|
On June 12 2012 23:43 Terrorcore wrote:I will veto the following maps : - Entombed Valley
- Shakuras Plateau
- Antiga Shipyard
Basically the same maps as last season for me. Surprised about the hate TDA gets from Zergs, I played most of my best games on that map. The rocks at the 3rd are a pain, which is why I believe it gets the hate, but I just plant my hatchery next to the rocks in case of a FFE and end up turning it into a macro hatch later on once the rocks are broken.
Yeah, I used to do that too, but is really hard to hold a 7/6 gate there, some times having 2 hatchs is even worse.
And ZvZ is TERRIBLE on this map, you have to go 14/14 almost all the time.
|
On June 12 2012 23:46 NasKe_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 23:43 Terrorcore wrote:I will veto the following maps : - Entombed Valley
- Shakuras Plateau
- Antiga Shipyard
Basically the same maps as last season for me. Surprised about the hate TDA gets from Zergs, I played most of my best games on that map. The rocks at the 3rd are a pain, which is why I believe it gets the hate, but I just plant my hatchery next to the rocks in case of a FFE and end up turning it into a macro hatch later on once the rocks are broken. Yeah, I used to do that too, but is really hard to hold a 7/6 gate there, some times having 2 hatchs is even worse. And ZvZ is TERRIBLE on this map, you have to go 14/14 almost all the time.
I usually open 14/14 against Z and then pressure.. which is probably why i'm used to it.
|
It is so incredibly frustrating to only have 5 maps in the pool unless you don't block three maps that are incredibly disadvantageous to zerg. I'd rather have 15 maps in the pool and 5 that I can veto instead of having 8 and 3 to veto.
|
Veto for:
TDA + Condemned + Antiga/Shakuras
|
On June 12 2012 23:31 Louis8k8 wrote:
#2 Entombed Valley. The third design is so toss favored in PvZ.
What does this even mean?
|
Probably TDA, Shakuras... maybe the new map depending on how it plays out, but they removed the rocks at the 3rd so that map does have hope.
|
On June 13 2012 00:01 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 23:31 Louis8k8 wrote:
#2 Entombed Valley. The third design is so toss favored in PvZ.
What does this even mean?
The current ZvP builds rely on denying the 3rd of the Protoss or at the very least doing multi-pronged attacks to do any kind of damage. This is impossible on Entombed.
|
On June 13 2012 00:06 RPR_Tempest wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:01 Shiori wrote:On June 12 2012 23:31 Louis8k8 wrote:
#2 Entombed Valley. The third design is so toss favored in PvZ.
What does this even mean? The current ZvP builds rely on denying the 3rd of the Protoss or at the very least doing multi-pronged attacks to do any kind of damage. This is impossible on Entombed.
By "the current ZvP builds" you mean 3base Roach, which is a pretty lame build to watch and to play against simply because it requires a very specific response from the Protoss and very minimal execution from the Zerg, on top of the former having very little room for error. I wouldn't mind this if it weren't clear that Zerg is totally capable (and probably even better at it) of playing macro games just due to the strength of Hive tech, specifically BL/Infestor compositions.
No offense, but if you're only winning when you deny a Protoss player's third, I don't think you understand the way the matchup works.
|
On June 13 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:06 RPR_Tempest wrote:On June 13 2012 00:01 Shiori wrote:On June 12 2012 23:31 Louis8k8 wrote:
#2 Entombed Valley. The third design is so toss favored in PvZ.
What does this even mean? The current ZvP builds rely on denying the 3rd of the Protoss or at the very least doing multi-pronged attacks to do any kind of damage. This is impossible on Entombed. By "the current ZvP builds" you mean 3base Roach, which is a pretty lame build to watch and to play against simply because it requires a very specific response from the Protoss and very minimal execution from the Zerg, on top of the former having very little room for error. I wouldn't mind this if it weren't clear that Zerg is totally capable (and probably even better at it) of playing macro games just due to the strength of Hive tech, specifically BL/Infestor compositions. No offense, but if you're only winning when you deny a Protoss player's third, I don't think you understand the way the matchup works.
I thought Entombed was considered a good PvZ map because of the way Protoss can expand all over his side while running circles around the slow Broodlord/Infestor ball. But I guess "My 200/200 roach a-move doesn't work! This map is so awful for Zerg!" is what you complain about when there's nothing else left. See the same guy's post about how bad the new map is because he might need to make units in order to take his third in ZvT.
|
Entombed until they get rid of close third spawns.
Ohana because it is just sooo small lol
My third veto is still pending, but it may be put on the new map if i find some really big flaw with the way it is set up. Otherwise i'll veto whichever map pisses me off first :D (will be between Antiga/Shakuras/TDA) TDA because seige tanks at nat are ridiculous.
|
On June 12 2012 23:18 Xlancer wrote:
Isn't TDA the most balanced map in the ladder pool? At least that's what the playhem stats showed.
The stats show perceived balance because it's a lottery/coin flip map, naturally over a large sample size a lottery/coin flip situation ends up yielding pretty predictable and balanced statistics.
If you flipped a coin 5000 times you'd get a relatively decent balance of results at the end of it.
It's a terrible map and people are foolish to think it's balanced based on those stats.
|
wow we've come to a day where the map pool is so good for zergs that they veto TDA :D
i remember vetoing it because of tvz
|
TDA, Shakuras and antiga
these maps are just really tough for zerg.
|
On June 13 2012 01:26 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote:On June 13 2012 00:06 RPR_Tempest wrote:On June 13 2012 00:01 Shiori wrote:On June 12 2012 23:31 Louis8k8 wrote:
#2 Entombed Valley. The third design is so toss favored in PvZ.
What does this even mean? The current ZvP builds rely on denying the 3rd of the Protoss or at the very least doing multi-pronged attacks to do any kind of damage. This is impossible on Entombed. By "the current ZvP builds" you mean 3base Roach, which is a pretty lame build to watch and to play against simply because it requires a very specific response from the Protoss and very minimal execution from the Zerg, on top of the former having very little room for error. I wouldn't mind this if it weren't clear that Zerg is totally capable (and probably even better at it) of playing macro games just due to the strength of Hive tech, specifically BL/Infestor compositions. No offense, but if you're only winning when you deny a Protoss player's third, I don't think you understand the way the matchup works. I thought Entombed was considered a good PvZ map because of the way Protoss can expand all over his side while running circles around the slow Broodlord/Infestor ball. But I guess "My 200/200 roach a-move doesn't work! This map is so awful for Zerg!" is what you complain about when there's nothing else left. See the same guy's post about how bad the new map is because he might need to make units in order to take his third in ZvT.
It actually just really peeves me when Zerg players argue that a map is imbalanced because they can't simply split the map with Spine Crawlers and then slow push with BL/Infestor, or when P/T players can actually secure a third before 13 minutes without metagaming. I understand that people want to win, but has it become so bad that only maps that you can take free wins in macro games on are balanced? Look at Shakuras. The only reason that map isn't Zerg city is because every Protoss worth his salt will 2base all-in and every Terran can just split the map with mech. If you took a look at standard macro PvZs on Shakuras that reach the 3-4+ base mark, I'd be willing to bet that Zerg takes most of them, simply because defending the third is awkward (though not especially difficult, usually) and because in a split map situation there's not much room to run around the Zerg death machine.
So what? Well, how come a map like Shakuras is thumbs-downed by Zergs because they don't want to play 2base all-ins, but a map like Entombed is also thumbs-downed because Protoss can actually take a reasonably timed third? If both sorts of maps were removed, what's left? Horrible maps like Metalopolis on which it's virtually impossible to ever take a third? This sense of entitlement has really increased since release, and while it may sound biased, it's primarily a Zerg phenomenon. No Protoss/Terran player asks for any particular features on a map other than the ability to take a reasonable (not necessarily early) third. That's really it. Zerg players, meanwhile, are fine with condemning Protoss players to Gateway expands if it suits them. I have no trouble with Zerg taking a pre-5minute third against me when I FFE. Yeah, it's some shady game design that this is the way the matchup works, but it's not fundamentally broken. I don't understand why Zergs won't extend me the same courtesy of actually being able to expand safely. 3base Roach is an abomination of design and is precisely the sort of build that should exist LESS in this game, not more. Maps on which it's more effective are shitty PvZ maps, because it's already such a good strategy. No further argument necessary.
|
I never thought I'd live to see the day when Taldarim was Zerg's first choice veto. Seems like just yesterday that Zergs were jumping for joy at the sight of it.
|
First i was baffled by antiga ... then i reminded myself that there is a gold in the middle here. Taldarim the same, then oh right rocks on the third. Don't worry i also know the real reasons (to lazy to adapt to the map)
My favorite 3 maps as Zerg are the top downvoted ones ... Just downvoting daybreak as zerg as its to easy to win there.
|
On June 12 2012 12:06 Masvidal wrote:
Why would Zerg ever veto TDA? Its freewin every time you draw a ZvP on that map.. Its Muta heaven and Protoss needs half their tech tree to wall off. TDA Zerg forever!
TDA is a bad zvp map lol. It favors toss in tournaments anyway. The fact toss can forge fe and be on even bases as the zerg for a long time makes it hard for zerg and taking a far away third is to dangerous.
From what I have read/heard to every pro zerg hates taldarim to (any coincidence that when drg got it he 6 pools? Same with nestea? they always seem to 6 pool on that map).
For the OP, entombed, TDA and shakuras plateau are my veto's. All bad maps that I hate playing on :D
On June 13 2012 02:07 Imperium11 wrote:
I never thought I'd live to see the day when Taldarim was Zerg's first choice veto. Seems like just yesterday that Zergs were jumping for joy at the sight of it.
Yeah kind of reminds me of when xelnaga used to be a good zerg map lolol. Good times
|
At this point, I don't hate any of the maps enough to veto them, so gj blizzard!
|
On June 13 2012 02:04 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 01:26 Toadvine wrote:On June 13 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote:On June 13 2012 00:06 RPR_Tempest wrote:On June 13 2012 00:01 Shiori wrote:On June 12 2012 23:31 Louis8k8 wrote:
#2 Entombed Valley. The third design is so toss favored in PvZ.
What does this even mean? The current ZvP builds rely on denying the 3rd of the Protoss or at the very least doing multi-pronged attacks to do any kind of damage. This is impossible on Entombed. By "the current ZvP builds" you mean 3base Roach, which is a pretty lame build to watch and to play against simply because it requires a very specific response from the Protoss and very minimal execution from the Zerg, on top of the former having very little room for error. I wouldn't mind this if it weren't clear that Zerg is totally capable (and probably even better at it) of playing macro games just due to the strength of Hive tech, specifically BL/Infestor compositions. No offense, but if you're only winning when you deny a Protoss player's third, I don't think you understand the way the matchup works. I thought Entombed was considered a good PvZ map because of the way Protoss can expand all over his side while running circles around the slow Broodlord/Infestor ball. But I guess "My 200/200 roach a-move doesn't work! This map is so awful for Zerg!" is what you complain about when there's nothing else left. See the same guy's post about how bad the new map is because he might need to make units in order to take his third in ZvT. It actually just really peeves me when Zerg players argue that a map is imbalanced because they can't simply split the map with Spine Crawlers and then slow push with BL/Infestor, or when P/T players can actually secure a third before 13 minutes without metagaming. I understand that people want to win, but has it become so bad that only maps that you can take free wins in macro games on are balanced? Look at Shakuras. The only reason that map isn't Zerg city is because every Protoss worth his salt will 2base all-in and every Terran can just split the map with mech. If you took a look at standard macro PvZs on Shakuras that reach the 3-4+ base mark, I'd be willing to bet that Zerg takes most of them, simply because defending the third is awkward (though not especially difficult, usually) and because in a split map situation there's not much room to run around the Zerg death machine. So what? Well, how come a map like Shakuras is thumbs-downed by Zergs because they don't want to play 2base all-ins, but a map like Entombed is also thumbs-downed because Protoss can actually take a reasonably timed third? If both sorts of maps were removed, what's left? Horrible maps like Metalopolis on which it's virtually impossible to ever take a third? This sense of entitlement has really increased since release, and while it may sound biased, it's primarily a Zerg phenomenon. No Protoss/Terran player asks for any particular features on a map other than the ability to take a reasonable (not necessarily early) third. That's really it. Zerg players, meanwhile, are fine with condemning Protoss players to Gateway expands if it suits them. I have no trouble with Zerg taking a pre-5minute third against me when I FFE. Yeah, it's some shady game design that this is the way the matchup works, but it's not fundamentally broken. I don't understand why Zergs won't extend me the same courtesy of actually being able to expand safely. 3base Roach is an abomination of design and is precisely the sort of build that should exist LESS in this game, not more. Maps on which it's more effective are shitty PvZ maps, because it's already such a good strategy. No further argument necessary.
To be fair, you don't see pro Zerg players complain about these things anymore. If you asked Stephano whether Entombed Valley was Protoss-favoured, he'd probably laugh in your face, because he can actually play lategame ZvP just as well as roach max. The complaining you see around these parts mostly comes from bad Diamond/Masters Zergs, who are still stuck in early 2011, where 3 base Protoss means an unstoppable deathball. So the timing push before hive tech that maybe kills a base and some units/spines in a high-level game, they simply lose to, and conclude that they must deny the Protoss third with their 200/200 roaches, and any map that makes this difficult is Protoss favored.
|
On June 13 2012 03:07 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 02:04 Shiori wrote:On June 13 2012 01:26 Toadvine wrote:On June 13 2012 00:09 Shiori wrote:On June 13 2012 00:06 RPR_Tempest wrote:On June 13 2012 00:01 Shiori wrote:On June 12 2012 23:31 Louis8k8 wrote:
#2 Entombed Valley. The third design is so toss favored in PvZ.
What does this even mean? The current ZvP builds rely on denying the 3rd of the Protoss or at the very least doing multi-pronged attacks to do any kind of damage. This is impossible on Entombed. By "the current ZvP builds" you mean 3base Roach, which is a pretty lame build to watch and to play against simply because it requires a very specific response from the Protoss and very minimal execution from the Zerg, on top of the former having very little room for error. I wouldn't mind this if it weren't clear that Zerg is totally capable (and probably even better at it) of playing macro games just due to the strength of Hive tech, specifically BL/Infestor compositions. No offense, but if you're only winning when you deny a Protoss player's third, I don't think you understand the way the matchup works. I thought Entombed was considered a good PvZ map because of the way Protoss can expand all over his side while running circles around the slow Broodlord/Infestor ball. But I guess "My 200/200 roach a-move doesn't work! This map is so awful for Zerg!" is what you complain about when there's nothing else left. See the same guy's post about how bad the new map is because he might need to make units in order to take his third in ZvT. It actually just really peeves me when Zerg players argue that a map is imbalanced because they can't simply split the map with Spine Crawlers and then slow push with BL/Infestor, or when P/T players can actually secure a third before 13 minutes without metagaming. I understand that people want to win, but has it become so bad that only maps that you can take free wins in macro games on are balanced? Look at Shakuras. The only reason that map isn't Zerg city is because every Protoss worth his salt will 2base all-in and every Terran can just split the map with mech. If you took a look at standard macro PvZs on Shakuras that reach the 3-4+ base mark, I'd be willing to bet that Zerg takes most of them, simply because defending the third is awkward (though not especially difficult, usually) and because in a split map situation there's not much room to run around the Zerg death machine. So what? Well, how come a map like Shakuras is thumbs-downed by Zergs because they don't want to play 2base all-ins, but a map like Entombed is also thumbs-downed because Protoss can actually take a reasonably timed third? If both sorts of maps were removed, what's left? Horrible maps like Metalopolis on which it's virtually impossible to ever take a third? This sense of entitlement has really increased since release, and while it may sound biased, it's primarily a Zerg phenomenon. No Protoss/Terran player asks for any particular features on a map other than the ability to take a reasonable (not necessarily early) third. That's really it. Zerg players, meanwhile, are fine with condemning Protoss players to Gateway expands if it suits them. I have no trouble with Zerg taking a pre-5minute third against me when I FFE. Yeah, it's some shady game design that this is the way the matchup works, but it's not fundamentally broken. I don't understand why Zergs won't extend me the same courtesy of actually being able to expand safely. 3base Roach is an abomination of design and is precisely the sort of build that should exist LESS in this game, not more. Maps on which it's more effective are shitty PvZ maps, because it's already such a good strategy. No further argument necessary. To be fair, you don't see pro Zerg players complain about these things anymore. If you asked Stephano whether Entombed Valley was Protoss-favoured, he'd probably laugh in your face, because he can actually play lategame ZvP just as well as roach max. The complaining you see around these parts mostly comes from bad Diamond/Masters Zergs, who are still stuck in early 2011, where 3 base Protoss means an unstoppable deathball. So the timing push before hive tech that maybe kills a base and some units/spines in a high-level game, they simply lose to, and conclude that they must deny the Protoss third with their 200/200 roaches, and any map that makes this difficult is Protoss favored. Free fast third for toss means that the push before broodlords (which kills most of zergs) will come faster and harder. Now you can at least delay third and force Toss to make some units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
