EPTNew Maps for 2013 Ladder Season 3 - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kyllinghest
Norway1607 Posts
| ||
|
manyue
Bangladesh4 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
synd
Bulgaria586 Posts
| ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
| ||
|
DavoS
United States4605 Posts
| ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey781 Posts
 Like old fully plain age of maps. | ||
|
Insoleet
France1806 Posts
On April 26 2013 18:29 Sated wrote: Wow, Blizzard actually making some decent maps. I don't even dislike the one getting so many Thumbs Down that much, though it would be a lot better without that tiny pathway. I guess the good thing is that moving an army along there is going to be suicide against an opponent who is waiting for you at the other end, so it encourages people to be more active in taking map control. The removal of Daybreak and Korhal City also gives me two vetoes to work with! Yay! EDIT: In reference to the above post, my third veto is Whirlwind. Maps that size are ridiculous and simply shouldn't exist. They're silly. Are you crazy o_O Whirlwind always give the best sc2 matches o_o' lot of paths, counter-attacks available, xel naga not covering too much space... | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
Newkirk Precinct was actually pretty fun too The new maps, I mean, they are probably all gonna be interesting to try and play. Just judging from gut feeling / my stubborn preference of the same map over and over, the second map looks really weird and the third looks too big. But I like to test new maps and they all have a really cool look  On April 26 2013 21:37 Insoleet wrote: Are you crazy o_O Whirlwind always give the best sc2 matches o_o' lot of paths, counter-attacks available, xel naga not covering too much space... What paths? There is just one massive open space. The fact that there are two entrances to the expansion isn't really pathways for counter attacks. The map is just so ridiculously big which I feel force player down certain predictable pathways alot yet still some of them seem abit too strong. Would much rather see Whirlwind go than Daybreak or Newkirk. That being said, It's kinda ok that we only have one big annoying map, but the new third map seems pretty big too. But this is just my opinion | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3510 Posts
However Cloud Kingdom, is even better. Good new maps overall, it's nice to see experimental maps too. | ||
|
IcemanAsi
Israel681 Posts
The meta for such a small rush distance simply does not exist. So I don't want to go all 'Broken!' and 'IMBA!!#!', but as far as I remmber from the early days of 'steppes of war' Zerg doesn't do that great in those scenrios. But that was a LONG time ago, and even thou HotS didn't change zergs early game we do have very diffrent queens and unit and building timings are diffrent now. I'm actually for it, I just hope they throw a balance test version before they put it into the pool so we can fool around with it and see if it's actually still broken to have such close spawns. This is the one place I would add a new kind of destructiable terrain ( the bridge itself ) allowing one player to actually destory the bridge in mid-game. | ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
| ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:51 Emzeeshady wrote: As a player I am kind of sad. As a spectator FUCK YEAH! Hehe yeah, we've seen some reeaaally boring games in wcs Europe qual the last few days on that map, though I do feel it was abit the players "fault" more than the map, but good points still | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
Rosettastoned
United States107 Posts
Daybreak: cause its old as hell Newkirk: cause force split map is boring as hell Korhal city: cause its jusn awful Then we add in Map1: good Map2: scrap station 2.0 Map3: an even LARGER map with only ONE attack path that is EVEN smaller than newkirk... which will force split map situations... | ||
|
crow_mw
Poland115 Posts
Sad to see Daybreak go. Ohana, Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak are best maps we ever had and now all are removed 'because they are old' :<. | ||
|
asti009asti
United Kingdom6 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On April 26 2013 22:06 Rosettastoned wrote: So we get rid of Daybreak: cause its old as hell Newkirk: cause force split map is boring as hell Korhal city: cause its jusn awful Then we add in Map1: good Map2: scrap station 2.0 Map3: an even LARGER map with only ONE attack path that is EVEN smaller than newkirk... which will force split map situations... Well map 1 seems to be their: use all knowledge gathered to create a balanced map fitting into the current trends. Map2 is an experimental map. No watch tower and pathway that not every unit can pass it seems like Map3 is the hello low level players, play this map to enjoy huge fights. (since they removed the old one they need a new one, we will always have a map like this in the Ladder, thats why thee are Vetos afterall, so they can do maps like this for lower levels) So pretty much matches the pattern when Blizzard adds maps to the pool, unless they don't have time or do community maps. On April 26 2013 22:25 asti009asti wrote: just wondering why blizzard are not creating maps with the higher grounds near expos and mineral lines (e.g. smth similar to Lost Temple broodwar maps) to be able to drop tanks, mines there, use collosi, templars, spine crawlers, etc)? is the game that imbalanced that they think it will be hardly possible to defend this? Siege Tanks are fine, but Thors there pose a problem because they have damn good anti air for the time you can hit and outrange most stuff on the ground as well. But it would be possible if you avoid to put something there into thors range. (or the whole ledge in range of multiple spines) We had stuff like this on later bases but often it were half islands reachable by ground and they were used alot. Fell out a bit of style though on recent maps. | ||
|
Mentalizor
Denmark1596 Posts
*Naaaaw* Daybreak leaving the map pool... Any reason for this? | ||
|
VieuxSinge
France231 Posts
backdoors... backdoors everywhere... | ||
| ||
