|
On June 09 2012 02:52 avc wrote:
To all you Protoss players thinking the rocks are fine, imagine a map where you cannot possibly FFE due to an ultra wide ramp making it impossible to wall off.
It would also be wise for many of you to remember that Zerg needs to be one base ahead of their opponent in most situations.
If a Terran or Protoss fast expands, then Zerg needs to take a fast third or two base all in otherwise they are playing from behind. This doesn't mean every map should give Zerg players an easy fast third, but maps like Ohana and Metropolis offer sensible solutions to that issue by making the third harder to defend without making it impossible to take.
I really don't understand the problem people have with Korhal Compound, it's a beautiful map that plays well in every match up. It doesn't really seem to favour any single race too much and there are multiple ways to play it. Blizzard should really have added Korhal TE (which fixes some of the issues the LE map has) rather than removing it altogether.
It's also a shame to see Metalopolis removed when Shakuras and Tal Darim live on, both of which are far more flawed than Metalopolis ever was.
Not even removing the rocks will save the new map. The ledge behind the third is frankly broken for Sentry drops, proxy pylons and almost any other kind of drop play. No one will be holding a fourth on that map either unless it's a Terran with a PF + Tanks on one of the high ground fourths. We already have a bunch of three base only maps on the ladder (Entombed, Antiga, Ohana) do we really need another?
For all the complaints over Metalopolis and Korhal Compound, I've had those maps come up a surprising amount this season in the ladder, which suggests they aren't as unpopular as a vocal minority seems to make you believe.
We had those maps, it was called seasons 1 through 4.
In any case, I'm glad Korhal is being removed as 2 base allinning every matchup got stale (I play P) and I've had Metalopolis vetoed since like... Season 3 ish. The new map kinda looks like it'll function like Tal'Darim to me but we will see I guess. Wish they'd add Metropolis back instead of this weird new map, and I'm ready for Shakuras to leave the map pool as well.
|
Jesus with the rocks on the third, this isn't freakin' beta. If a player wants to expand 20 fucking times, let him; don't put rocks to limit legitimate decision making by a player (my PvZ FFE I look for Zerg to fast 3rd as a major decision point, wtf are rocks doing there?)
|
New 2v2 maps look pretty good excited to try them
|
Good to see them getting rid of two of my vetoed maps.
Frees me up to veto Condemned Ridge straight off!
|
On June 09 2012 04:01 las91 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 02:52 avc wrote:
To all you Protoss players thinking the rocks are fine, imagine a map where you cannot possibly FFE due to an ultra wide ramp making it impossible to wall off.
It would also be wise for many of you to remember that Zerg needs to be one base ahead of their opponent in most situations.
If a Terran or Protoss fast expands, then Zerg needs to take a fast third or two base all in otherwise they are playing from behind. This doesn't mean every map should give Zerg players an easy fast third, but maps like Ohana and Metropolis offer sensible solutions to that issue by making the third harder to defend without making it impossible to take.
I really don't understand the problem people have with Korhal Compound, it's a beautiful map that plays well in every match up. It doesn't really seem to favour any single race too much and there are multiple ways to play it. Blizzard should really have added Korhal TE (which fixes some of the issues the LE map has) rather than removing it altogether.
It's also a shame to see Metalopolis removed when Shakuras and Tal Darim live on, both of which are far more flawed than Metalopolis ever was.
Not even removing the rocks will save the new map. The ledge behind the third is frankly broken for Sentry drops, proxy pylons and almost any other kind of drop play. No one will be holding a fourth on that map either unless it's a Terran with a PF + Tanks on one of the high ground fourths. We already have a bunch of three base only maps on the ladder (Entombed, Antiga, Ohana) do we really need another?
For all the complaints over Metalopolis and Korhal Compound, I've had those maps come up a surprising amount this season in the ladder, which suggests they aren't as unpopular as a vocal minority seems to make you believe. We had those maps, it was called seasons 1 through 4. In any case, I'm glad Korhal is being removed as 2 base allinning every matchup got stale (I play P) and I've had Metalopolis vetoed since like... Season 3 ish. The new map kinda looks like it'll function like Tal'Darim to me but we will see I guess. Wish they'd add Metropolis back instead of this weird new map, and I'm ready for Shakuras to leave the map pool as well.
Metalopolis simply isn’t being used in tournaments anymore, and this map has some balance issues as well. (4)Metropolis LE is an improved version of this map that will see use in a future ladder season. (From OP)
I wish you would read the OP entirely.
Anyway, that new map sounds like Lost Plateau / Shakuras Temple to me.
|
On June 09 2012 04:01 tehemperorer wrote:
Jesus with the rocks on the third, this isn't freakin' beta. If a player wants to expand 20 fucking times, let him; don't put rocks to limit legitimate decision making by a player (my PvZ FFE I look for Zerg to fast 3rd as a major decision point, wtf are rocks doing there?)
Alot of zergs are complaining, but i think this map will play out like Taldarim almost exactly.
Mutas will be good, and they can either take a farther away third, or plop the third near the rocks untill they get the rocks dead. I dont think its a huge issue.
|
Rocks, do i really see rocks on a third base? Wow, wtf, im speechless. Either they remove them or it's a certain veto for me.
|
Ares[Effort]
DEMACIA6550 Posts
Blizzard you never seem to disappoint
|
On June 09 2012 02:52 avc wrote:
To all you Protoss players thinking the rocks are fine, imagine a map where you cannot possibly FFE due to an ultra wide ramp making it impossible to wall off.
I don't "think" rocks at third isn't all the bad. I summise that it isn't because nothing in the statistics of maps that do have rocks at the third suggest it is imbalanced.
So you can't do your normal bag of tricks. Adapt, play like you did in them other maps with rocks that you've got a 50/50 winrate on.
|
On June 09 2012 04:04 Tonttu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 04:01 las91 wrote:On June 09 2012 02:52 avc wrote:
To all you Protoss players thinking the rocks are fine, imagine a map where you cannot possibly FFE due to an ultra wide ramp making it impossible to wall off.
It would also be wise for many of you to remember that Zerg needs to be one base ahead of their opponent in most situations.
If a Terran or Protoss fast expands, then Zerg needs to take a fast third or two base all in otherwise they are playing from behind. This doesn't mean every map should give Zerg players an easy fast third, but maps like Ohana and Metropolis offer sensible solutions to that issue by making the third harder to defend without making it impossible to take.
I really don't understand the problem people have with Korhal Compound, it's a beautiful map that plays well in every match up. It doesn't really seem to favour any single race too much and there are multiple ways to play it. Blizzard should really have added Korhal TE (which fixes some of the issues the LE map has) rather than removing it altogether.
It's also a shame to see Metalopolis removed when Shakuras and Tal Darim live on, both of which are far more flawed than Metalopolis ever was.
Not even removing the rocks will save the new map. The ledge behind the third is frankly broken for Sentry drops, proxy pylons and almost any other kind of drop play. No one will be holding a fourth on that map either unless it's a Terran with a PF + Tanks on one of the high ground fourths. We already have a bunch of three base only maps on the ladder (Entombed, Antiga, Ohana) do we really need another?
For all the complaints over Metalopolis and Korhal Compound, I've had those maps come up a surprising amount this season in the ladder, which suggests they aren't as unpopular as a vocal minority seems to make you believe. We had those maps, it was called seasons 1 through 4. In any case, I'm glad Korhal is being removed as 2 base allinning every matchup got stale (I play P) and I've had Metalopolis vetoed since like... Season 3 ish. The new map kinda looks like it'll function like Tal'Darim to me but we will see I guess. Wish they'd add Metropolis back instead of this weird new map, and I'm ready for Shakuras to leave the map pool as well. Metalopolis simply isn’t being used in tournaments anymore, and this map has some balance issues as well. ( 4)Metropolis LE is an improved version of this map that will see use in a future ladder season. (From OP) I wish you would read the OP entirely. Anyway, that new map sounds like Lost Plateau / Shakuras Temple to me.
They're not adding it this season though which is what I was actually talking about. Good lord I didn't think I had to be as specific as a research paper when writing posts on this forum these days.
|
Awesome! Love the layout of the new map, and with Metalopolis and Korhal Compound out, I free up TWO of my three map vetos!
|
On June 09 2012 04:01 tehemperorer wrote:
Jesus with the rocks on the third, this isn't freakin' beta. If a player wants to expand 20 fucking times, let him; don't put rocks to limit legitimate decision making by a player (my PvZ FFE I look for Zerg to fast 3rd as a major decision point, wtf are rocks doing there?)
With this line of thinking every map should just be a big flat open area with as many minerals as you need.
Map design adds flavor, and gets people to do different things. Rocks are no different than wide/narrow ramps, close expansions, islands, and rush distances in this regard.
All are tweaked to add variety. And the variety between rocks at 3rds and no rocks has not produced any glaring imbalances.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On June 09 2012 03:24 ohampatu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 03:20 Diamond wrote:On June 09 2012 03:18 ohampatu wrote:
No.....
'.......................' Doesn't sum up shit, dont try to say it does. Just like i said a few posts above. Somebody 'known' making a post like that and the shitty zerg people will jump all over it It's about the map pool not the map, well sort of about the map. I have been changing the map scene in huge ways since beta, remind me why my opinion should not matter? For an insightful person, i dont understand why your questioning it. I gave every reason in my replies. If you want a reason its quite simple: Because you didn't put anything usefull. Like i just said..A mapmaker/high profile person making a post like that isn't anything. You didn't put a view point. But look at the first zerg who quoted you, he used your '................' to make a balance complaint. You words hold water, so when you decide to not use them effectively shit gets taken out of hand. edit: its also the reason somebody else beat me to reporting you, your second post should have been the only post needed, hopefully other zerg players wont quote you like the dude under your post thinking your making a balance complaint. It still amazes me 'community' people dont know how to act in a community
? Stop trying to start a fight, to be fair I quoted him for what he intended. The map seems to be going against a decent number of things we have learned about how to make solid maps all heavily influenced by the work Diamond and ESV are doing.
Im not Zerg, im not complaining about the map balance because of no easy third. But we have all decided that rocks on the third are bad because they limit strategies as opposed to creating them.
For example, in PvT there is the very cool fast third build style. With a 3 or 4 gate off of an FE into fast third then really quick upgrades and charge/blink with later AoE.
In PvZ, one of the ways to deal with 3 hatch fast max roaches is to take a quick 3rd in response, off of a sentry based army which wouldn't have the dps to kill the rocks (lets say zerg hides a third). Against muta based play, having to kill the rocks makes it very very hard to secure a third. Its not so bad on maps that don't have rocks, but the need to kill the rocks and any zerglings that try to attack, and the time it takes to kill the rocks all make it very difficult to deal with mutas into expand. This has been seen so so many times on Tal darim, so its only fair to point that out I think that diamond has a point when he posts the "....." post.
This map seems like something blizzard made a while ago and is just kind of putting out there completely ignoring the fact that:
1) the best maps, dont have rocks at the third
2) the most popular maps are for the most part community made
3) the community wants community maps in the ladder
4) the other maps that were introduced from tournies were play tested, then proven good then included again
5) Korhal was removed because of problems with the map that were fixed in a new edition that was ready for season 7 but wasn't used.
|
New map ruined by rocks on 3rd.
That's like a rule... how did Blizz not get the memo?
|
On June 09 2012 04:08 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 03:24 ohampatu wrote:On June 09 2012 03:20 Diamond wrote:On June 09 2012 03:18 ohampatu wrote:
No.....
'.......................' Doesn't sum up shit, dont try to say it does. Just like i said a few posts above. Somebody 'known' making a post like that and the shitty zerg people will jump all over it It's about the map pool not the map, well sort of about the map. I have been changing the map scene in huge ways since beta, remind me why my opinion should not matter? For an insightful person, i dont understand why your questioning it. I gave every reason in my replies. If you want a reason its quite simple: Because you didn't put anything usefull. Like i just said..A mapmaker/high profile person making a post like that isn't anything. You didn't put a view point. But look at the first zerg who quoted you, he used your '................' to make a balance complaint. You words hold water, so when you decide to not use them effectively shit gets taken out of hand. edit: its also the reason somebody else beat me to reporting you, your second post should have been the only post needed, hopefully other zerg players wont quote you like the dude under your post thinking your making a balance complaint. It still amazes me 'community' people dont know how to act in a community ? Stop trying to start a fight, to be fair I quoted him for what he intended. The map seems to be going against a decent number of things we have learned about how to make solid maps all heavily influenced by the work Diamond and ESV are doing. Im not Zerg, im not complaining about the map balance because of no easy third. But we have all decided that rocks on the third are bad because they limit strategies as opposed to creating them. For example, in PvT there is the very cool fast third build style. With a 3 or 4 gate off of an FE into fast third then really quick upgrades and charge/blink with later AoE. In PvZ, one of the ways to deal with 3 hatch fast max roaches is to take a quick 3rd in response, off of a sentry based army which wouldn't have the dps to kill the rocks (lets say zerg hides a third). Against muta based play, having to kill the rocks makes it very very hard to secure a third. Its not so bad on maps that don't have rocks, but the need to kill the rocks and any zerglings that try to attack, and the time it takes to kill the rocks all make it very difficult to deal with mutas into expand. This has been seen so so many times on Tal darim, so its only fair to point that out I think that diamond has a point when he posts the "....." post. This map seems like something blizzard made a while ago and is just kind of putting out there completely ignoring the fact that: 1) the best maps, dont have rocks at the third 2) the most popular maps are for the most part community made 3) the community wants community maps in the ladder 4) the other maps that were introduced from tournies were play tested, then proven good then included again 5) Korhal was removed because of problems with the map that were fixed in a new edition that was ready for season 7 but wasn't used.
Now these... These are all very valid reasons. Thanks for posting them. It a breath of fresh air among all the ridiculous whining.
|
On June 09 2012 03:03 ohampatu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 02:55 J_Slim wrote:On June 09 2012 02:52 avc wrote:
To all you Protoss players thinking the rocks are fine, imagine a map where you cannot possibly FFE due to an ultra wide ramp making it impossible to wall off.
Then I'd do a different build order. "Standard" is not the "Only" way to play. What this guy said. Id do a 1 gate expand  Simple enough. Why must there only be 1 opening that is viable? Zergs have just gotten way to used to 3 free bases. Take your 3rd in a vulnerable spot. Taking a 3rd that quick should put you at some kind of disadvantage.
Zergs have gotten used to 3 base openings because it's the only viable way to stop 2 base all-ins. Rocks at the 3rd work for Tal'darim because there is a massive ramp to the natural, and 2-base aggression is possible. Small ramp and rocks at the 3rd is just stupid.
|
I'd rather they get rid of tal'darim or Shakuras than Korhal... *sigh* At least metal is gone... they got 1/3 right.
|
God damn you Blizzard. How in hell is CK still around in the map pool?? At least tweak it so its not 80% PvT......
|
2v2 map pool... i wonder if blizzard purposely tries to produce horrible maps that are just either 1 or 2 base play only...
|
On June 09 2012 04:15 Mr Showtime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 03:03 ohampatu wrote:On June 09 2012 02:55 J_Slim wrote:On June 09 2012 02:52 avc wrote:
To all you Protoss players thinking the rocks are fine, imagine a map where you cannot possibly FFE due to an ultra wide ramp making it impossible to wall off.
Then I'd do a different build order. "Standard" is not the "Only" way to play. What this guy said. Id do a 1 gate expand Simple enough. Why must there only be 1 opening that is viable? Zergs have just gotten way to used to 3 free bases. Take your 3rd in a vulnerable spot. Taking a 3rd that quick should put you at some kind of disadvantage. Zergs have gotten used to 3 base openings because it's the only viable way to stop 2 base all-ins.
Come on now, you don't think this is a bit presumptuous? To believe that every strategy for a situation has been discovered and only one of them works. Really?
If this were true than every game PvT on a map with rocks would have been won with a 2base all in. Protoss would have figured this out, and the racial balance for those maps would have been very in favor of toss. But they aren't. They're still 50/50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
