy 4th and 5th, we are probably gonna see some great macro games from all races on it
When it comes to that kind of turtling, T and P is not much different. So I'd say 'disadvantageous for zerg'. Both T and P use walling (buildings/ff) and benefit most from close bases with chokes.
Don't take '4~7th' bases too lightly. Anything close to double expanding can easily make Terran or Protoss kill themselves. Especially a Protoss since their expansions are in the open. Zergs have high burst production so they can cancel both hatches and queue an immediate army in response to any incoming threats.
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.
Natural ramp is really wide and FFE will be as stupid as FFEing on antiga right now. Wall requires 3 gateway sized buildings + pylon. It will be extremely vurnable to runbys and baneling bust so i doubt we will see high level players FFE on it, just like almost no pro does on antiga other than that it looks really sweet for protoss.
Map pool just gets better and better each season. Map pool now is pretty sick, and the new maps look good, too. One even lacks a gold and no destructible rocks, as far as I can see.
On December 16 2011 01:08 Cronusd wrote: Natural ramp is really wide and FFE will be as stupid as FFEing on antiga right now. Wall requires 3 gateway sized buildings + pylon. It will be extremely vurnable to runbys and baneling bust so i doubt we will see high level players FFE on it, just like almost no pro does on antiga other than that it looks really sweet for protoss.
You don't need a solid wall for FFE. You just need a funnel and probes. A devoted baneling bust/roach rushes kills FFE'ers but people (and pros) still do it anyways. This map is much easier than Antiga. It's easier than Tal'darim.
For top-left expo, pylon at the lower left corner of the ramp. Forge on the right side of ramp's bottom with a passage between pylon and forge.
Cannon much lower. Then gateway in front of cannon towards the natural's ramp. You'll have a stalker-sized opening between Forge and Gateway.
On December 16 2011 01:16 Jedclark wrote: I'd really like to see Terminus, it's great for macro games due to an easy third.
On December 16 2011 01:15 price wrote: daybreak please!
I'd really like to see Terminus, it's great for macro games due to an easy third.
ya that too. there seems to be a trend to having bigger maps. i think the downside is that bigger maps are much harder for beginning players ... more area to scout ... but then again i'm no GM
Winrate stats look horrible for terminus, whereas daybreak is relatively balanced (44/56 worst matchup)
the balance may be completely different for ladder too. if i remember, the recent matchup breakdown showed balance on the servers but in korea, TvZ was still 10-20% T favored
I like the new maps. But I still think that Metalopolis and Xel'Naga are outdated. Shattered should be replaced in the next few patches too. Just that ladder map should be constantly replaced. We still have those maps for practice. Blizzard can replace Tal'Darim with some other GSL map too, there are alot of great maps on GSL map pool.
Glad they removed the maps they removed, 2 player map looks shitty, 4 player map might be decent. Still wish they'd just stop making maps and leave it to the people who know what they are doing (aka koreans). Sucks they didn't add daybreak and some other tournament maps, good to hear that they are looking into maps from the tl map contest though. BUT why the fuck is xel naga caverns still in the pool? The map just sucks for almost all the matchups. Meta and Shattered should go soon as well.
Oh yeah and lol at them talking about 4 player maps having spawn positions that might favor one player over another and not having antiga be cross only...
entombed is going to be too easy to take a quick 3rd for toss and terran and turtle. there isn't really an easy way to muta harass and the only ways into any of the bases are two ramps that are basically right next to each other.
Can't believe they still haven't removed Xel'Naga. Arid Wastes looks heavily Toss/Terran favored, and I say this speaking as a toss player. The second map looks good though, looks fairly balances for good macro games.
On Aria I'm not sure on the push distance from a P/T to the zergs most likely 3rd base, if the P/T takes the more open 3rd as if it gets up the 4th pretty much comes with it for free, I'm not a pro though so we'll see, I think it's like having no rocks on the side expansions on shaq and the base being closer and more easily defended.
On December 16 2011 01:30 Ma7ix wrote: I like the new maps. But I still think that Metalopolis and Xel'Naga are outdated. Shattered should be replaced in the next few patches too. Just that ladder map should be constantly replaced. We still have those maps for practice. Blizzard can replace Tal'Darim with some other GSL map too, there are alot of great maps on GSL map pool.
Yeah, I don't like Shattered much, and Tal'Darim is okay.
On December 15 2011 23:57 Exstasy wrote: I'm not sure about whether they made a mix up with the screenshot, but i opened the map in the editor and both sides are exactly the same and they part on the left side isn't there.
Okay, then it's just something wrong with the screenshot. It would be nice if OP could re-post that 4-player map screenshot.
I didn't take the screenshots myself -- they're straight from the Blizzard post. I'll double-check with the editor when I get home and update the OP if necessary.
The 4 player looks interesting. Very much like Antiga but with an easier to take 4th
It's good that Blizzard have realised that spawn positions on 4 player maps can provide 1 player with an unfair advantage. PvP on Antiga is pretty bad for that. But then again Blizzard should just follow the tournaments lead and force cross positions on that map anyway
I guess they haven't caught on to the GSL trend of removing golds but to be fair that base is far away, very wide open and requires you to break down rocks just to get at it. It's not like metalopolis where you can just float a CC there, drop down 10 mules and strip mine it dry in 2 mins
On December 16 2011 00:27 jdsowa wrote: Hey, Protoss. Here's a little food for thought.
Z can try their optimal econ build--15 hatch--on you, but it's pretty risky due to the possibility of a cannon rush. So they can take that risk or they can go pool first and be safer.
There's nothing written in stone that says you are entitled to a 100% safe FFE on every map. The game should have risks. That's what makes it a game.
So I assume we can double FFE safely when you 15 hatch right? No, because as a Protoss you can't defend it without cannons and as a zerg a 15hatch is perfectly defendable.
On December 15 2011 13:29 Zoler wrote: 1st map is soooo destination, how come no1 commented on this? o.O It's not the same but definitely some resemblance
Because destination was a great map, and this map looks like crap.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I miss Destination , back in the day when only exceptional maps were played for over half a year instead of most maps.
that 3rd on Entombed Valley looks nearly impossible to attack. place entire army at the location of the rocks and easily defend natural/3rd's ramps
in fact i can already picture tvz on horizontal positions on that map. terran takes 3rd quickly and easily, then later moves down from the 3rd's ramp to almost immediately arrive to zerg's equivalent "3rd ramp" (which most zergs would not take as a 3rd in this situation). terran siege pushes up this 3rd ramp, toward the location of zerg's rocks, sieges the zerg's main ramp + natural choke from a protected narrow choke position (both behind and in front)...all very quickly due to the short distance. Scary..
On December 16 2011 01:38 ishboh wrote: my only complaints:
entombed is going to be too easy to take a quick 3rd for toss and terran and turtle. there isn't really an easy way to muta harass and the only ways into any of the bases are two ramps that are basically right next to each other.
arid plateau has a gold expansion ><
that encourages a macro game and fast 3rd, right? you can't expect to be able to roach ling into contain every game...now protoss can have the same income as the zerg.
On December 16 2011 02:02 neek wrote: first map is awful. way too small and way too hard to defend natural
I'm beginning to wonder myself if a FFE will be viable on that map. Perhaps at the forward choke where the two trees are. A Metalopolis style FFE doesn't seem possible judging by the distance from the ramp to the nexus but that could always be avoided by the 2nd path. Hmmm
yeah ffe works on every map with something you can consider a natural expansion. Baneling busts don't really work againt an ffe in any way, simply because targetfire by canons ;o.
I would say arid plattoo needs an additional pylon to be save but thats it. But a zerg will have tons of problems against early aggression, means its better to apply aggression while getting your expansion down.
On December 16 2011 02:09 FeyFey wrote: yeah ffe works on every map with something you can consider a natural expansion. Baneling busts don't really work againt an ffe in any way, simply because targetfire by canons ;o.
I would say arid plattoo needs an additional pylon to be save but thats it. But a zerg will have tons of problems against early aggression, means its better to apply aggression while getting your expansion down.
It's hard to tell until we can actually play the map. The distancing just makes it look too vunerable.I think zerg will be able to easily take 3 bases on this
I could see a 2 gate/Stargate opening working on the 2 player map. Use pressure on the Zerg expansion since taking a third will be very difficult to defend and use that pressure to take your natural. Transition to drop play and the Zerg will be playing defense all game. I do think that a FFE isn't wise on the map though.
New maps look ok, but I have to agree with pretty much everyone else in that I don't think that first one will be around for very long, haha. I think the big deal here is the TL Open comment. People should definitely take the time to let Blizzard know we would really love to have some community maps in the map pool.
Arid plateau's natural is really far away so i think a fast expansion is out of the question for Z in any matchup the second map has a really hard to defend 3rd so im not really sure but lets find out!
Hey, Blizz? If you're talking about "tournament ready" maps, why don't you put maps that actually are used in tournaments, aka. the maps created by the professionals at GomTV and the GSL? Give me Calm Before the Storm and Winter Bel'Shir Beach!
On December 16 2011 01:38 ishboh wrote: my only complaints:
entombed is going to be too easy to take a quick 3rd for toss and terran and turtle. there isn't really an easy way to muta harass and the only ways into any of the bases are two ramps that are basically right next to each other.
arid plateau has a gold expansion ><
that encourages a macro game and fast 3rd, right? you can't expect to be able to roach ling into contain every game...now protoss can have the same income as the zerg.
there's a difference between a takeable 3rd and an easy 3rd. i just think its way too easy, maybe if the ramp up to the third were farther from the ramp into the natural, or if there were more airspace behind the mineral lines to sneak mutas in, then it would be ok, but as it is, its just too easy.
On December 16 2011 00:27 jdsowa wrote: Hey, Protoss. Here's a little food for thought.
Z can try their optimal econ build--15 hatch--on you, but it's pretty risky due to the possibility of a cannon rush. So they can take that risk or they can go pool first and be safer.
There's nothing written in stone that says you are entitled to a 100% safe FFE on every map. The game should have risks. That's what makes it a game.
So I assume we can double FFE safely when you 15 hatch right? No, because as a Protoss you can't defend it without cannons and as a zerg a 15hatch is perfectly defendable.
So what? The way the game is built is that Zerg is meant to be up in expansions, it should be easier to take. What he said was right, we dont deserve to be able to FFE every single map. Wider natural produces different things for every races, in our case it might mean were forced to- omg do the standard of two months ago- and 1 gate fe!
I really don't like either. Not a big fan of the destructable rocks into the natural on Entombed Vally, seems completely unneeded. And Arid, well, if you ever wanted to make an anti-toss map, it fits the mold you'd use, can't ffe, 2 player, yuck.
arid plateu is the worst map i've ever seen wth blizzard? rofl
the maps they took out are actually decent, though very plain and kinda random. this is even worse. doesn't matter though, just veto and move on, the old maps are still good enough.
I don't know what everyone's complaining about. Arid Plateau seems like a pretty good map. The only thing questionable is that it has a gold base, so mules are a bit OP, but otherwise it is quite good. It might be the best Blizzard map of all time. I love how it has some really tight chokes and some really open areas, like a BW map.
lol they are saying they are looking into the maps from the map making community to see if it meets their standards......
If any of you get approached by blizz to use your map make sure they dont change it from your original design! IE put rocks at every expo.. we all know that is the standards they are looking for. Happy to see these changes for season 5 tho
And i love how ppl are still saying back rocks in base??? its pretty obv you will never spawn there because the 2 obvious spawn points dont have the back door... lol
On December 16 2011 03:58 K3Nyy wrote: I don't understand why they would look at TL's contest for maps instead of GSL's maps. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
Because TL is more american than GSL and they have pride issues.
Isn't Tal'Darim Altar from GSL or something? I forget. -------------
Blizzard and their love for gold expansions make Terran appear imba when it's the map and not the race. Then they over-nerf Terran and everything just seems wrong. The should have high yield gas instead, or make mules not benefit from gold.
Anyone else feel like Arid is going to obnoxious to fight zerg on since its so open? I guess I don't totally mind since I like zealo/archon/whatever most of the time. The other one looks like 3 hatch 1 gas time all day. Big ramp looks annoying :/ some terran is going to float to the middle and play king of the hill as a ninja expo on me i know it lol
Btw guys, I dunno if anybody has said this already but I just searched for these maps in custom games and they're actually up already to download. So if you wanna give them a go you can do
they really should put daybreak into the mappool instead of this arid map.. i played it some rounds against a friend and we both said, this map sucks^^ as toss you simply cannot defend drops if you have 3 or 4 bases, and the xel naga positions are really strange they just make no sense... its not like there is a tower for the one and a tower for the other player.. it is both towers for one player.
and pvz it sucks, cause you simply cannot attack in the early stages of the game cause youll get surroundet so easily.. also this sideway at the natural sucks in many ways.. its hard to defend against 111 builds...
i think i will veto this map... the other map i just played once and it wasnt bad but i have to figure some situations with the different spawn locations.. its a complex map.
but blizzard should really accept, that there are some great community maps so as daybreak, dual sight and so on.. they really should try to add those!
You don't need a solid wall for FFE. You just need a funnel and probes. A devoted baneling bust/roach rushes kills FFE'ers but people (and pros) still do it anyways. This map is much easier than Antiga. It's easier than Tal'darim.
No pro FFEs at ramp on antiga these days, wall at nexus is simply safer. This map is not easier than antiga in any way. Same ramp, but you cant build a wall that makes sense at the nexus so it's even worse than antiga. This map is not safer than Tal'darim against bane bust for sure. On taldarim, when you see zerg roach/bane bust you you can put down an extra gateway behind the pylon that finishes the wall (or at the empty spot for zealot) to create a solid wall of buildings with same health as gateway or forge and defend the baneling bust with ez. On maps like Antiga and this new one, its near impossible to defend well done baneling bust when FFEing at ramp without letting the swarm in since u would need atleast 2 gateways to make a solid wall of buildings with same health as gateway or forge.
On December 16 2011 02:02 neek wrote: first map is awful. way too small and way too hard to defend natural
Hmm...small? I opened up it up to mess around in a custom game and I would not call it small. The rush distance seems decent and there are a lot of expansions that, while spread out, are attainable. I'm not saying it will be a great map and I worry about playing as Toss vs Zerg on this map. But I wouldn't call it small (small, to mean, suggests Steppes of War or Slag Pits).
You don't need a solid wall for FFE. You just need a funnel and probes. A devoted baneling bust/roach rushes kills FFE'ers but people (and pros) still do it anyways. This map is much easier than Antiga. It's easier than Tal'darim.
No pro FFEs at ramp on antiga these days, wall at nexus is simply safer. This map is not easier than antiga in any way. Same ramp, but you cant build a wall that makes sense at the nexus so it's even worse than antiga. This map is not safer than Tal'darim against bane bust for sure. On taldarim, when you see zerg roach/bane bust you you can put down an extra gateway behind the pylon that finishes the wall (or at the empty spot for zealot) to create a solid wall of buildings with same health as gateway or forge and defend the baneling bust with ez. On maps like Antiga and this new one, its near impossible to defend well done baneling bust when FFEing at ramp without letting the swarm in since u would need atleast 2 gateways to make a solid wall of buildings with same health as gateway or forge.
A number of pros do. VileYong is the first that comes to mind. Axslav does it as well.
On December 16 2011 03:58 K3Nyy wrote: I don't understand why they would look at TL's contest for maps instead of GSL's maps. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
Well, the ESV has been in touch with Blizz for months now about incorporating user maps on the ladder. One of the reasons they changed their name from ICCup TV to ESV was to try to move beyond some bad blood with Blizzard. Beyond that, I think the other mapmaking organizations that use TL as a homebase have also been lobbying Blizz to consider user maps. It's not like Blizzard just came out of nowhere and made this suggestion. This is the product of work on the part of these organizations. And Blizz has already looked at GSL maps--hence Tal'Darim is in the map pool.
-Nexus/CC to ramp wall-off takes 3 buildings -Back of mineral line can be walled off with 1 depot/pylon -Outward gyser has a small gap which can be walled off with a single pylon/depot -Second entrance can be tight walled with 2 buildings -Backdoor rocks to 3rd can be tightwalled with 3
On December 15 2011 11:12 phodacbiet wrote: Why is xel naga caverns and shattered temple still in the map pool?
I think they want more tournament style maps, Metalop/XNC/Shattered are all classics and work great in tournaments. Im a bit iffy with some of the thirds in the new maps, I wonder if siege tanks can hit them..
Awesome, they removed one of my vetoed maps! But I wish they took out Xel'naga over Nezarim Crypt... The new 4-player map looks awesome though with the easy third blocked only by rocks! Also glad they're introducing a new 2-player map, we don't see enough of those on ladder, that's for sure.
Looking at Arid Plateau more, it looks like a 1/1/1 through the side entrance of the natural would be insanely hard to stop. To get access to the area past the gas where the Terran would be pushing from you have to either go through the three really narrow chokes between the gas and minerals or all the way around the crevasse thingy into another narrow choke where a tanks could be placed on the high ground to guard. There's also a lot of little spots on the crevasses where a tank could be placed and only be accessible from one side, kinda like that one tank placement at the gold on Shattered Temple that can hit basically anything that leaves the natural. Anything other than 2/3gate expand against Zerg seems way too risky. If they 6pool they can just go around the side and avoid a wall-off at the natural altogether.
From a zerg perspective, hellion opening will be much trickier to guard against because of two openings to the natural, so you can't just throw down an evo chamber to narrow the choke along with a few spines to be safe, you would need to invest in at least one more spine around back or get roaches earlier to be totally safe. Again, tank pushes through the side entrance to the natural will be really strong, with the added bonus of the third being entirely cut off.
Tanks elevator pushes like you see on Bel'shire Beach will be really good into the main starting from that 3rd/4th as well in all matchups. Just put the tanks behind the mineral line of the expansion below the main.
It'll be interesting to see how people use this map. There has to be an easier way to wall off the natural for an FFE. Maybe at more of an angle to the cliff than lined up with the ramp?
On December 16 2011 05:06 Nymbul wrote: After a bit of playing around on Arid Plateau
-Nexus/CC to ramp wall-off takes 3 buildings -Back of mineral line can be walled off with 1 depot/pylon -Outward gyser has a small gap which can be walled off with a single pylon/depot -Second entrance can be tight walled with 2 buildings -Backdoor rocks to 3rd can be tightwalled with 3
The ridge that juts out looks closer to the nexus than the ramp. Would gateway+forge+pylon or cannon do the trick? 3 big buildings XNC-style = death to FFE.
well, good they removed nerazim and abyssal. arid looks pretty ugly; whats with all those lumps? entombed is just a 2-player version of the boneyard (blizz 2v2 map). hopefully there won't be close spawns.
On December 16 2011 05:06 Nymbul wrote: After a bit of playing around on Arid Plateau
-Nexus/CC to ramp wall-off takes 3 buildings -Back of mineral line can be walled off with 1 depot/pylon -Outward gyser has a small gap which can be walled off with a single pylon/depot -Second entrance can be tight walled with 2 buildings -Backdoor rocks to 3rd can be tightwalled with 3
The ridge that juts out looks closer to the nexus than the ramp. Would gateway+forge+pylon or cannon do the trick? 3 big buildings XNC-style = death to FFE.
I tried a few positionings but the best I could do is forge, gateway with 1 hex gap for a zealot or forge, gateway, cyber to tight wall off.
This wall is to that little cliff that sticks out and not the actual ramp. I just used that name so as to not get confused with a more forward wall-off in the little choke ahead of it.
You could get a tight wall-off with that set-up but the problem is the other entrance to your natural. In the early stages of the game if you don't wall off the back of your mineral line with a pylon and then another cannon in the mineral line then the zerg could mostly likely do a runby of your entire wall-off taking maybe 2 shots from the cannon before getting into the main.
The other map can't FFE. It just can't. The natural ramp is very large like Antiga except to do a nexus style FFE like you would on Antiga actually leaves your main completely undefended
I'm glad they removed Abyssal. I'm kinda sad to see Nerazim go, even though it was one of my worst maps. But I guess it was obvious choice without removing one of the tournament favorites.
But I'm sad the 2p map is hopelessly imbalanced. In TvZ reactor Hellion is practically autowin, I expect most Zergs to veto it. And in TvP with the way the natural is set up it strongly encourages the T to 1-1-1 instead of expo, so thats probably all I'm going to do there. The map looks good for mech TvT though, I suppose thats a slight saving grace.
I like the 4p map though. It kinda reminds me of Twilight Peaks but with a safer natural, which is cool because that was main problem with that map. I am a little concerned it will be too easy to secure 3 bases, but we'll see. I had the same fears about Antiga but it turned out alright.
Arid Plateu 9/10 - probably gonna like this map. The natural is is a dumb spot with the 2 entrances. I just dont like this at all. Other then that I look forward to trying this map.
Entombed Valley 9/10 - I don't see anything I dont like about this map without playing it. Close spawns could be a little OP for terran zvt maybe? No golds but the 2 bases in the middle look like they have extra mineral patches!
On December 16 2011 05:06 Nymbul wrote: After a bit of playing around on Arid Plateau
-Nexus/CC to ramp wall-off takes 3 buildings -Back of mineral line can be walled off with 1 depot/pylon -Outward gyser has a small gap which can be walled off with a single pylon/depot -Second entrance can be tight walled with 2 buildings -Backdoor rocks to 3rd can be tightwalled with 3
The ridge that juts out looks closer to the nexus than the ramp. Would gateway+forge+pylon or cannon do the trick? 3 big buildings XNC-style = death to FFE.
I tried a few positionings but the best I could do is forge, gateway with 1 hex gap for a zealot or forge, gateway, cyber to tight wall off.
This wall is to that little cliff that sticks out and not the actual ramp. I just used that name so as to not get confused with a more forward wall-off in the little choke ahead of it.
You could get a tight wall-off with that set-up but the problem is the other entrance to your natural. In the early stages of the game if you don't wall off the back of your mineral line with a pylon and then another cannon in the mineral line then the zerg could mostly likely do a runby of your entire wall-off taking maybe 2 shots from the cannon before getting into the main.
The other map can't FFE. It just can't. The natural ramp is very large like Antiga except to do a nexus style FFE like you would on Antiga actually leaves your main completely undefended
Note: The cannon behind the nexus is powered firstly by the cannon below, the second one is purely to wall-off the back of the mineral line
Pretty sure both maps will work for FFE. FFE on Arid will be like it is on cross-positions Metal--the nat is a little more open than you want, but the rush distance makes it okay. And on Antiga, you can totally wall off the ramp. Just don't let units past the wall.
I kind of like those 2 maps. Don't know... I'm usually pretty critical that blizzard nearly always makes their own maps instead of takes some of the tournament or community maps, but I think blizzard did a good job on those AND took out the right maps.
On December 16 2011 05:06 Nymbul wrote: After a bit of playing around on Arid Plateau
-Nexus/CC to ramp wall-off takes 3 buildings -Back of mineral line can be walled off with 1 depot/pylon -Outward gyser has a small gap which can be walled off with a single pylon/depot -Second entrance can be tight walled with 2 buildings -Backdoor rocks to 3rd can be tightwalled with 3
The ridge that juts out looks closer to the nexus than the ramp. Would gateway+forge+pylon or cannon do the trick? 3 big buildings XNC-style = death to FFE.
I tried a few positionings but the best I could do is forge, gateway with 1 hex gap for a zealot or forge, gateway, cyber to tight wall off.
This wall is to that little cliff that sticks out and not the actual ramp. I just used that name so as to not get confused with a more forward wall-off in the little choke ahead of it.
You could get a tight wall-off with that set-up but the problem is the other entrance to your natural. In the early stages of the game if you don't wall off the back of your mineral line with a pylon and then another cannon in the mineral line then the zerg could mostly likely do a runby of your entire wall-off taking maybe 2 shots from the cannon before getting into the main.
The other map can't FFE. It just can't. The natural ramp is very large like Antiga except to do a nexus style FFE like you would on Antiga actually leaves your main completely undefended
Note: The cannon behind the nexus is powered firstly by the cannon below, the second one is purely to wall-off the back of the mineral line
Pretty sure both maps will work for FFE. FFE on Arid will be like it is on cross-positions Metal--the nat is a little more open than you want, but the rush distance makes it okay. And on Antiga, you can totally wall off the ramp. Just don't let units past the wall.
I dunno about that. It takes 4 buildings to do a tight wall-off at that ramp. Any zerg could spot you trying to wall off there, flood lings and you're dead before you get the chance to finish it
arid plateau is a joke, the natural is undefendable for non-terran races. If they fix the natural, the map look squite promising though, this way, its a worse xel-naga.
Ah good, looks like I can take less risky fast third against FFE protoss on these maps, although it might be tricky with horizontal positions on entombed valley. I'm satisfied with these changes, might not be the best but its still ok.
Why does Blizzard NOT get 1 year into the game that we want all tournament maps on there? The lower league people don't even mind the map, they just care about cannon rushing and 6 pooling...
On December 16 2011 07:12 pm_squad wrote: Why does Blizzard NOT get 1 year into the game that we want all tournament maps on there? The lower league people don't even mind the map, they just care about cannon rushing and 6 pooling...
Let's see here...
1) Tournament maps aren't automatically more balanced (Bel'Shir and Dual Site anyone?) 2) People playing Tournament maps want new map pools. 3) Tournaments want new map pools. 4) Half of the current map pools are Blizzard maps. 5) "We all" don't want hand-me-down maps.
On December 16 2011 07:11 diLLa wrote: On the 4-player map you can cannon rush like this:
where a pylon is blue, cannon is red.
Broken map anyone?
If that is actually a feasible way to c-rush, then I would have to agree. Sending your probes to kill that initial cannon would take upwards of a minute >.<
On December 16 2011 07:11 diLLa wrote: On the 4-player map you can cannon rush like this:
where a pylon is blue, cannon is red.
Broken map anyone?
Although that does let you get cannons in their main base almost completely safely, they're quite a ways from the nexus. I just tested it, and I think you need another pylon and at at least 2 more cannons to even get in range of their probes without ever exposing a cannon to attack by probes (EDIT: I mean, you have to build another cannon, followed by a pylon when it's finished, followed by another cannon). As long as they spot reasonably early, they should have plenty of time to get a forge and cannons of their own. Just be sure to check the inside of your base on that map (I'd recommend checking that area with your scouting probe, as you send it out to scout).
That's assuming they're Protoss, that is. Terran will have marines that can easily stop your cannons from advancing, and Zerg has creep.
It's a good map for cannon-rushing against Protoss, but I wouldn't call it "broken."
Hmm, considering the maps they are removing for these new ones, I am happy with these changes. They look interesting...would be fun to play on them for a bit, at least. If they end up being horrible I have plenty of vetoes to spare!
i dislike the first map, it will be really difficult to hold the natural because zergs depend on the connection of the main ramp to the natural for hellions and other pushes so the defenses are in one area.
On December 15 2011 13:29 Zoler wrote: 1st map is soooo destination, how come no1 commented on this? o.O It's not the same but definitely some resemblance
[image blocked]
I don't see it... arid plateau looks awful and Desti is an amazing map
On December 15 2011 13:29 Zoler wrote: 1st map is soooo destination, how come no1 commented on this? o.O It's not the same but definitely some resemblance
[image blocked]
I don't see it... arid plateau looks awful and Desti is an amazing map
I know, pretty much every sc2 map is horrible though. =(
On December 15 2011 23:57 Exstasy wrote: I'm not sure about whether they made a mix up with the screenshot, but i opened the map in the editor and both sides are exactly the same and they part on the left side isn't there.
Okay, then it's just something wrong with the screenshot. It would be nice if OP could re-post that 4-player map screenshot.
I just checked with the editor and the area you mention is only really visible on higher shader settings. The map preview image is misleading but completely accurate. The ground you're referring to in the image is actually the lowest height possible, a height level reserved for background models (and therefore unpathable). It's actually exactly the same as on the right side, but the effect of the shadows is misleading.
It would indeed be so much easier if Blizzard used community/GSL maps, already in this thread people have spotted fallacies with these (though some are perhaps exaggerated).
Still, the jury is still out on these two, they look alright and encourage two very different styles of play, which is what Blizzard wants anyway. Macro players can veto Arid and rushers can veto Entombed.
entombed valley is such a huge map..... but im not sure how i feel about the centre bases as they seem kinda useless as no one will take them..but i guess we'll see
On December 16 2011 05:19 DarkRise wrote: 1st map, double reactor hellions !!
on the 1st. funny I tought of ling runby's... Protoss shall not forge expand on me again! MUAHAHAH... third also exposed whichever way you go ;p
on the 2nd ... they went rock crazy. I can picture the sim city going on the double platforms ... terrans and prottos building castles and shit xD anyways easy 3 bases ;p everything beyond that gets tricky ;p... and the center expansions I can't see them being utilized only ultra late or never. Blizz Y U put unhappy cyclops in your map ?
On December 16 2011 16:18 Ownos wrote: Already? Can't we get some time on the same maps before they suddenly start pulling maps every 2 months? I really liked this seasons ladder pool.
You're actually one of the first people I've seen say that they like Abysmal Caverns.
Not a big fan of the 2 new maps but as I play toss I can hardly complain about entombed valley. I would like to see the current (season 4) map pool but with removal of Xel'naga, Nerazim and Abysal, and then add terminus, that would make for a perfect map pool in my eyes .
I support these map changes! No gold bases, seems like they're taking a hint from the GSL. Well done blizzard, this is the first map pool change that I see very little problems with.
On December 16 2011 18:50 Meta wrote: I support these map changes! No gold bases, seems like they're taking a hint from the GSL. Well done blizzard, this is the first map pool change that I see very little problems with.
I'm glad that Blizzard realizes that Nazarim Crypt and Abyssal Caverns are bad maps and will remove these ones. I just wait to make a judgement for the two new ones. Anyway Antomed Valley seems to be a Zerg/Protoss map in which Terran will struggle against a 3-4 early expo economies.
I also think the big hole next to the natural would be really annoying in PvT when a terran just flies his vikings over it and shoots at your colossi with you unable to do anything about them. Also if zergs gets broodlords over it it's instant GG in PvZ.
On December 16 2011 22:42 Maitolasi wrote: I also think the big hole next to the natural would be really annoying in PvT when a terran just flies his vikings over it and shoots at your colossi with you unable to do anything about them. Also if zergs gets broodlords over it it's instant GG in PvZ.
Edit. Talking about Arid Plateau obviously
You mean the same holes that make chokes that are perfect for Force Fields?
On December 16 2011 22:18 Mawwrice wrote: I'm glad that Blizzard realizes that Nazarim Crypt and Abyssal Caverns are bad maps and will remove these ones. I just wait to make a judgement for the two new ones. Anyway Antomed Valley seems to be a Zerg/Protoss map in which Terran will struggle against a 3-4 early expo economies.
Let's wait and see.
I just fail to understand how everyone says that those maps are bad... Can you please provide good feedback ? I find them wayyyyyy more playable than say Xel'Naga Cavern. From Zerg's PoV...
On December 16 2011 22:18 Mawwrice wrote: I'm glad that Blizzard realizes that Nazarim Crypt and Abyssal Caverns are bad maps and will remove these ones. I just wait to make a judgement for the two new ones. Anyway Antomed Valley seems to be a Zerg/Protoss map in which Terran will struggle against a 3-4 early expo economies.
Let's wait and see.
I just fail to understand how everyone says that those maps are bad... Can you please provide good feedback ? I find them wayyyyyy more playable than say Xel'Naga Cavern. From Zerg's PoV...
"Zerg's PoV" says everthing :D just kidding.
Maybe if they just made Abyssal Caverns as a automatic cross position map it could be a good one. But Nazarim Crypt is just bad. This kind of tongue as ur main base where u cant see anything in early game, a map too little for a 4 spawn possibility, and so on. It was like Backwater Gulch... Just an awful map. But that's still my point of view.
So much complaining in this thread already.... have any of you actually played the maps before you started QQ'ing about them? Are you also the same guys that have been crying for new maps since the start of season 4? LOL, does anyone ever do anything that you approve of!?!?
Looking at how unispired tilesets they use makes me a sad panda. Probably they dont want to deal with the backlash more colorful maps would create, and kill esports obviously.
On December 16 2011 22:40 Chriscras wrote: Wait so Xel Naga is going to be in the map pool for a fifth season?
SIGH.....
I'm pretty surprised by that too. They're adding in another 2-player map, so I would have thought they'd remove XNC rather than a 4-player map in its place.
On December 17 2011 05:18 dacimvrl wrote: Entombed valley looks like a lot of fun, but it still has gold mineral nodes, which I am not a fan of
Entomed doesn't, the other map does.
That said, I'm okay with it because of the rocks, so Protoss doesn't auto-lose vs. zerg if they try to fast expand, which is the biggest problem with maps like antiga or metalopolis right now.
If Protoss tries to FFE on any map with an open gold, zerg can take the gold as their first base completely safely, then take their natural as their third, and be way ahead. There's nothing protoss can do about it either, so protoss has to open with a one base and a slower expo on those maps, which is really freaking hard.
Wow...can't believe they missed that. I hope they fix it, those two maps are a good deal better than your average blizzard map.
lol...... typical retarded terrain exploits
yes, hopefully someone tells blizzard to fix that shit or im never playing on that map
It takes like ten seconds to get to the other side of that bunker with lings. There's actually no advantage to putting bunkers there because it can still be surrounded.
On December 17 2011 03:04 ChineseWife wrote: these maps look like the ones that got removed... cool
edit: and both maps look pretty impossible to ffe on so... looks like im gonna have to whip out the vetos
On December 17 2011 08:12 GenesisX wrote: XelNaga isn't gone... 2 player map can be abused, 4 player map the ramp isn't even covered by the natural I wish they would just use TL open maps
even TL open maps had bad stuff like sieging the main from your 3th on burning altar
On December 17 2011 08:12 GenesisX wrote: XelNaga isn't gone... 2 player map can be abused, 4 player map the ramp isn't even covered by the natural I wish they would just use TL open maps
even TL open maps had bad stuff like sieging the main from your 3th on burning altar
I don't get why they don't just create a system that allows a bunch of maps into rotation which can be vetoed outside of the "standard" ones. So if people aren't comfortable with them, they don't have to play them. While at the same time, those people who aren't bitches about trying out a map a few times and giving it an up or down vote can help test them with authentic ladder matches.
It can be a constant thing. 10 standard maps with 3 standard vetoes, everything else from a pool that's constantly updated with submissions where all maps can be instantly vetoed or turned off.
I really wish blizzard cycle through maps faster, I think it would retain more players/interest. Like seriously XNC has been in the map pool for so long...
Arid Plateau... Blizzard's way of saying "FUCK YOU FORGE FAST EXPAND!"
I am excited for the semi island expos on Entombed Valley
Quite happy Abyssal and Nerazim are out!
Maps are slowly but surely getting better!
EDIT: Blizzard really has to whip out the unbuildable terrain stick... I mean seriously, some unbuildable terrain would make so many of their weird maps so much more palatable.
I don't think I'm going to be able to handle Arid Plateau... It looks like heaven for mutas and ling-runbys. I have to like the other map though, because as a macro player I don't think there's any way to keep someone from getting 8 bases :D
I really wish that Blizzard would make good 2 player maps. Its apparent that they exist (daybreak, TLMC maps), but XNC is so small... Arid Plateau is a better size, but it looks way too spread out. Its clear that the intent is that you can take either the fake main with the backdoor or the pocket expansion, but I don't think any P or T will ever be able to take a fourth against a Z going muta/ling unless Z is at a major disadvantage. I think the problem is that Blizzard is trying to make "macro maps" and "rush maps", instead of truly good maps where any style is possible.
On December 17 2011 09:30 Mordanis wrote: I don't think I'm going to be able to handle Arid Plateau... It looks like heaven for mutas and ling-runbys. I have to like the other map though, because as a macro player I don't think there's any way to keep someone from getting 8 bases :D
I really wish that Blizzard would make good 2 player maps. Its apparent that they exist (daybreak, TLMC maps), but XNC is so small... Arid Plateau is a better size, but it looks way too spread out. Its clear that the intent is that you can take either the fake main with the backdoor or the pocket expansion, but I don't think any P or T will ever be able to take a fourth against a Z going muta/ling unless Z is at a major disadvantage. I think the problem is that Blizzard is trying to make "macro maps" and "rush maps", instead of truly good maps where any style is possible.
I think I'd wall the left side of the natural off and expo to the middle one PvZ. Only problem with that is that it is ridiculously open, so it'd be a lot, lot harder to hold without a large army.
Both maps look zerg favored in PvZ, with entombed being better than arid. But I have not played them yet, so we will have to see. I don't see much FFE working on arid, though.
So it looks like my vetos for S5 will be Arid, Entombed and XNC, which results in... absolutely no change in my map pool. That's fine with me, I guess.
On December 17 2011 08:51 TheRPGAddict wrote: Blizzard needs to leave mapmaking to the people who know how to make maps. Obviously they suck at it.
Yeah, that's why half of Tournament Pools are Blizzard maps, right?
That is partially because of the massive advantage that Blizzard maps have inherently because they're played on the ladder, become familiar enough with the players that they can be easily included if they're at all suitable for tournament play. Community maps generally have difficulty in getting into tournaments because not enough people have played on them, and the reason for that is because they're not in tournaments and not on the ladder. That's not to say that Blizzard are super bad at making maps, but the maps that they make have a way higher chance of making it into major tournaments than equivalently good community maps do.
Oh man Arid seems awful. Base wayyy to far away from any expansions and hard to defend, and with backdoor rocks -.-' Entombed Valley though, looks nice, maybe they wanna put 2 or maybe 4 watch tower insted of just one?
Sigh... if only they realized that Daybreak, Calm before the Storm, etc. (aka macro maps) are what we need. Seriously, GSL games are infinitely more exciting than most tournaments simply for that reason. Stop with the rocks and gold bases; gold bases shouldn't be on any competitive map and rocks should be used sparingly.
Is Arid Plateau top left/bottom right spawn or top right/bottom left spawn? Having backdoor rocks on the main seems a bit silly. I'm thinking that position with the back door rocks can be used as a late fourth or proxy stargate / starport location since the angle of attack is directly away from the ramp and the natural. Good for Terrans and Protosses looking for a surprise imo. That said, I think we'll also be seeing a lot of blink stalker play on this map especially if the Protoss wants to setup his third by the cliffs to the main base with an easy access to the fourth. The base with the back door rocks seems a little too far out for tight late game Protoss play.
Arid Plateau also looks like a good map for some heavy muta play in the mid game with Terran considering how far those marines/thors will have to run from base to base. Also looks good for some early game speedling/hellion pressure with the two entrances to the natural (just like XNC).
As for Entombed Valley, I think Terrans will be slight(?) favoured against Zerg on this map. The low ground by the natural expansion presents some good opportunities for some tanks to lay siege / elevator play on the zerg natural and with some marines by the choke leading to that little outcrop, zerglings will have a pretty damn difficult time getting to those tanks. Matches will likely be mainly on 3-4 bases with top/bottom style expansions. I don't think left/right expansion paths will be favoured over top down since the top and bottom halves of the map have ramps closer to each other than left/right. Doesn't look very muta friendly either
My map pool wish list: Bel'Shir Beach, Dual Sight, Metalopolis, Antiga Shipyard, Crevasse, Daybreak, The Shattered Temple, Shakuras Plateau all Tournament maps using tournament settings. Those are the good maps anyway and Blizzard can throw in a couple extras as a test to see if they are good maps.
When does season 5 start? i have around 300 games play this ladder (top 8 diamond) (T) i really felt the mapz favoured everyone but terran, not that close position isnt an option anymore so cant cheese as much but there are still builds out there that cheese on maps that are cross. ill hope to get to MASTER this coming up season. \
My opinion on the maps Arid Plateau -Nice big open map = good for terran i think, looks like a 2 player map cross position ( top ;left vs bottom right) - looks like its going to be hard to take a third.
Entombed valley- -4 player map - easy to access and protect third this seems like a good macro terran map which is what i like.
Opinions from a gold league player on the two new maps, and the maps they have removed (from a zerg perspective: Arid Plateau: I think this map will be good and awful for zergs in different situations.
On the plus side, the natural has two entrances. This makes it much easier for harassment to be done on some turtling terrans or tosses. There seems to be a variety of counter attacking options for zergs which is always good. Back door rocks at the top right and bottom left expansions leave even more harassment opportunities.
However, I think the two side expansions are pretty much useless. They can be sieged very easily because of the downward ramps leading to them. The bottom left and Top right expos are dangerous as well because they are able to be dropped on very easily by a terran (or toss now that the warp prism lives again.) With a narrow ramp leading up to it, it could be difficult to get a defending force up there to stop a drop quickly. The pocket expos are similar to Sharkuras, except they are even easier to attack now with two lanes instead of one. Overall opinion: I don't think I mind this map too much, but I'd have to play it more to see if I'd rather veto this one.
Entombed Valley: This map seems to be practically a macro game only map, which is good or bad depending on your point of view.
Good: The wide ramp at the natural is helpful to zerg players, but not quite as good as the openess of the arid plateau natural. Zergs should be able to get a third faster then the other two races and it shouldn't be too much of a chore to defend the expos. Because of the closeness of the bases, drops are going to have less effectiveness on this map then on others. The center Xelnaga does not cover the two side paths which should be easy to scoot a force through, so you can attack without your opponent knowing even if he has tower control. (this can be good or bad depending on if you sneak banelings into his nat without his knowledge, or if all of the sudden 20 marines you didnt see are at your front door).
Bad: Once again, the middle expansions seem very difficult to hold unless you are way ahead. I'm not sure the exact distance, but it seems like those expos can be sieged from behind. The center north and center south expos I think should be high yields. (high risk high reward) because they look very difficult to defend and can be sieged from a base next to it should some siege tanks or even ranged colosi sneak up there. The first three bases are going to be very hard to harass. Turtling on three bases is going to be extremely popular on this map I believe. Close by air positions will practically require you to prepare for banshees and drops very fast because the distance from natural to natural is about the width of an ultralisk.
Overall: I think this map will produce some cool long macro games, but I don't think that zergs will really be able to end a game against a turtling player until they tech to something like broods, because it will be extremely difficult to win an engagement against a sieged up terran army or a forcefielded protoss force going up a fairly narrow ramp. I might veto-unveto this periodically as I play.
Removed maps: these will be short Abyssal Caverns: I am glad they removed this map from the pool. Close by air positions were death with protoss going mass blink stalkers and always being in your main and terran seeming to always go with some early banshees. This map never seemed to produce macro games which I like, so I had this map vetoed.
Nerazim Crypt: I had this map vetoed occasionally because it seemed like I got this map a lot and I like a change of scenery every now and then. However, I didn't mind this map too much. It didn't seem imbalanced towards any race when I played it.
Disclaimer: Once again I am in GOLD LEAGUE. If you disagree with my opinions, have an educated opinion of your own, and are better at SC2 then me, you probably know best. These are just my opinions on the maps from an average SC2 player.
I think it should be made clear that you DO NOT SPAWN IN THE AREA WITH THE BACK DOOR ROCKS on Arid Plateau . That would be where you would take your third/fourth depending on where you put your expos. You spawn in the positions opposite of that.
On December 18 2011 04:15 jaknize wrote: My map pool wish list: Bel'Shir Beach, Dual Sight, Metalopolis, Antiga Shipyard, Crevasse, Daybreak, The Shattered Temple, Shakuras Plateau all Tournament maps using tournament settings. Those are the good maps anyway and Blizzard can throw in a couple extras as a test to see if they are good maps.
I wish people would stop asking for Dual Sight. It is one of the most imbalanced maps in tournament play...
Size: 150x120 Spots: 2, 8 Tileset: Ash World Games played: 266
Race Stats (non-mirrors): TvZ: 40-29 (58%) [ Games ] ZvP: 31-15 (67.4%) [ Games ] PvT: 22-31 (41.5%) [ Games ]
On December 19 2011 08:15 Erik.TheRed wrote: just noticed that the new season 5 maps are already available on b.net.
Have they been out since launch? Are they making any edits before putting them in the ladder map pool?
They've been available for custom games as of approximately the time of the official Blizzard post. It's unlikely they'll make any changes to them before final release, since the new season is slated to start in just a few days.
Will def. veto the new maps (Zerg). Tried them a bit in customs, meh. So it will be the same maps for me as in season 4... Just give us GSL/MLG map pool already! (Minus XNC, Crevasse, Dual Sight).
On December 20 2011 22:47 Stiluz wrote: Will def. veto the new maps (Zerg). Tried them a bit in customs, meh. So it will be the same maps for me as in season 4... Just give us GSL/MLG map pool already! (Minus XNC, Crevasse, Dual Sight).
Since I consider the current maps "meh" what's worse about the new maps that would make you veto them?
As a random player, I can safely say that Arid Plateau is heavily T favoured against Z, every time I get T, I just two rax, turtle into 3 bases asap, then timing before broodlords. EZ
On December 20 2011 22:47 Stiluz wrote: Will def. veto the new maps (Zerg). Tried them a bit in customs, meh. So it will be the same maps for me as in season 4... Just give us GSL/MLG map pool already! (Minus XNC, Crevasse, Dual Sight).
Since I consider the current maps "meh" what's worse about the new maps that would make you veto them?
I have them veto'd as well, but I am terran. I think it's more of the fact people don't want to learn new maps when all the current ladder maps are pretty okay so mediocre maps get veto because people don't want to bother with them.
On December 18 2011 04:15 jaknize wrote: My map pool wish list: Bel'Shir Beach, Dual Sight, Metalopolis, Antiga Shipyard, Crevasse, Daybreak, The Shattered Temple, Shakuras Plateau all Tournament maps using tournament settings. Those are the good maps anyway and Blizzard can throw in a couple extras as a test to see if they are good maps.
I wish people would stop asking for Dual Sight. It is one of the most imbalanced maps in tournament play...
Size: 150x120 Spots: 2, 8 Tileset: Ash World Games played: 266
Race Stats (non-mirrors): TvZ: 40-29 (58%) [ Games ] ZvP: 31-15 (67.4%) [ Games ] PvT: 22-31 (41.5%) [ Games ]
Use a different sample and the stats are totally different. Here's the International version. (seems very very balanced). Remember most on the games on Dual Sight 1.0 in Korea were played during the Sad Zealot era where every Protoss only knew how to lose.
Race Stats (non-mirrors): TvZ: 85-80 (51.5%) [ Games ] ZvP: 63-57 (52.5%) [ Games ] PvT: 77-58 (57%) [ Games ]
Here are stats for the 1.1 version of the maps in International and Korean (sample size a little too small though) Race Stats (non-mirrors): TvZ: 4-2 (66.7%) [ Games ] ZvP: 3-2 (60%) [ Games ] PvT: 3-5 (37.5%) [ Games ]
Race Stats (non-mirrors): TvZ: 13-10 (56.5%) [ Games ] ZvP: 6-9 (40%) [ Games ] (you will see it actually seems slightly Protoss favored) PvT: 6-11 (35.3%) [ Games ]
Dual Sight is hard for Protoss. But it's not as bad as say old Bel'Shir Beach or Terminus with rocks at 3rd entrance (Terminus SE 1.0).
well dual sight isn't to bad for toss, since a 2 base push is really powerful with sentries onto opponents third and natural (forcefields do really well there). But taking the 3rd doesn't work without dealing a deadly blow, that it would be more wisely to deliver the final strike. They should add rocks to make the base zergs love to take (below or above the main) easier to wallof for the toss. It would be obviouse for the zerg that the toss wants a 3rd, but atleast they could pressure the zerg long enough so they can't kill the rocks preemptively.
On the other hand dual sight is a nice tournament map, because it delivers alot of early mid game fights. (since lategame some combinations are just to powerful on the map)
i think Entombed Valley is definitely Terran map,siege positions good as Altarim. Entombed Valley: PvT > T favored with siege tank timings and positioning. PvZ > i think zerg favored because its pretty easy to taking 3rd. TvZ > terran favored imo!
Arid Plateu hmm...i think this map is not good for zerg playes pretty okey for terran and protoss.
There is no way toss can FFE on these maps. I can't even veto out shattered and meta now... I really hate to go 1 gate expand, is like playing the game from behind against zerg.
On December 21 2011 01:17 Zaurus wrote: There is no way toss can FFE on these maps. I can't even veto out shattered and meta now... I really hate to go 1 gate expand, is like playing the game from behind against zerg.
Did you look at the screenshots above by 'ArtisaBang'? Just a couple posts above. I think its extreme to say "there is no way Toss can FFE". I actually think FFE should be based on how often the zerg will 15 hatch, not exactly how perfectly the map is structured. If zerg 15 hatches, just FFE.
On December 21 2011 02:42 L3g3nd_ wrote: Man, i thought Season 4 maps were bad, Season 5 brings on a whole new meaning of bad.
At least they're slowly, slowwwwwwly perfecting a good map pool. We're a long way away from the garbage of season 2 and 3 ^_^.
But yeah, I feel like the new blizz maps every season are thrown together in a week. They're so uninspired, and so boring - they should really hire some of the TL contest guys or start outsourcing to GSL.
i think Entombed Valley is definitely Terran map,siege positions good as Altarim. Entombed Valley: PvT > T favored with siege tank timings and positioning. PvZ > i think zerg favored because its pretty easy to taking 3rd. TvZ > terran favored imo!
Arid Plateu hmm...i think this map is not good for zerg playes pretty okey for terran and protoss.
jesus look how much shit you have to put up just to keep yourself covered vs mild pressure. that kinda negates the point of forge expand if you have to dump 400+ more minerals just to keep safe.
These maps are complete garbage compared to GSL's map pool. Let's even ignore the balance factors and obsession with rocks. These are the least aesthetically pleasing maps to look at.
i think Entombed Valley is definitely Terran map,siege positions good as Altarim. Entombed Valley: PvT > T favored with siege tank timings and positioning. PvZ > i think zerg favored because its pretty easy to taking 3rd. TvZ > terran favored imo!
Arid Plateu hmm...i think this map is not good for zerg playes pretty okey for terran and protoss.
jesus look how much shit you have to put up just to keep yourself covered vs mild pressure. that kinda negates the point of forge expand if you have to dump 400+ more minerals just to keep safe.
then you should make 1 gate expand,its blizzard's fault,not mine...
On December 21 2011 02:42 L3g3nd_ wrote: Man, i thought Season 4 maps were bad, Season 5 brings on a whole new meaning of bad.
At least they're slowly, slowwwwwwly perfecting a good map pool. We're a long way away from the garbage of season 2 and 3 ^_^.
But yeah, I feel like the new blizz maps every season are thrown together in a week. They're so uninspired, and so boring - they should really hire some of the TL contest guys or start outsourcing to GSL.
it makes me wonder who is actually doing the map pool.... we still have TDA and XNC in the map pool.... Blizzard has a history of taking sc2 maps out of the map pool because they are awful, and a history of putting GSL maps into the map pool, and a history of making bad maps, yet they put their maps in, leave in imbalanced/bad maps, and dont add GSL maps. I really would like to see some justification of their map pool. XNC is one of the most imbalanced maps for ZvT, yet its been in there forever, I guess they could argue that thats what vetos are for, but imo vetos should be for maps you dont like, not for vetoing imbalanced maps
Just played 2 games on arid and already vetoe'd it. God awful map for zerg, natural is very hard to defend protosses pushes because there's almost no surface area you can get, and it seems like it's also very hard for protosses to FFE. Entombed is ok for ZvT.
i think Entombed Valley is definitely Terran map,siege positions good as Altarim. Entombed Valley: PvT > T favored with siege tank timings and positioning. PvZ > i think zerg favored because its pretty easy to taking 3rd. TvZ > terran favored imo!
Arid Plateu hmm...i think this map is not good for zerg playes pretty okey for terran and protoss.
jesus look how much shit you have to put up just to keep yourself covered vs mild pressure. that kinda negates the point of forge expand if you have to dump 400+ more minerals just to keep safe.
then you should make 1 gate expand,its blizzard's fault,not mine...
didnt say it was your fault, im saying its a shitty map for pvz.
Has amyone ever come to the realization That Blizzard employees make these maps for a living? If you consider that you should come to the realization that the maps are so bad it is ridiculous. It is stupid how people who have a job or go to school and make maps as a hobby make better maps than people who do it for a living.
For example look at the tileset differences comparing Arid and lets say Ohana (the map that one the TLMC) you probably will say that Ohana looks 100x better. In fact you could probably say that about almost all the maps in the TLMC and almost every good non-blizzard made map. It is apalling to know we have to play on bland, boring disgusting tile sets with no features and no creative design.
Don't even get me started on map design... I only pose one question. Do you prefer GSL maps (Daybreak, Calm before the Storm, Taldarim Altar etc) or Blizzard maps? Don't get me wrong, Metalopolis, Antiga Shipyard and Shakuras Plateau are great maps but these new maps they implementing are half-ass pieces of garbage. I think the general consensus is GSL has the best map pool when it comes exciting macro games. If you haven't watched a lot of GSL games please don't comment.
Anyways my map pool would be Daybreak, Calm before the Storm, Taldarim Altar, Metalopolis, ESV Cloud Kingdom, WCG Antiga Shipyard (much improved tile set), Bel'Shir Beach and either Shakuras Plateau or another ESV map.
Disclaimer: This was written on my iPhone so excuse any typos.
On December 21 2011 02:42 L3g3nd_ wrote: Man, i thought Season 4 maps were bad, Season 5 brings on a whole new meaning of bad.
At least they're slowly, slowwwwwwly perfecting a good map pool. We're a long way away from the garbage of season 2 and 3 ^_^.
But yeah, I feel like the new blizz maps every season are thrown together in a week. They're so uninspired, and so boring - they should really hire some of the TL contest guys or start outsourcing to GSL.
it makes me wonder who is actually doing the map pool.... we still have TDA and XNC in the map pool.... Blizzard has a history of taking sc2 maps out of the map pool because they are awful, and a history of putting GSL maps into the map pool, and a history of making bad maps, yet they put their maps in, leave in imbalanced/bad maps, and dont add GSL maps. I really would like to see some justification of their map pool. XNC is one of the most imbalanced maps for ZvT, yet its been in there forever, I guess they could argue that thats what vetos are for, but imo vetos should be for maps you dont like, not for vetoing imbalanced maps
because when it was out every zerg loved xel naga, thats why it was in every tournament for so long. And i think the Blizzard maps are well thought out. As so much stuff that is done on Blizzard maps is picked up by map makers, and the new maps actually do what they are supposed to do and shift out imbalances. (mutas and drop on macro maps for example, yay antiga, that made up the new first bases layout of every new map now) The restriction for the ladder maps are though that they have to be different from each other. maps that focus on macro or rushing or something in between. So its natural people will hate 3 maps at least and say the map pool is bad. I always enjoy seeing new maps that add some nice ideas and if they are good often make it into tournament maps.
On December 21 2011 03:34 Canadaehz wrote: Has amyone ever come to the realization That Blizzard employees make these maps for a living? If you consider that you should come to the realization that the maps are so bad it is ridiculous. It is stupid how people who have a job or go to school and make maps as a hobby make better maps than people who do it for a living.
For example look at the tileset differences comparing Arid and lets say Ohana (the map that one the TLMC) you probably will say that Ohana looks 100x better. In fact you could probably say that about almost all the maps in the TLMC and almost every good non-blizzard made map. It is apalling to know we have to play on bland, boring disgusting tile sets with no features and no creative design.
Don't even get me started on map design... I only pose one question. Do you prefer GSL maps (Daybreak, Calm before the Storm, Taldarim Altar etc) or Blizzard maps? Don't get me wrong, Metalopolis, Antiga Shipyard and Shakuras Plateau are great maps but these new maps they implementing are half-ass pieces of garbage. I think the general consensus is GSL has the best map pool when it comes exciting macro games. If you haven't watched a lot of GSL games please don't comment.
Anyways my map pool would be Daybreak, Calm before the Storm, Taldarim Altar, Metalopolis, ESV Cloud Kingdom, WCG Antiga Shipyard (much improved tile set), Bel'Shir Beach and either Shakuras Plateau or another ESV map.
Disclaimer: This was written on my iPhone so excuse any typos.
You speak as if GSL is exempt from bad maps, Crossfire, Bel'shir and Dual Sight are all villains now. And whining about tile sets, really?
I do agree that Blizz needs to add more community/GSL maps, Tal'Darim is the only non-Blizz map in the pool!
On December 21 2011 03:34 Canadaehz wrote: Has amyone ever come to the realization That Blizzard employees make these maps for a living? If you consider that you should come to the realization that the maps are so bad it is ridiculous. It is stupid how people who have a job or go to school and make maps as a hobby make better maps than people who do it for a living.
For example look at the tileset differences comparing Arid and lets say Ohana (the map that one the TLMC) you probably will say that Ohana looks 100x better. In fact you could probably say that about almost all the maps in the TLMC and almost every good non-blizzard made map. It is apalling to know we have to play on bland, boring disgusting tile sets with no features and no creative design.
Don't even get me started on map design... I only pose one question. Do you prefer GSL maps (Daybreak, Calm before the Storm, Taldarim Altar etc) or Blizzard maps? Don't get me wrong, Metalopolis, Antiga Shipyard and Shakuras Plateau are great maps but these new maps they implementing are half-ass pieces of garbage. I think the general consensus is GSL has the best map pool when it comes exciting macro games. If you haven't watched a lot of GSL games please don't comment.
Anyways my map pool would be Daybreak, Calm before the Storm, Taldarim Altar, Metalopolis, ESV Cloud Kingdom, WCG Antiga Shipyard (much improved tile set), Bel'Shir Beach and either Shakuras Plateau or another ESV map.
Disclaimer: This was written on my iPhone so excuse any typos.
You speak as if GSL is exempt from bad maps, Crossfire, Bel'shir and Dual Sight are all villains now. And whining about tile sets, really?
I do agree that Blizz needs to add more community/GSL maps, Tal'Darim is the only non-Blizz map in the pool!
Crossfire, Bel'shir, and Dual Sight have all been improved and even prior to that was host to some of the best GSL games.
On December 21 2011 03:34 Canadaehz wrote: Has amyone ever come to the realization That Blizzard employees make these maps for a living? If you consider that you should come to the realization that the maps are so bad it is ridiculous. It is stupid how people who have a job or go to school and make maps as a hobby make better maps than people who do it for a living.
For example look at the tileset differences comparing Arid and lets say Ohana (the map that one the TLMC) you probably will say that Ohana looks 100x better. In fact you could probably say that about almost all the maps in the TLMC and almost every good non-blizzard made map. It is apalling to know we have to play on bland, boring disgusting tile sets with no features and no creative design.
Don't even get me started on map design... I only pose one question. Do you prefer GSL maps (Daybreak, Calm before the Storm, Taldarim Altar etc) or Blizzard maps? Don't get me wrong, Metalopolis, Antiga Shipyard and Shakuras Plateau are great maps but these new maps they implementing are half-ass pieces of garbage. I think the general consensus is GSL has the best map pool when it comes exciting macro games. If you haven't watched a lot of GSL games please don't comment.
Anyways my map pool would be Daybreak, Calm before the Storm, Taldarim Altar, Metalopolis, ESV Cloud Kingdom, WCG Antiga Shipyard (much improved tile set), Bel'Shir Beach and either Shakuras Plateau or another ESV map.
Disclaimer: This was written on my iPhone so excuse any typos.
You speak as if GSL is exempt from bad maps, Crossfire, Bel'shir and Dual Sight are all villains now. And whining about tile sets, really?
Crossfire is actually balanced if you look at the ratios. Even I didn't expect that. And they also fixed Belshir and Dual Sight is 10x better than Arid or Entombed.
And tile sets make the maps more appealing. I rather play on a beautiful map then a piece of dog s***.
I do agree that Blizz needs to add more community/GSL maps, Tal'Darim is the only non-Blizz map in the pool!
For some reason it wont let me quote properly but Crossfire is actually balanced despite what people think if you look at statistics.
Belshir Beach has been fixed.
Dual Sight is a lot more balanced than Arid and Entombed.
Also tile sets arent the biggest of problems compared to balance but quickly compare Belshir Beach or any GSL map for that matter to Arid, Entombed, Nerazim or Abyssal. Please dont tell me you think the Blizzard maps are appealing.
honestly when i first read this i thought it was a joke... 2 maps in the course of, what has it been since we've seen new maps, around 6 months?? no new maps in season 4, and just 2 in season 5. a custom games system that allows me to only play the shattered temple or xel'naga caverns if i don't have a partner... i mean literally this is a joke, blizzard seriously needs to get off their ass and do something because i honestly take these two new maps as a slap in the face. we should have all new maps, every season. AND we NEED a better custom games method, and that should be done like NOW. it's been over a year and we've had literally no changes whatsoever to the custom games method. I mean, i guess blizzard just must be really happy with the shattered temple and xel'naga caverns.
At a first glance Arid Plateau looks promising, it kind of reminds me of belshir beach with the horizontal expanding style.
Entombed valley appears to be ok, but its kind of awkward with the rock positioning on the third base, and I don't like the idea of horizontal spawns TvZ. I feel like Terran can just be like 'Sup Zerg base?' in about 10 seconds.
Why are so many people hating on Arid Plateau? I personally think that it is a really good map and is quite balanced for all races. Zergs complain because of the natural and I understand that it is pretty bad for zerg, but look at the rush distance. Zerg should have some patrolling zerglings and overlords and shoudl always spot rushes coming with enough time to react. I think as long as zergs invest in an early roach warren they should be able to defend any early pushes by z or p if they react in time. Then once zerg makes it into the mid game I think that the map is actually almost zerg favoured. The expansions are quite long distances away from another making ling run by's/ counter attacks very useful and the map is really good for mutas.
Then as long as the zerg take the initiative to attack on the t/p's side of the map with good macro even if they are not cost effective they come out ahead as long as they do significant damage to either production or the army of t/p since it takes so long to remake armies as t/p.
I think everyone should give Arid Plateau a chance.
They removed two decent PvZ maps for two new maps that could potentially suck. Arid plateau is basically the same natural as xel'naga caverns. Entombed Valley has a great, defendable third, that also leaves your wall-off vulnerable via the rocks. If those rocks don't have enough health that map is equally suck.
Looks great PvT though. PvP looks okay, so many nice places to sneak a pylon on Entombed Valley.
Entombed Valley is absolute garbage for zergs. Cliffs and chokes everywhere, hard to take down expansions if Terrans just have a planetary and 2 tanks at every base. Heavy chokes means force field will be much more effective. Each of the additional bases are held in small pockets that are hard to get a surround on...
On December 21 2011 12:02 neoghaleon55 wrote: Entombed Valley is absolute garbage for zergs. Cliffs and chokes everywhere, hard to take down expansions if Terrans just have a planetary and 2 tanks at every base. Heavy chokes means force field will be much more effective. Each of the additional bases are held in small pockets that are hard to get a surround on...
It feels like a worse version of Back Water Gulge
This its impossible to break a terran with tanks on Entombed valley without broods.
On December 21 2011 10:31 Solo Terran wrote: Why are so many people hating on Arid Plateau? I personally think that it is a really good map and is quite balanced for all races. Zergs complain because of the natural and I understand that it is pretty bad for zerg, but look at the rush distance. Zerg should have some patrolling zerglings and overlords and shoudl always spot rushes coming with enough time to react. I think as long as zergs invest in an early roach warren they should be able to defend any early pushes by z or p if they react in time. Then once zerg makes it into the mid game I think that the map is actually almost zerg favoured. The expansions are quite long distances away from another making ling run by's/ counter attacks very useful and the map is really good for mutas.
Then as long as the zerg take the initiative to attack on the t/p's side of the map with good macro even if they are not cost effective they come out ahead as long as they do significant damage to either production or the army of t/p since it takes so long to remake armies as t/p.
I think everyone should give Arid Plateau a chance.
You might have 2 lings just spawned and 8 drones at your natural when a bunker rush comes with a 15 hatchery. If he comes in with 3-4 scvs and builds 2 bunkers at the choke at the narrow side, you absolutely CAN NOT kill him. By the time you go around the choke, his bunkers will almost be done.
On December 21 2011 12:09 iHirO wrote: Theres a new 3v3 map called Dirt Side... so many gold bases!
The desert one looks like a nightmare, haven't they learned their lesson with the dual-opening-to-natural thing? Otherwise, I forsee a TON of 4gate proxy pylon (and rage to accompany it) on the area rock'd off by the natural.
On Arid Plateau, has any one playing TvT run into the problem where they siege your natural from that side path and you cant attack back? Very infuriating since the layout protects them and hurts you.
I've seen some people claim FFE isn't possible on Arid Plateau and also some people who posted bad wall-offs that have holes in them.
Here's one I did that has no gaps:
Here's another one that is probably a bit riskier in some way, but looks okay and has no holes either, even without a zealot needed.
This one starts at the ramp (so should be safer against early pools): The second gateway makes a full wall, otherwise the cannon is good enough and leaves a spot for a zealot or probe to block.
i dont mind not being able to ffe since i dont like that build anyways. side paths are annoying as balls but can be dealt with. the main issue on the new maps that i've seen so far is what someone mentioned above about tanks below the main on arid. not so much of an issue for me as a toss, but tvt and tvz that would be really annoying
On December 21 2011 15:06 shockaslim wrote: On Arid Plateau, has any one playing TvT run into the problem where they siege your natural from that side path and you cant attack back? Very infuriating since the layout protects them and hurts you.
I said this would happen around 20-30 pages back before the maps were even playable because it seems like such an obvious exploit. It'll be even more common for 1/1/1ers in TvP and for those 10-12ish minute marine/tank pushes in TvZ. Literally, I want to see a 1/1/1 against Protoss through that choke, it'll be worse than Xel'Naga Caverns. The only way to attack into that position is to either go around or attack into two tiny chokes, which obviously favours the tanks. It's such bad design and it doesn't even require a knowledge of map design to see it.
On December 17 2011 06:40 jnkw wrote: FFE on Entombed:
FFE on Arid:
On Entombed your cybernetics is so exposed to roaches ... 3 roaches will fuck it up then lings run in and its over
I don't know why anyone would attempt an FFE on arid unless they knew for a fact their opponent would rush or were willing to put 3-4 cannons down. If the gateway near the ramp falls lings will flood in.
On December 21 2011 16:09 ReseT wrote: You can just patrol a drone up and down.. Just like you do for your ramp.
Sure, let's have Zerg patrol and lose minerals to prevent terran from abusing the map and getting a free win without any risk whatsoever, like in the good old Jungle Basin/Steppes of War times.
I think we should give these maps a little more time, I remember people had Antiga vetoed because they thought it was bad but look how that map has turned out.
On December 21 2011 17:39 -JoKeR- wrote: I think we should give these maps a little more time, I remember people had Antiga vetoed because they thought it was bad but look how that map has turned out.
fixed by MLG/GSL by disabling positional imbalances.... yeah, bad example bro.
I haven't played a single match yet but this is what I've decided on how to FFE on Arid Plateau by messing with the map editor.
Defending the side looks tough just like Xel'Naga, except you have a canyon that helps you so your zerg opponent will have to commit more to one side only, or split his forces into 2 smaller weaker attack groups to attack both sides. The bottom canon can attack roaches that attack your nexus. But still, it looks dreadful to defend a roach ling rush on this map so more canons may be needed.
One canon can hit all roaches on top while the stalker can dance in and out of roaches range to damage them without getting hit. You can even have warp an emergency warping Gateway wall to plug the hole during crucial times.
These maps look better than those other two removed maps. Gosh they were bad. I like how Blizzard says "maps that meet our standards" but I'm pretty sure the TLOpen maps from mapmakers are better than the original ones here. just imo.
But to be serious, the new 1v1 maps looks promising! Just dont get why Blizz have done no changes to 3v3 pool yet? 2v2 and 4v4 have been improved alot with more macrofriendly maps. But 3v3 is still unchanged for almost a year now?
On December 21 2011 18:10 Hokay wrote: I haven't played a single match yet but this is what I've decided on how to FFE on Arid Plateau by messing with the map editor.
Defending the side looks tough just like Xel'Naga, except you have a canyon that helps you so your zerg opponent will have to commit more to one side only, or split his forces into 2 smaller weaker attack groups to attack both sides. The bottom canon can attack roaches that attack your nexus. But still, it looks dreadful to defend a roach ling rush on this map so more canons may be needed.
One canon can hit all roaches on top while the stalker can dance in and out of roaches range to damage them without getting hit. You can even have warp an emergency warping Gateway wall to plug the hole during crucial times.
Time to test out this layout on the ladder.
Seems like a solid layout, only thing I worry about when trying this is that I can see myself fucking up the first pylon placement. One square to the left and I might as well GG ^^.
Does Entombed Valley suck for Zerg or what? Maybe I'm just a silver noob, but I played against my protoss friend last night, and that third behind the rocks is pretty hard to hold, and the only way over to the third is through that tiny little choke! You can't have a good engagement anywhere up in the natural. I played terrible but I have never felt that clausterphobic on a map before.
Arid Plateau was ok though, maybe they will swap out Xelnaga next season
On December 21 2011 18:10 Hokay wrote: I haven't played a single match yet but this is what I've decided on how to FFE on Arid Plateau by messing with the map editor.
Defending the side looks tough just like Xel'Naga, except you have a canyon that helps you so your zerg opponent will have to commit more to one side only, or split his forces into 2 smaller weaker attack groups to attack both sides. The bottom canon can attack roaches that attack your nexus. But still, it looks dreadful to defend a roach ling rush on this map so more canons may be needed.
One canon can hit all roaches on top while the stalker can dance in and out of roaches range to damage them without getting hit. You can even have warp an emergency warping Gateway wall to plug the hole during crucial times.
Time to test out this layout on the ladder.
Seems like a solid layout, only thing I worry about when trying this is that I can see myself fucking up the first pylon placement. One square to the left and I might as well GG ^^.
It's not hard to get that placement, really. Sure a Nexus can help on positioning it, but you can throw the vanilla pylon correctly if you have grid mode enable and you take a look at the pylon radius; It's very intuitive.
On December 21 2011 23:01 Chillton wrote: Does Entombed Valley suck for Zerg or what? Maybe I'm just a silver noob, but I played against my protoss friend last night, and that third behind the rocks is pretty hard to hold, and the only way over to the third is through that tiny little choke! You can't have a good engagement anywhere up in the natural. I played terrible but I have never felt that clausterphobic on a map before.
Arid Plateau was ok though, maybe they will swap out Xelnaga next season
By the time you take your third, you can probably afford to engage a little further inward. Alternatively, you could take another expansion as your third: the top-center and bottom-center ones are fairly open.
On December 21 2011 23:01 Chillton wrote: Does Entombed Valley suck for Zerg or what? Maybe I'm just a silver noob, but I played against my protoss friend last night, and that third behind the rocks is pretty hard to hold, and the only way over to the third is through that tiny little choke! You can't have a good engagement anywhere up in the natural. I played terrible but I have never felt that clausterphobic on a map before.
Arid Plateau was ok though, maybe they will swap out Xelnaga next season
By the time you take your third, you can probably afford to engage a little further inward. Alternatively, you could take another expansion as your third: the top-center and bottom-center ones are fairly open.
Good point, I was leaning towards that idea, seems you want to control the middle of the map, or at least the space in front of your ramps.
On December 21 2011 23:01 Chillton wrote: Does Entombed Valley suck for Zerg or what? Maybe I'm just a silver noob, but I played against my protoss friend last night, and that third behind the rocks is pretty hard to hold, and the only way over to the third is through that tiny little choke! You can't have a good engagement anywhere up in the natural. I played terrible but I have never felt that clausterphobic on a map before.
Arid Plateau was ok though, maybe they will swap out Xelnaga next season
Agreed, I think Entombed is awful. It's even worse versus Terrans as you will run into tank fire off cliffs almost anywhere you go. It's definitely a muta map, but very easy to lose control because all the bases are so close together. Terrans should have an easy time defending their third as well as to force you to engage into chokes. Should be vetoed.
Arid isn't as bad for zerg as everyone makes it out to be... The third, forth and fifth on Arid feels very natural to take with the luxury of an open field for flanks and surrounds.
On December 22 2011 02:48 Aundasch wrote: Im not sure if it wasnt answered yet, but you can only spawn up|down on the valley map right?
No. People have been complaining that horizontal spawns are too close for tank pushes. Tanks can travel a very short distance and seige behind the rocks to the third base of the other player.
Is it just me or is Entombed Valley the dumbest ZvP and ZvT map ever ? Both races can take a third before 30 supply and you can pretty much do nothing to stop them... Roach / Ling pushes to try and counter the double expand work like shit because its a ramp so forcefields and 1 or 2 cannons wreck everything...
As Zerg if you spawn next to each other your 4th is SO far away its ridiculous... tank pushes on horizontal spawns thru a small choke... same with protoss pushes... its like there was no thought put into this map at all its frustrating as fuck that half the ladder maps are terrible.
just my rant but this map is 100 times worse for zvp then taldarim was.
On December 21 2011 23:01 Chillton wrote: Does Entombed Valley suck for Zerg or what? Maybe I'm just a silver noob, but I played against my protoss friend last night, and that third behind the rocks is pretty hard to hold, and the only way over to the third is through that tiny little choke! You can't have a good engagement anywhere up in the natural. I played terrible but I have never felt that clausterphobic on a map before.
Arid Plateau was ok though, maybe they will swap out Xelnaga next season
As a terran i had a really weird claustrophobic feeling on both of the new maps, and both maps just felt really irritating to play.. Cant put my finger on why though...
I played some games today and noticed that 2 rax is incredibly broken on Entombed Valley. Here are some bunker placements I discovered:
1 Ignore the bunker at the ramp as it's not really the important part. Now you can optionally start the bunker at the top left and trap a marine inside first, or you can just make the two bunkers next to the rocks and have a marine behind them. I'm not really sure that the first bunker is necessary, but either way the two at the rock are insanely good. Note: these form a full wall.
Creep really doesn't spread to the ramp fast enough, so it's possible to hop bunkers into range of the hatchery with the bunker at the ramp or near there. One advantage to this positioning is that spine crawlers really cant deal with it effectively compared to bunkering the bottom of the ramp, as the creep isn't close enough.
2 This second placement is possibly even better Here you can tuck many marines in the pocket and hop a bunker immediately in range of the hatchery. This placement makes reinforcement incredibly easy and it's very hard to engage these bunkers without multiple spine crawlers. Conveniently this placement also makes it fairly difficult for a zerg to cut off reinforcements.
3 This placement is not particularly great, as it is not in range of the hatchery and is fairly far from reinforcements and the main ramp, but it's possible to bunker hop or just micro back and forth from the bunkers. The main problem is that these bunkers are very likely to finish and possibly even get up without a zerg seeing them if the overlord is spotting for other positions. Note: these bunkers form a full wall.
4 This placement is superior to the previous one, although it's possible that creep will already be there unless it is an 11/11 rax or the zerg did not hatch first. These bunkers form a tight wall making it hard to stop both of them with drones and they are in range of both the hatchery and the ramp. Reinforcement distance is not very far.
One of the biggest problems I see here is that there are simply so many good bunker placements that a single overlord will not spot all of them, nor will a drone patrolling deal with them all. There's also obviously the usual double bunker at the bottom of the ramp that works like any other ladder map. Between these glaring problems, the close horizontal positions for tank pushes, the choke below the natural for tank pushes, and the ease of Terran or Protoss expanding, I think all zerg players should seriously consider vetoing this map immediately. These bunker placements are also potentially useful in TvP, so they're worth learning for any Terran player.
The rocks are the real problem, I think they make ZvT especially in close positions so hard, Siege tanks can be placed behind the rocks at the would be third and they can push up your ramp and you can do nothing about it, however I have had some success making 4-6 extra lings early on to break down the third rocks to stop tank pushes and also take the expansion safely.
I think we need to remember that island expo in the middle of the map surrounded by 2 strong destructible rocks. Terran gets a free non ground harrassable third
Also, when the rocks do go down the upper part of the ramp is within range of a planetary fortress making attacking the third difficult for almost any race.
The PvT immortal bust on Arid Plateu is ridiculously hard to survive as there's two narrow entrances to your natural which is easily in forcefield's favour when busting. To surround the natural with bunkers when spotting this is just stupid and too economic damaging for T (lets say 6 bunkers, 3 of them is in use as there's two entrances.). The only option i can see is to lift up and be FF contained when P is macroing happily at home...
Mid masters Zerg and I'm in love with Entombed Valley...some bunker and cannon placements are a bit awkward to deal with but overall the landscape and amount of open space is amazing, first blizzard map I won't be veto-ing
On December 22 2011 08:38 Eraserhead wrote: I bet any map is broken when you have to make 4 bunkers.... lmao
Shakuras only needs 3!
You only really have to make the two next to the rocks and the game is basically over. The rest are just examples of things that are possible and potentially useful. If you don't want to use them, that's your business, but they certainly are powerful.
don't like the new maps. entombed valley is almost like the stupid lava map that got removed really fast and arid plateau feels like beta again. these maps are nowhere near to be crisp, not in looks and not in gameplay. the last two maps that got removed were better in both aspects imo, and i really want maps like calm before the storm or xel naga fortress, dual sight, testbug...
come on blizzard, show some balls and integrate some cool non blizzard maps. i don't get the big deal that it seems to be.
I can't figure out how Zerg is supposed to live on Arid Plateau (and I'm posting this as a Protoss player!). I haven't lost a PvZ here yet doing the most derp strategy (after sentry expand, it's not even all in!). Exhibit:
~10 minute attack with +1 sentry stalker and scouting observer. Forcefields make it a total clusterf--- for the Zerg and almost impossible. A few people have put down spine crawlers there, but the bushes make the crawler useless without an overlord...which the stalkers can just snipe. Ordinarily a standard amount of roach ling with crawlers would crush this attack, but the positioning is so laughable.
Am I missing something? Is Zerg's only option to all in counter attack (which is pretty easy to defend with wall + cannon)?
On December 22 2011 08:56 Sentient wrote: I can't figure out how Zerg is supposed to live on Arid Plateau (and I'm posting this as a Protoss player!). I haven't lost a PvZ here yet doing the most derp strategy. Exhibit:
~10 minute attack with +1 sentry stalker and scouting observer. Forcefields make it a total clusterf--- for the Zerg and almost impossible. A few people have put down spine crawlers there, but the bushes make the crawler useless without an overlord...which the stalkers can just snipe. Ordinarily a standard amount of roach ling with crawlers would crush this attack, but the positioning is so laughable.
Am I missing something? Is Zerg's only option to all in counter attack (which is pretty easy to defend with wall + cannon)?
yep too bad that map has some nice ovie placements but the natural is just retarded...
On December 22 2011 08:56 Sentient wrote: I can't figure out how Zerg is supposed to live on Arid Plateau (and I'm posting this as a Protoss player!). I haven't lost a PvZ here yet doing the most derp strategy (after sentry expand, it's not even all in!). Exhibit:
~10 minute attack with +1 sentry stalker and scouting observer. Forcefields make it a total clusterf--- for the Zerg and almost impossible. A few people have put down spine crawlers there, but the bushes make the crawler useless without an overlord...which the stalkers can just snipe. Ordinarily a standard amount of roach ling with crawlers would crush this attack, but the positioning is so laughable.
Am I missing something? Is Zerg's only option to all in counter attack (which is pretty easy to defend with wall + cannon)?
I just put a lot of spine crawlers there and got a good flank when a protoss came at me.he forcefielded my roaches in a box but just ate the spine crawler fire.
It totally sucks. I open speedling on the map just so you can't proxy me and then hope for the best.
On December 22 2011 09:17 anonymitylol wrote: Just vote these two garbage maps off, same as we did with Abyssal Caverns and Nezarim. Blizzard will learn eventually.
I really don't understand the reasoning behind such bad map designs. I play Z and the maps seem to be designed to really remove the reaction time that you need as zerg. You guys know what I'm talking about, the maps so small where a Terran player can make mass marines, deny your scout, and then hillariously, run them over to your base with stim and just wreck you.
We need more Taldarim Altar style maps! And I will veto these garbage new maps for sure.
Arid Plateau I thought would be a cool map, but its actually soo bad. TvZ used to be a 60% winrate for me, and with such a little choke its harder to harass with hellions, And zergs seem to have a good time outright counterattacking your 3rd/4th. Its tough and now its out of my map pool ^^
I played a single game on Arid Plateau (PvT) and it just felt sooo awkward. The natural is way too open due to there being 2 entrances (which I hate). Both third bases feel awkward to take as well. The line-of-sight blocker near the natural is dumb I think. I can't imagine playing a PvZ on that map with the distances between bases as well as the breakable rocks to one of the thirds (but I suppose you can wall that off). Definitely vetoing that map for the rest of the season. I'm reluctant to try the other one as well. Although I'm no map expert, I can not understand how Blizzard can call these "tournament maps" with the bad design layouts.
A while back Blizzard said they wanted 2-3 large macro maps (Tal'darim), 2-3 middle maps (Temple), and 2-3 short maps (Xel'Naga). That way players would have to adapt to a variety of styles, but they could veto a set if they don't like to play that way. It kind of makes sense, but I think it's a failed experiment. Instead we are forced to veto the maps that are just plain bad, but we still have to stick with maps we dislike for flavor reasons. Blizzard keeps getting cutesy with rocks and back doors and ramp shapes, but all it does is make the maps exploitable for one race or another.
Lol I'm yet to play longer than a 10 minute game on Arid. ZvT I flat out don't blame my Terran opponents. The entire map is ridiculously good for early aggression.
I don't think Arid should be considered a serious competitive map. My memory is a little hazy but I think blood bath had a longer rush distance and a more defendable natural.
Okay that was a joke but wow, thanks for removing the two maps I had vetoed Blizzard. But I'm pissed you gave me at least one new map to veto.
Final edit: They should take a hint- it's not that there are SO MANY MORE zergs on the ladder than T/P. It's all Zergs veto the same maps that put them behind before they've made their first worker! Naturally Zs play mostly the same maps and T/P veto maps for the exact same reason. Therefore: Buttload of mirror matches because most players tend to agree which maps are bad for which races.
If you're making maps.. that are bad for a race...
Seriously, since FFE is out of the question, I'm forced to x gate expand or tech- the problem is that zergs know this, and they simply take a fast third while keeping on top of scouting me, and the ridiculously covered and close third means pushes or tech cheeses are much more likely to fail than usual. However, in the games that I did manage to get my natural up without being significantly behind, I was able to take a very fast third myself as well on only 2-4 gates and defend it easily to gain a bit midgame advantage.
IMBA map for PvZ for sure, because most FFE builds revolves around a mid-game push or some kind of tech that forces the zerg to stop droning, but since the 3rd is so easily defended my zerg opponents have gone up to ~70 drones when my pushes hit and defended with ease due to the terrain, whereas they would have otherwise died or lost their 3rd on another map if they didn't stop droning at around 55 supply.
I play random so voting down is not an option - any ideas on approaching PvZ on this map? I'm thinking of some kind of hardcore turtle build with an ultra-fast 3rd and heavy upgrades, but zerg macro and larva inject facing ZERO pressure... doesn't seem too viable to me.
On December 22 2011 09:43 Probe1 wrote: Lol I'm yet to play longer than a 10 minute game on Arid. ZvT I flat out don't blame my Terran opponents. The entire map is ridiculously good for early aggression.
I don't think Arid should be considered a serious competitive map. My memory is a little hazy but I think blood bath had a longer rush distance and a more defendable natural.
Okay that was a joke but wow, thanks for removing the two maps I had vetoed Blizzard. But I'm pissed you gave me at least one new map to veto.
I took one look at the nat and baneling busted on it, insanely bad map; the match-ups are too dependent on maps as it is without these pieces of shit in the pool, oh well, they'll never see competitive play but it makes you wonder about blizz's competence if they think that maps like these are suitable in any regard
On December 22 2011 09:43 Probe1 wrote: Lol I'm yet to play longer than a 10 minute game on Arid. ZvT I flat out don't blame my Terran opponents. The entire map is ridiculously good for early aggression.
I don't think Arid should be considered a serious competitive map. My memory is a little hazy but I think blood bath had a longer rush distance and a more defendable natural.
Okay that was a joke but wow, thanks for removing the two maps I had vetoed Blizzard. But I'm pissed you gave me at least one new map to veto.
I took one look at the nat and baneling busted on it, insanely bad map; the match-ups are too dependent on maps as it is without these pieces of shit in the pool, oh well, they'll never see competitive play but it makes you wonder about blizz's competence if they think that maps like these are suitable in any regard
Tbh I have a limited experience ZvT. All the games were 2/3 rax all ins lolol.
i dont understand why blizzard made another map like Entombed Valley, all of the maps that they have added that share a similar natural were quickly removed
also i dont understand how toss is supposed to expand on any of those maps
I've been chatting with my practice partners and random Zergs I don't think Arid is very good. I've heard horror stories already of a High Mastr Zerg losing a few Maxed armies to Protoss on this map Due to the map Terrain Although he said he went ultra/infestor/ling .
Last time I made Ultras in a PvZ I lost 5 maxes armies with superior upgrades.
It's true you build Ultras if you want to lose. Mainly beig the fact that most smart Protoss will retreat to their base when they see Ultras and the Ultras just melt to blink stalker when you're forced to engage Witha max army; since it's better for a Zerg to do such a thing it's just Ultras get stomped so hard by almost any Protoss composition except heavy zealot.
I really wish they stopped adding terrible maps that everyone vetoes. It is getting rather boring to play on the same 4 maps all night, especial since some of them have been around forever.
On December 22 2011 08:56 Sentient wrote: I can't figure out how Zerg is supposed to live on Arid Plateau (and I'm posting this as a Protoss player!). I haven't lost a PvZ here yet doing the most derp strategy (after sentry expand, it's not even all in!). Exhibit:
~10 minute attack with +1 sentry stalker and scouting observer. Forcefields make it a total clusterf--- for the Zerg and almost impossible. A few people have put down spine crawlers there, but the bushes make the crawler useless without an overlord...which the stalkers can just snipe. Ordinarily a standard amount of roach ling with crawlers would crush this attack, but the positioning is so laughable.
Am I missing something? Is Zerg's only option to all in counter attack (which is pretty easy to defend with wall + cannon)?
I'm not sure what the zerg is missing. A protoss sentry expands, pushes out 2-3 minutes late and somehow makes it to the natural when a zerg could be 30-40+ supply ahead and easily keep his army outside of the natural just for the option to flank. (a sentry expand which will obviously move out)
Seems like most of the complaint is coming from Zerg and Protoss players. From a glance as a Terran these maps don't look all that terrible, but I suppose its an entirely different matter for Zerg/Protoss.
On December 22 2011 11:52 Meteora.GB wrote: Seems like most of the complaint is coming from Zerg and Protoss players. From a glance as a Terran these maps don't look all that terrible, but I suppose its an entirely different matter for Zerg/Protoss.
Oh well. Just veto them.
Both maps are pretty hard for TvP in my opinion. You can 1/1/1 on both of them, but otherwise they definitely seem to favor protoss.
Entombed Valley is vetoed but then took it off. I now play with 0 vetoes.
It had close position, but I decided its gonna be like Antiga close position, so I might as well get used to killing the rocks under your natural if you spawn horizontal positions.
Just gotta grow balls and decide to play every map I guess. The rewarding part is, if you get past 10minutes vs protoss on that map, you can use Mutalisk play etc. But basically all the expos on the map can be yours, just like Tal darim/Antiga. Can't be afraid of a map so early, and gotta take the smarter third bases I guess. It's not like any protoss is going to go up your Natural Ramp full of spines to attack. There's only one way in.
On December 22 2011 10:29 Wasteweiser wrote: complain complain complain no matta what, thats all people are good for, those bunker placements can be done on any other map btw..
if people dont complain then how will blizzard no what to fix?
On December 22 2011 09:46 HardMacro wrote: Oh god PvZ is a NIGHTMARE on arid.
Seriously, since FFE is out of the question, I'm forced to x gate expand or tech- the problem is that zergs know this, and they simply take a fast third while keeping on top of scouting me, and the ridiculously covered and close third means pushes or tech cheeses are much more likely to fail than usual. However, in the games that I did manage to get my natural up without being significantly behind, I was able to take a very fast third myself as well on only 2-4 gates and defend it easily to gain a bit midgame advantage.
IMBA map for PvZ for sure, because most FFE builds revolves around a mid-game push or some kind of tech that forces the zerg to stop droning, but since the 3rd is so easily defended my zerg opponents have gone up to ~70 drones when my pushes hit and defended with ease due to the terrain, whereas they would have otherwise died or lost their 3rd on another map if they didn't stop droning at around 55 supply.
I play random so voting down is not an option - any ideas on approaching PvZ on this map? I'm thinking of some kind of hardcore turtle build with an ultra-fast 3rd and heavy upgrades, but zerg macro and larva inject facing ZERO pressure... doesn't seem too viable to me.
You do realise you can just 5 or 6 gate the back of their natural and you win.
On December 22 2011 08:56 Sentient wrote: I can't figure out how Zerg is supposed to live on Arid Plateau (and I'm posting this as a Protoss player!). I haven't lost a PvZ here yet doing the most derp strategy (after sentry expand, it's not even all in!). Exhibit:
~10 minute attack with +1 sentry stalker and scouting observer. Forcefields make it a total clusterf--- for the Zerg and almost impossible. A few people have put down spine crawlers there, but the bushes make the crawler useless without an overlord...which the stalkers can just snipe. Ordinarily a standard amount of roach ling with crawlers would crush this attack, but the positioning is so laughable.
Am I missing something? Is Zerg's only option to all in counter attack (which is pretty easy to defend with wall + cannon)?
I'm not sure what the zerg is missing. A protoss sentry expands, pushes out 2-3 minutes late and somehow makes it to the natural when a zerg could be 30-40+ supply ahead and easily keep his army outside of the natural just for the option to flank. (a sentry expand which will obviously move out)
What league is this?
This, exactly. P has to 1gate or 3gate expand, which puts Z ahead economically right off the bat, then P has to move out on a very open map, trying to cling to whatever walls are near, meanwhile there are at least 3 additional attack paths Z can run through to flank the entire army or counter attack whenever he feels like it.
I can see Stargate play being viable on this map though, but that's preferred as a transition out of FFE. Long distances between main and nat AND 3rd, plus a lot of no-ground space to place flying units where they can micro safely.
First of all I'd like to just point out because I think its important that both posters below are in Diamond league, not to say this offensively as I myself am even in Diamond league, but it gives you an idea of where this apparent 'imbalance' is being recognized.
On December 22 2011 08:56 Sentient wrote: I can't figure out how Zerg is supposed to live on Arid Plateau (and I'm posting this as a Protoss player!). I haven't lost a PvZ here yet doing the most derp strategy (after sentry expand, it's not even all in!). Exhibit:
~10 minute attack with +1 sentry stalker and scouting observer. Forcefields make it a total clusterf--- for the Zerg and almost impossible. A few people have put down spine crawlers there, but the bushes make the crawler useless without an overlord...which the stalkers can just snipe. Ordinarily a standard amount of roach ling with crawlers would crush this attack, but the positioning is so laughable.
Am I missing something? Is Zerg's only option to all in counter attack (which is pretty easy to defend with wall + cannon)?
On December 22 2011 05:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: I played some games today and noticed that 2 rax is incredibly broken on Entombed Valley. Here are some bunker placements I discovered:
1 Ignore the bunker at the ramp as it's not really the important part. Now you can optionally start the bunker at the top left and trap a marine inside first, or you can just make the two bunkers next to the rocks and have a marine behind them. I'm not really sure that the first bunker is necessary, but either way the two at the rock are insanely good. Note: these form a full wall.
Creep really doesn't spread to the ramp fast enough, so it's possible to hop bunkers into range of the hatchery with the bunker at the ramp or near there. One advantage to this positioning is that spine crawlers really cant deal with it effectively compared to bunkering the bottom of the ramp, as the creep isn't close enough.
2 This second placement is possibly even better Here you can tuck many marines in the pocket and hop a bunker immediately in range of the hatchery. This placement makes reinforcement incredibly easy and it's very hard to engage these bunkers without multiple spine crawlers. Conveniently this placement also makes it fairly difficult for a zerg to cut off reinforcements.
3 This placement is not particularly great, as it is not in range of the hatchery and is fairly far from reinforcements and the main ramp, but it's possible to bunker hop or just micro back and forth from the bunkers. The main problem is that these bunkers are very likely to finish and possibly even get up without a zerg seeing them if the overlord is spotting for other positions. Note: these bunkers form a full wall.
4 This placement is superior to the previous one, although it's possible that creep will already be there unless it is an 11/11 rax or the zerg did not hatch first. These bunkers form a tight wall making it hard to stop both of them with drones and they are in range of both the hatchery and the ramp. Reinforcement distance is not very far.
One of the biggest problems I see here is that there are simply so many good bunker placements that a single overlord will not spot all of them, nor will a drone patrolling deal with them all. There's also obviously the usual double bunker at the bottom of the ramp that works like any other ladder map. Between these glaring problems, the close horizontal positions for tank pushes, the choke below the natural for tank pushes, and the ease of Terran or Protoss expanding, I think all zerg players should seriously consider vetoing this map immediately. These bunker placements are also potentially useful in TvP, so they're worth learning for any Terran player.
Secondly, regarding favourable positions and means of exploitation, does anyone remember the initial impressions of crossfire being such a P favoured map because of forcefields, and how it turned out to be 60% Z favoured map because of the good choices of engagements and strength of muta play? Remember when people first started doing the 3 bunker contain in TvZ on Shakuras and people whined that it was too effective? Even now we're seeing bunker rushes in between gas geysers that korean players are still managing to beat. Lets see firstly if these are even solid builds before going further, and then even if they are let the metagame shift and see what people come up with to counter them, because this shit happens all the time with maps. In 99% of cases you can't take a few days of playing on a map as 'proof' that something is imbalanced, it does a huge disservice to the complexity of the map and the metagame and how closely they're intertwined.
overall, i think the maps are fun after a few games one each. with some tweaks, i think entombed can potentially become a tourney map. the desert one is too small, and i don't like how open the natural is, but with some sim city it's fine too.
I played a couple games on both, and I don't think they are too bad. I like them better than antiga actually, but I'll have to play some more games on the new maps to see whether I'll keep 'em for good. entombed is kind of annoying when it isn't cross spawns though, while those bushes on arid are annoying as well.
On December 22 2011 13:47 XenoX101 wrote: First of all I'd like to just point out because I think its important that both posters below are in Diamond league, not to say this offensively as I myself am even in Diamond league, but it gives you an idea of where this apparent 'imbalance' is being recognized.
On December 22 2011 08:56 Sentient wrote: I can't figure out how Zerg is supposed to live on Arid Plateau (and I'm posting this as a Protoss player!). I haven't lost a PvZ here yet doing the most derp strategy (after sentry expand, it's not even all in!). Exhibit:
~10 minute attack with +1 sentry stalker and scouting observer. Forcefields make it a total clusterf--- for the Zerg and almost impossible. A few people have put down spine crawlers there, but the bushes make the crawler useless without an overlord...which the stalkers can just snipe. Ordinarily a standard amount of roach ling with crawlers would crush this attack, but the positioning is so laughable.
Am I missing something? Is Zerg's only option to all in counter attack (which is pretty easy to defend with wall + cannon)?
On December 22 2011 05:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: I played some games today and noticed that 2 rax is incredibly broken on Entombed Valley. Here are some bunker placements I discovered:
1 Ignore the bunker at the ramp as it's not really the important part. Now you can optionally start the bunker at the top left and trap a marine inside first, or you can just make the two bunkers next to the rocks and have a marine behind them. I'm not really sure that the first bunker is necessary, but either way the two at the rock are insanely good. Note: these form a full wall.
Creep really doesn't spread to the ramp fast enough, so it's possible to hop bunkers into range of the hatchery with the bunker at the ramp or near there. One advantage to this positioning is that spine crawlers really cant deal with it effectively compared to bunkering the bottom of the ramp, as the creep isn't close enough.
2 This second placement is possibly even better Here you can tuck many marines in the pocket and hop a bunker immediately in range of the hatchery. This placement makes reinforcement incredibly easy and it's very hard to engage these bunkers without multiple spine crawlers. Conveniently this placement also makes it fairly difficult for a zerg to cut off reinforcements.
3 This placement is not particularly great, as it is not in range of the hatchery and is fairly far from reinforcements and the main ramp, but it's possible to bunker hop or just micro back and forth from the bunkers. The main problem is that these bunkers are very likely to finish and possibly even get up without a zerg seeing them if the overlord is spotting for other positions. Note: these bunkers form a full wall.
4 This placement is superior to the previous one, although it's possible that creep will already be there unless it is an 11/11 rax or the zerg did not hatch first. These bunkers form a tight wall making it hard to stop both of them with drones and they are in range of both the hatchery and the ramp. Reinforcement distance is not very far.
One of the biggest problems I see here is that there are simply so many good bunker placements that a single overlord will not spot all of them, nor will a drone patrolling deal with them all. There's also obviously the usual double bunker at the bottom of the ramp that works like any other ladder map. Between these glaring problems, the close horizontal positions for tank pushes, the choke below the natural for tank pushes, and the ease of Terran or Protoss expanding, I think all zerg players should seriously consider vetoing this map immediately. These bunker placements are also potentially useful in TvP, so they're worth learning for any Terran player.
Secondly, regarding favourable positions and means of exploitation, does anyone remember the initial impressions of crossfire being such a P favoured map because of forcefields, and how it turned out to be 60% Z favoured map because of the good choices of engagements and strength of muta play? Remember when people first started doing the 3 bunker contain in TvZ on Shakuras and people whined that it was too effective? Even now we're seeing bunker rushes in between gas geysers that korean players are still managing to beat. Lets see firstly if these are even solid builds before going further, and then even if they are let the metagame shift and see what people come up with to counter them, because this shit happens all the time with maps. In 99% of cases you can't take a few days of playing on a map as 'proof' that something is imbalanced, it does a huge disservice to the complexity of the map and the metagame and how closely they're intertwined.
Well said.
Anyone remember Xel'Naga? It was the weirdest, ugliest map anyone had seen. But then it became one of the best balanced and most interesting maps. Until recently, of course, with the 1-1-1 all-in and such xD.
On December 22 2011 08:56 Sentient wrote: I can't figure out how Zerg is supposed to live on Arid Plateau (and I'm posting this as a Protoss player!). I haven't lost a PvZ here yet doing the most derp strategy (after sentry expand, it's not even all in!). Exhibit:
~10 minute attack with +1 sentry stalker and scouting observer. Forcefields make it a total clusterf--- for the Zerg and almost impossible. A few people have put down spine crawlers there, but the bushes make the crawler useless without an overlord...which the stalkers can just snipe. Ordinarily a standard amount of roach ling with crawlers would crush this attack, but the positioning is so laughable.
Am I missing something? Is Zerg's only option to all in counter attack (which is pretty easy to defend with wall + cannon)?
You can make that wall with two forcefields, not three, making it worse.
I had high hopes for entombed (even though arid was instant veto for me preferring FFE style but i guess they have been shot down.
On December 22 2011 14:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Anyone remember Xel'Naga? It was the weirdest, ugliest map anyone had seen. But then it became one of the best balanced and most interesting maps. Until recently, of course, with the 1-1-1 all-in and such xD.
On December 22 2011 10:46 LuckyFool wrote: both maps are utter trash. I played 1 game on each just to confirm how retarded they were. Yup.
What didn't you like about them?
The mains on the 4 player map are ridiculously small first of all. the 2 player map is really horrible though because of random backdoor/2nd entrance into nat. makes it impossible to do greedy builds, its sort of like xel naga but almost worse. also the map itself is so bland it just looks awful.
This is kinda sad.. the two maps they removed for the new ones were actually better.. TvZ is free win for the terran on both the new maps if he decides to go 2 rax and bunker rush, so they are both insta veto'es for a laddering zerg. Even if they were decent they are not playable in ladder with so many abuseable bunker spots.
The first map, Arid Plateau, seems cool if you're Zerg. If you try to set your mainbase on the other platform with rocks and destroy them seige tanks and forcefields wont hurt you as much since your lings can just run the other way out And you can defend the gold easyer i think.
Aswell as having overlords in the middle of the map who cant get killed unless the enemy got something flying for it
Also it feels like nydrusnetworks lategame could be really good because t/p cant get the mapvision up cliffs and stuff if they expand. Im in plat tho so don't trust me ))
I know most people on TL don't care about team games, but does anyone else think that the 2v2 map pool is the worst it's ever been?
In solo, people sometimes complain about maps where it's too hard to take a 3rd or 4th.
In the current 2v2 map pool, there are so many maps where there is only one natural expansion between each team that you can't even veto all of them. The "natural" expansion for the other player on the team is so far away and hard to defend that it's like taking a 4th on most solo maps.
But really, you can't even expand at all because almost every map has backdoor rocks into the main, so you can't rely on the cost efficiency of static defense to defend an expansion against a team that's playing on one base.
I thought Entombed Valley was an interesting map for macro games. Surely, this map was designed for a bit longer games since your spawn and 2 expos are grouped up into a similar horizontal plane (a.k.a. ramped off).
But the weirdness I've been encountering is the small and narrow choke between your natural and the ideal 3rd. The rocks there are a great idea, but the width of this choke becomes annoying in a long game. In my opinion, they should have turned the 3rd base mineral patches 180 degrees in order to allow this choke to be wider.
I don't get how any zerg could veto Arid, it's obviously the most zerg favored map in the ladder so far. You can harass toss and terran to oblivion because of the nat, and what can a terran do? bunker rush? Not if you go 14/14 he can't. Hellions? An extra spine or 2 roaches, boom, you're safe on 2 base and he can keep dreaming of getting a nat up. The rush distance is humongous.
On December 22 2011 17:12 Xolo wrote: I know most people on TL don't care about team games, but does anyone else think that the 2v2 map pool is the worst it's ever been?
In solo, people sometimes complain about maps where it's too hard to take a 3rd or 4th.
In the current 2v2 map pool, there are so many maps where there is only one natural expansion between each team that you can't even veto all of them. The "natural" expansion for the other player on the team is so far away and hard to defend that it's like taking a 4th on most solo maps.
But really, you can't even expand at all because almost every map has backdoor rocks into the main, so you can't rely on the cost efficiency of static defense to defend an expansion against a team that's playing on one base.
Totaly agree, the only map that have a proper natural is Scorched Haven, the others favors 1-base all ins.
.... As someone who is playing mostly ladder I'm so disappointed with the way Blizzard deals with maps. I just want a lot of maps, maybe like 15, they can just give more down votes. It is just so boring to play the same maps all the time without any good reason to do that. They aren't perfectly balanced and Blizzard always adds terrible maps every season, so I don't get it why they just don't add some random community maps to the pool and if they turn terrible, people can just remove them. Is it so hard? I don't see a worse map than delta quadrant or scrap station being added any time soon anyway.
On December 22 2011 17:12 Xolo wrote: I know most people on TL don't care about team games, but does anyone else think that the 2v2 map pool is the worst it's ever been?
In solo, people sometimes complain about maps where it's too hard to take a 3rd or 4th.
In the current 2v2 map pool, there are so many maps where there is only one natural expansion between each team that you can't even veto all of them. The "natural" expansion for the other player on the team is so far away and hard to defend that it's like taking a 4th on most solo maps.
But really, you can't even expand at all because almost every map has backdoor rocks into the main, so you can't rely on the cost efficiency of static defense to defend an expansion against a team that's playing on one base.
The 2v2 maps are bad. They favour all-in play way too much and make it so damn hard to play macro. I mean... in one of them the main has 2 backdoor rocks.... 2!!
The best one I think atm is the one with a natural in between the two mains at the back
On December 22 2011 17:12 Xolo wrote: I know most people on TL don't care about team games, but does anyone else think that the 2v2 map pool is the worst it's ever been?
In solo, people sometimes complain about maps where it's too hard to take a 3rd or 4th.
In the current 2v2 map pool, there are so many maps where there is only one natural expansion between each team that you can't even veto all of them. The "natural" expansion for the other player on the team is so far away and hard to defend that it's like taking a 4th on most solo maps.
But really, you can't even expand at all because almost every map has backdoor rocks into the main, so you can't rely on the cost efficiency of static defense to defend an expansion against a team that's playing on one base.
The 2v2 maps are bad. They favour all-in play way too much and make it so damn hard to play macro. I mean... in one of them the main has 2 backdoor rocks.... 2!!
The best one I think atm is the one with a natural in between the two mains at the back
Even in that one, sure you get one nice expo, and that's great for the player that takes it. But the other player on the team doesn't even really get a natural expo.
On December 23 2011 21:10 DarQraven wrote: As with every single "New maps" discussion, this has quickly turned into the "I lost a game on this map and I will vent my frustration here" thread.
The SC2 community never disappoints.
Curious that Metalopolis's comeback was applauded and praised, even though it's just as imbalanced as Arid Plateau (albeit the other way).
On December 22 2011 17:12 Xolo wrote: I know most people on TL don't care about team games, but does anyone else think that the 2v2 map pool is the worst it's ever been?
In solo, people sometimes complain about maps where it's too hard to take a 3rd or 4th.
In the current 2v2 map pool, there are so many maps where there is only one natural expansion between each team that you can't even veto all of them. The "natural" expansion for the other player on the team is so far away and hard to defend that it's like taking a 4th on most solo maps.
But really, you can't even expand at all because almost every map has backdoor rocks into the main, so you can't rely on the cost efficiency of static defense to defend an expansion against a team that's playing on one base.
The 2v2 maps are bad. They favour all-in play way too much and make it so damn hard to play macro. I mean... in one of them the main has 2 backdoor rocks.... 2!!
The best one I think atm is the one with a natural in between the two mains at the back
The 2v2 map pool isn't great, but the 3v3 one is simply terrible. Whenever I play with friends we always end up arguing over which ones to veto, but there aren't enough votes. Multiple entry points to individual bases? Individual bases with ramps that take 2 depots and 2 rax to wall? Maps you can siege/cannon the mains of from low ground using overlords? All terrible ideas. Sort it out.
On December 23 2011 21:10 DarQraven wrote: As with every single "New maps" discussion, this has quickly turned into the "I lost a game on this map and I will vent my frustration here" thread.
The SC2 community never disappoints.
Curious that Metalopolis's comeback was applauded and praised, even though it's just as imbalanced as Arid Plateau (albeit the other way).
Anyway I'm not really complaining much about Arid. It certainly has areas which can be exploited early game, but after that there are plenty of expansions you can take comfortably with the option of counter attacks on your opponents third. Really enjoyable games so far as well.
Don't have anything positive to say about Entombed though.
On December 22 2011 16:47 Rizell wrote: This is kinda sad.. the two maps they removed for the new ones were actually better.. TvZ is free win for the terran on both the new maps if he decides to go 2 rax and bunker rush, so they are both insta veto'es for a laddering zerg. Even if they were decent they are not playable in ladder with so many abuseable bunker spots.
I dont see why it would be any more of a free win if you bunker rush than any other map?
Arid Plateau is a joke and vetoed, the other map is OK.
Arid Plateau looks like one of their 'experiment' maps, but I don't get why you'd feel the need to experiment with stuff that clearly isn't going to work. It just looks pretty bad.
Other one is probably gonna be fine, and I'm happy with the removal choices.
On December 23 2011 23:22 Eraserhead wrote: "oh no, Blizzard made a map where i'll have to play a little bit differently than the other maps, fuck blizzard" booohooo
idiots
Blizzard gives us maps we dont want .... and refuses to give us maps that are already made that we DO want
On December 23 2011 23:22 Eraserhead wrote: "oh no, Blizzard made a map where i'll have to play a little bit differently than the other maps, fuck blizzard" booohooo
idiots
Blizzard gives us maps we dont want .... and refuses to give us maps that are already made that we DO want
who's the idiots ?
The people who constantly whine, and keep playing anyways.
Jesus these maps are really bad for zerg, only played them a few times but I always got rushed on those maps. They are a fucking joke for zerg and are imbalanced as fuck, anyone that disagrees is either too stupid or doesnt understand the flanking possibilities and positioning that are broken on these maps.
i love how people lose 1 or 2 games on a new map and they instantly vetoe it saying its a shitty map. not even once thinking it might be that you just got outplayed and lost to a rush/timing push.
imho you would have to playe atleast 6+ games with heavy replay analysis on new maps before you can call it balanced or imbalanced for a certain race. playing 1 game and instantly vetoing it just because you lost is stupid as hell. especially if you dont even try to adapt your playstyle on said new map.
BTW, from my own experiences arid plateu is very zerg favored, especially late game. entombed however there are to many fucking rocks (at first i thought there werent so many but there fucking everywhere). im a person that likes to just plop down expos as zerg so any time there are rocks blocking an expo i rage my ass off. other then the rock problem expansions are fairly easy to take. i just really hate rocks....
I didnt even play the new maps I insta vetoed them as they are clearly bad maps (especially arid plateau - i mean WTF?!?!) Blizz starts going on my nerves with their refusal to implement good maps like some of those from GSL or ICCup. Instead they fail with map creation from season to season again... as they fail with balancing marines and MULEs. GSL has even removed gold minerals from their maps as MULEs on gold are simply a joke towards every RTS player.
btw: the best thing about all this is that the maps which have been removed have always been the new maps of the last season. obvious troll is obvious...
Erghh, anyone who hasnt played 10+ games on the new maps shouldnt be saying anything. The people who instantly vetoed the maps without even ever playing them should DEFINITELY not be saying anything
On December 23 2011 23:22 Eraserhead wrote: "oh no, Blizzard made a map where i'll have to play a little bit differently than the other maps, fuck blizzard" booohooo
idiots
Blizzard gives us maps we dont want .... and refuses to give us maps that are already made that we DO want
who's the idiots ?
The people who constantly whine, and keep playing anyways.
We're not allowed to like the game but dislike the maps and certain other elements? I find that if anyone complains about anything it's considered "whining".
One of the benefits of the base structure on Entombed are baneling landmines on the ramps. I've had so much fun with that!
However, the bunker rushes I just looked at are scary enough to warrant a veto, and the distance between the main and natural on Arid is way too big. Does a 9 overlord even get there in time to spot an 11/11 bunker rush?
On December 23 2011 23:22 Eraserhead wrote: "oh no, Blizzard made a map where i'll have to play a little bit differently than the other maps, fuck blizzard" booohooo
idiots
Blizzard gives us maps we dont want .... and refuses to give us maps that are already made that we DO want
who's the idiots ?
The people who constantly whine, and keep playing anyways.
We're not allowed to like the game but dislike the maps and certain other elements? I find that if anyone complains about anything it's considered "whining".
EPT![[image loading]](http://us.media3.battle.net/cms/gallery/DC1X3RN3MV621323728131743.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://us.media5.battle.net/cms/gallery/0UACOWJITJIH1323728260133.jpg)
but seriously i like these new maps, look nice :D
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UtGqVh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/thumb/1/17/109Koffing.png/200px-109Koffing.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/nFDyV)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/REApV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cache.gyazo.com/067db600e9abbf5c69199e73da5b1bb1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZsMAT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2eoyu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VgBpW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W6I9J.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/773/screenshot2011122100272.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1RgWl.png[)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2uIwu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pWd2l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4Pc1Ql.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VJPuYl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0x8Nk.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1w3uC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wafzc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B9JBA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aR9eB.png)
