|
4713 Posts
Tropical Bob, thanks for the replay, you raised some good points but I believe I can counter a bit.
While indeed in a regular game now where someone takes his regular 3rd the attack paths will be nearly the same distance and it is useful for pulling someone out of position, it becomes irrelevant in the late game when everyone is forced to take the middle base because of its defensive properties, if they where to take the top most or bottom most bases then basically the enemy then can stage attacks from one point into 3 other points.
And there really isn't a choice now a days, almost everyone takes his regular 3rd and later takes the mid base, the game play is stale in that sense since there isn't much strategic choice involving the map in that sense.
Now if you where to take the middle base as a 3rd, yes you get a bit more security for your natural expansion, and a more aggressive forward position, but you're sacrificing defensive potential, that base as you highlighted, can be sieged from 4 different angles, and it always blows my mind how no one exploits that fact and everyone always comes just from one direction or another. In light of that fact and given that no one takes the middle base until the late game, I don't see how this change impacts the map in a negative way, it opens up other strategic choices and counter choices.
|
Y'all are just being crybabies. The xel naga on daybreak was always a defensive position, Having your third there doesn't change that. I really don't see why people shouldn't still take the back third despite the normal one because it's very easy to push that base due to the 3 attack routes.
People on this site are never happy! Grow up, this isn't subway, you can't always have it your own deluded way.
|
On March 29 2012 13:43 TheButtonmen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 11:27 Mr Showtime wrote:On March 29 2012 11:09 Ares[Effort] wrote:
Blizzard is fucking stupid Since I would get warned/banned for making a comment like that, you could at least give us an explanation. They aren't doing everything right, but I don't see any horrifying news in my opinion. Blizzard editied the GSL maps to reflect their bland oatmeal style by adding rocks, mineral patches and geysers to expansions.
Well then...... Blizzard is fucking stupid.
|
People keep complaining lol.. I'm happy.
Remember steppes of war and delta quadrant? at least we are moving in the right direction
|
|
|
Why do people hate metropolis? Looks like a fun map...
|
On March 29 2012 10:51 Misanthrope wrote:
Metropolis is just ugly. Reminds me of the map they put in a long time ago that looked almost exactly like it and was only slightly worse. They kept entombed? Wtf?
Slag pits... was that one?
The map is nicer and i think it doesnt have a siegable main.
|
On March 30 2012 06:37 dangerjoe wrote:
People keep complaining lol.. I'm happy.
Remember steppes of war and delta quadrant? at least we are moving in the right direction
Blizzard went from short rush distance maps with rocks at unnessecary locations and every expansion being bland and samey to long rush distance maps with rocks at unnessecary locations and every expansion being bland. I give them credit for at least progressing beyond the terrible rush distances now they just need to allow the maps to be interesting in other ways. Daybreak was an interesting map in that the expansions with less resources made you think about whether or not you wanted to safely take it or take the risk and take the full 4th which was vulnerable. Holding that location is already powerful enough without a full expansion being there making it a location with no negatives.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 30 2012 04:58 Aemilia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 03:27 Whitewing wrote:On March 30 2012 02:13 Aemilia wrote:On March 30 2012 00:52 Diamond wrote:On March 29 2012 23:20 Aemilia wrote:On March 29 2012 20:58 Ragoo wrote:On March 29 2012 20:56 CaptainCrush wrote:
Awful lot of whining in here.... I dont really see the big deal of making a 6min1g into a normal expansion. Grow up children, we at least get some awesome maps this season and we had a chance to vote for which ones we wanted! Their was barely any choice cos most of the GSL maps are horrible tbh. Dual Sight? Xel'Naga Fortress? what the.... I only liked Daybreak and they changed that unnecessarily... Have to laugh at some people. So if GSL maps are horrible, what exactly is a good map? Ragoo knows his shit. Just because it's a GSL map does not make it good. Examples include Crossfire, Dual Sight, Crevasse, Calm Before the Storm and many many more. There have been great ones as well (Daybreak) but at this point I think the GSL mappers are putting out more bad maps then good maps. Several points: 1) If your standards for good maps are that those are horrible maps then clearly basically every map ever made bar a tiny minority are bad maps 2) I think you're taking maps out of context from the time when they were made. When Crevasse came out it was about a million times better than most other maps in existence 3) Crossfire and Dual Sight take a lot of shit but Crossfire has produced many of the greatest games ever played in Sc2 including Nestea vs sC, Nestea vs TOP and Clide vs Tester. Another thing is that a lot of people whine that there's no unique maps but Crossfire is a genuinely unique map that requires it's own strategies and produces many great and unique games, but people still shit on it. 4) I mean no offence to ESV but by comparison to GSL your maps are barely played. I feel a lot of people bandwagon on all ESV maps and say how awesome they are when the majority have barely been tested in tournament play at all. People also confuse a map getting old/boring with it being bad. Taldarim Alter is the best map ever made. It's dull now sure because it's been around too long but that map was a gigantic leap forward for Sc2 and has produced countless amazing games as well as setting many of the standard every new map has. People shit on crossfire because there's an entire race (Protoss) that can't play well on it. Taking a third on that map is almost impossible unless you have a huge lead as toss. Tal'darim altar is in no way shape or form the best map ever made. PvP is awful on that map. Taking a fourth base is difficult, after you have your third expanding becomes very very hard, there simply is no logical fourth. Daybreak is a much MUCH better map. Siege tanks are way too good on tal'darim because of the design of the natural. Mutalisks are way too good on it because of how easy it is to bounce between the main and third. We don't care about when the maps were made, because what is relevant is how the maps perform now. We need good maps for today's games. Perhaps this is too hard a subject for you to understand. Think of it this way, July is not shit at Brood War. But strictly speaking, he's pretty bad right now. Taldarim Alter is not a shit map, it's actually the most revolutionary map so far in Sc2. The fact it's a bit dated doesn't change the fact that it has been a great map. Not to mention that when it was released, every PvP was 4 gate vs 4 gate. and Protoss have won games on Crossfire, not to mention that most of Crossfire's run was at a time when Protoss was losing on every map.
Perhaps this is too hard a subject for you to understand.
A map's quality is only relevant at the present level of play. A map that used to be good that isn't good now is not a good map. It doesn't matter how useful the map was at the time when discussing what maps are good now, it isn't a map that's good now, period. This entire thread is about what maps we'll be seeing going forward and what maps people want gone. Tal'darim has outlived it's usefulness and needs to go. Being the best map in a selection of absolutely abysmal maps at the time does not make it a good map, it just means it's not as bad as the horrendous garbage that fills the rest of the map pool.
Protoss only wins on Crossfire with one base all-ins and two base all-ins. Taking a third is impossible unless you've pretty much got a huge lead. That's a terrible map. Zerg can take a third on crossfire with difficulty, because creep helps negate the distance. Terran has a relatively easy time of taking the third with planetary fortresses, and it's hard for them too.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 30 2012 06:55 Sniperdadx wrote:
Why do people hate metropolis? Looks like a fun map...
No idea, it's a pretty good map.
|
Many might disagree, but I didn't like the idea of rich gas. It's kinda confusing to suddenly have only single 0.75 base out of all maps.
Instead, why don't Blizzard make 0.5 base =4m1g official? It is easy to understand, and plays similar role.
I think Blizzard can even include this "half-expansion" in tutorial and help so that even new players can get familiar with it.
Introducing more half expansion would bring interesting positional games.
My concern is that Blizzard doesn't do a good job of "forcing" players to know some map features. Some players are still unaware of no close spawns in Shattered and Shakuras. Introducing rich gas without any announcement at loading screen or something wouldn't work well. Don't expect everyone to watch GSL. Some people just play ladder, and get no information outside Battlenet 2.0. The game should cater to those people as well.
|
On March 30 2012 08:58 Orek wrote:
Many might disagree, but I didn't like the idea of rich gas. It's kinda confusing to suddenly have only single 0.75 base out of all maps.
Instead, why don't Blizzard make 0.5 base =4m1g official? It is easy to understand, and plays similar role.
I think Blizzard can even include this "half-expansion" in tutorial and help so that even new players can get familiar with it.
Introducing more half expansion would bring interesting positional games.
My concern is that Blizzard doesn't do a good job of "forcing" players to know some map features. Some players are still unaware of no close spawns in Shattered and Shakuras. Introducing rich gas without any announcement at loading screen or something wouldn't work well. Don't expect everyone to watch GSL. Some people just play ladder, and get no information outside Battlenet 2.0. The game should cater to those people as well.
If people don't play enough to know that Shattered and Shakuras have close spawns disabled, having the 4th base as a 6m1hyg isn't really going to affect them to be honest. They'll barely feel the difference.
|
On March 30 2012 05:19 Destructicon wrote:
Tropical Bob, thanks for the replay, you raised some good points but I believe I can counter a bit.
While indeed in a regular game now where someone takes his regular 3rd the attack paths will be nearly the same distance and it is useful for pulling someone out of position, it becomes irrelevant in the late game when everyone is forced to take the middle base because of its defensive properties, if they where to take the top most or bottom most bases then basically the enemy then can stage attacks from one point into 3 other points.
And there really isn't a choice now a days, almost everyone takes his regular 3rd and later takes the mid base, the game play is stale in that sense since there isn't much strategic choice involving the map in that sense.
Now if you where to take the middle base as a 3rd, yes you get a bit more security for your natural expansion, and a more aggressive forward position, but you're sacrificing defensive potential, that base as you highlighted, can be sieged from 4 different angles, and it always blows my mind how no one exploits that fact and everyone always comes just from one direction or another. In light of that fact and given that no one takes the middle base until the late game, I don't see how this change impacts the map in a negative way, it opens up other strategic choices and counter choices.
The strategic choice is there to take the reduced base as a third, though. Most people choose not to, I assume, because they feel like they can hold whatever possible split push and be rewarded with a higher income.
But now there's no real choice. Both bases yield the same income, but one is naturally more defensive in nature. There's no advantage to the rear one except in PvZ, where it's easier to wall with buildings and Force Fields.
|
I enjoy metropolis quite a lot, don't know why people are complaining.
|
On March 30 2012 09:22 Eee wrote:
I enjoy metropolis quite a lot, don't know why people are complaining.
Because 50%+ of all the games on that map is 5 base vs 5 base 40 min+ games.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 30 2012 09:28 VoirDire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 09:22 Eee wrote:
I enjoy metropolis quite a lot, don't know why people are complaining. Because 50%+ of all the games on that map is 5 base vs 5 base 40 min+ games.
That's what makes it awesome!
|
Metalopolis is still there. I'm disappointed.
Then again, it's Blizzard. I don't know what I was expecting.
|
On March 30 2012 09:48 Shinespark wrote:
Metalopolis is still there. I'm disappointed.
Then again, it's Blizzard. I don't know what I was expecting.
It may be stale, but it's a decent map. That's not where they went wrong here.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 30 2012 09:55 Mr Showtime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 09:48 Shinespark wrote:
Metalopolis is still there. I'm disappointed.
Then again, it's Blizzard. I don't know what I was expecting. It may be stale, but it's a decent map. That's not where they went wrong here.
It's not a decent map, it's awful >_<.
That's okay though, I have vetos for a reason.
|
Those are NOT the GSL-maps, GSL-Maps got neutral supplydepots and for example daybreak only 6Mineralpatch 1gas at middle base.
Those LE are just bad, why use the GSL-maps than anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
