EPTBlizzard updates Condemned Ridge! - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DarKcS
Australia1237 Posts
| ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
 | ||
|
CrtBalorda
Slovenia704 Posts
Idk why there need to be rocks and watch towers and useless grass on every map for no reason, instead of being unique to a few maps so its way more exiting. Besides the only one of these that even have inpact on gameplay are the rocks. Grass and watchtowers could also have impact if blizzard went a little fancy with them, but they dont, which is sad. I hope in the future destructible anything will be as unique to a map as it was in brood war and watch towers, grass and collapsable rocks only add to that. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On June 12 2012 21:46 CrtBalorda wrote: The game shoudnt be balanced by having rocks at the 3d all the time. And I thought zerg was suposed to be up one base vs the other races. Zerg was supposed to be up one TOWN HALL vs the other races, because it's a production facility. There should not be a god-given right to 50% more income. | ||
|
s3rp
Germany3192 Posts
On June 12 2012 21:46 CrtBalorda wrote: The game shoudnt be balanced by having rocks at the 3d all the time. And I thought zerg was suposed to be up one base vs the other races. Well if thats not true blizzard should balance that with the races not by fing rocks. Idk why there need to be rocks and watch towers and useless grass on every map for no reason, instead of being unique to a few maps so its way more exiting. Besides the only one of these that even have inpact on gameplay are the rocks. Grass and watchtowers could also have impact if blizzard went a little fancy with them, but they dont, which is sad. I hope in the future destructible anything will be as unique to a map as it was in brood war and watch towers, grass and collapsable rocks only add to that. Base doesn't mean income up. Three Base income against two will put the Zerg ahead. If there's no risk involved with taking and saturating a third mining base Zerg will just be at an advantage. | ||
|
TheDraken
United States640 Posts
i don't know what to be mad at anymore... | ||
Cosmos
Belgium1077 Posts
On June 12 2012 08:56 Daedra wrote: Instead there will be destructible stones Thanks, made my day. | ||
|
pallad
Poland1958 Posts
On June 12 2012 09:35 sluggaslamoo wrote: Only took them 2 years ... Posts like this make me sick..why you complain ? , you complain after good decission ? What 2 year... its new map.. Blizzarda haters start to piss me offf really hard..I understand complain after bad decission..but after good one ? | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On June 12 2012 21:04 s3rp wrote: Probably because anything else is an autoloss against Zerg . There's no safe build that works in TvZ . Please don't turn this thread into balance QQ. | ||
|
Shadow_Dog
Canada427 Posts
| ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On June 12 2012 21:42 Iyerbeth wrote: Oh, I could keep my Lings nibbling on rocks on thirds for years. Now I'll have to buy them all chew toys or something. *Pulls up depots to protect the marines behind them* Don't nibble my units! | ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
| ||
|
Resonance
Canada113 Posts
"You know what? Let's make it look like we're taking out rocks. Then put them back in as a group of rocks. That's right. a destructible debris field, so I screw zergs over even more >:D" I like this change =D | ||
|
FakeDeath
Malaysia6060 Posts
Now this map is actually playable for zergs with those rocks gone.=) | ||
|
blamekilly
466 Posts
This will be the first map for me to veto. Actually, it would probably be easier to just switch to zerg, with how strong they are now. They'll probably be even stronger in HOTS. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2594 Posts
Please keep the constructive feedback coming so that we can continue to improve your playing experience. Thank you." | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
| ||
|
Janko
Slovenia28 Posts
| ||
|
CodECleaR
United States395 Posts
| ||
|
Andre
Slovenia3523 Posts
Destructible rocks are an odd 'tool' to balance the game, but somewhat it works... Dunno what to think of the change. | ||
| ||
