EPTPotential Ladder Map Changes - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
suicideyear
Ivory Coast3016 Posts
| ||
|
KiLL_ORdeR
United States1518 Posts
| ||
|
Dvriel
607 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 16 2013 12:53 monitor wrote: The maps suck either way, who cares. Seriously. I find it really problematic that this bid for "community involvement" is being used to legitimize Blizzard maps that have already proven to be bad. Like, did they waste time on a meeting where people were pulled together from their different departments to decide whether or not to ask the community whether or not to spawn limit star station vs just leave it as is? And what's more, these maps were already bad on paper. No one needed to play these maps to find that out. | ||
|
swordboy
Canada299 Posts
| ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
Regarding changes, I assume with destructable towers they mean collapsable rocks? If so that is a fairly nice idea imo. And I am always in favor of only crossspawns on big maps, or at least max 2 spawns, otherwise I feel it is just too coinflippy, if your opponent does a very greedy opening you either easily win by scouting him fast and punishing it, or you get unlucky and you don't scout it until it is way too late. Edit: wish I could reverse veto maps to play maps which are veto'd by many. | ||
|
asdfOu
United States2089 Posts
On May 16 2013 09:15 GHSTxJet wrote: How about just completely get rid of Klontas Mire forever. this. | ||
|
grs
Germany2339 Posts
Could it not be that players will show different strategies on different types of maps, if the tendency would stop to make every map basically the same? Wouldn't that be more interesting to watch? | ||
|
DusTerr
2520 Posts
On May 16 2013 08:22 Ragoo wrote: My humble opinion as a mapmaker and TLMC judge: If you can only make Star Station work in cross only then just remove it alltogether. All in all it's not such an interesting map to begin with so why bother limitating it so much just to somehow make it balanced when the whole layout is pretty shitty already. On the other hand I think David Kim is completely right about trying out more aggressive maps as well to make sure we have map diversity. For far too long people were whining that everything should be macro, but especially at the end of WoL we have seen how boring it is when you see macro 40 minute games every game. Diversity of strategies and maps encouraging that is important for the game so I absolutely support them when they say they want to try sth here. That Klontas will have a risky early game was always a concern I think that can only be clarified if pros play on it tho. There's a bunch of changes you could do not sure if Blizzard's approach with rocks makes much sense. I personally would rather remove some rocks at the bottom half and do some reworking there... Now that said I think ultimately Blizzard shouldn't do any mapmaking themselves and leave it all to the community mapmakers and the great people from GSL/Kespa. Hope to see some of the TLMC maps make it to ladder, it would be glorious guys, trust me  ^ great post. My biggest problem with KM is the high ground (and rocks) leading into the natural expansion. It makes it very difficult to defend the rocks without high ground vision while also allowing warp-ins. Just a little too easy for all-in play (but I do like the idea of aggressive maps). | ||
|
ThomasR
764 Posts
On May 16 2013 08:31 aksfjh wrote: Why do people just post map names and not give pictures as well 99% of the time on here? I can't tell if this is a good thing without 5 minutes of looking up maps... ? took me 5 seconds to google it and zoom in here's the website: google.com | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3265 Posts
I think the part that didn't work out as planned was that the bridge was supposed to encourage early-game rush strategies proxying reapers on the bridge is glorious), but then as the game got later you were supposed to be able to take control of the bridge and prevent anyone from moving through. But it's pretty hard to control ground that far from your natural, so you just get to walk through the bridge with your all-in army most of the time, because if they try to block the bridge and you walked around, you get between them and their base. So the destructible towers make plenty of sense to me; if you can move out, close down that attack path, and move home, then it's much easier to stop all-in armies from walking through that path. But I do think the rocks between the natural and the 3 o'clock/9 o'clock should be moved to the other side of that base. The map is obviously pretty rush-friendly anyway, so there's no reason to make the third base so inaccessible. And they want to avoid having two paths into the natural so fast expos are at all possible, but given the short rush distance and relatively aggressive bias, I don't see anything wrong with putting in a third base that's super defensible. Later on you're going to have to take your army around that direction anyway, so it seems fine to have to kill destructible rocks to attack your opponent's third. After that, I think the map's biggest problem will be lack of attack paths. How do you counter-attack? Across the bridge, I suppose, but that's fairly easily thwarted. What then? This seems like the biggest problem ZvP, especially since there's lots of small attack paths that are easily force fielded. Even so, I like that Klontas Mire exists. It's an interesting map that promotes a different style of gameplay, and when most of our map pool tends to follow very strict guidelines so that playstyles don't have to vary too much, it's nice to have a few maps that make you switch it up a bit. Sure in a year or so we might joke about it the way we joke about Steppes of War now, but at least it's a change of pace. You shouldn't always be able to do the same cookie-cutter build and keep winning without even considering the map. | ||
|
sM.Zik
Canada2550 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 16 2013 15:44 grs wrote: I don't like this excessive "every map must be the same"-thing going on. In a few months at latest we are going to complain that many games look the same again and again. A big part in this is the permanent complaining about every map that is a bit different (closer distance, hard to take third, etc.). Could it not be that players will show different strategies on different types of maps, if the tendency would stop to make every map basically the same? Wouldn't that be more interesting to watch? You can have interesting new maps that aren't imbalanced. It's seriously dropping the ball that the best Blizzard can do is to bandaid these ones. It's a joke that Klontas was announced as "tournament edition". | ||
|
gingerfluffmuff
Austria4570 Posts
How can a lackluster map like Scrap Station 2.0 make it even in the map pool? I will continue to 1 + 1 hidden rax reaper allin on this abomination. | ||
|
UltiBahamut
United States102 Posts
But i have klontas mire vetoed so i really don't care wtf happens to it. I will never ever play on it and if i do i'll just all in because its a horrible map :D | ||
|
grs
Germany2339 Posts
On May 16 2013 17:11 EatThePath wrote: You can have interesting new maps that aren't imbalanced. It's seriously dropping the ball that the best Blizzard can do is to bandaid these ones. It's a joke that Klontas was announced as "tournament edition". My point is: You can't have interesting new maps if you judge balance by the current metagame, because it depends hugely on the current maps. This just goes around in circles. | ||
|
Zerg.Zilla
Hungary5029 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20322 Posts
We know that most people think all 1v1 maps should be macro only and rush maps just don't work for tournament level play I disagree with this line a lot.. he takes people not wanting maps like this where certain all ins are unstoppable and thirds are close to impossible to take with people only wanting to "macro" "Macro" generally means something like safe expanding under the mutual assessment that if one party was to go all in, the other would probably be able to hold it and win, therefore best option is to expand, pressure, harass etc. A rush is not a rush if it is the only option | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 16 2013 19:59 grs wrote: My point is: You can't have interesting new maps if you judge balance by the current metagame, because it depends hugely on the current maps. This just goes around in circles. To an extent, you have to experiment. But in the case of Klontas for example, there are inherent problems that you can identify within seconds of looking at the overview that will prevent it from being a competitive map, namely that it's hugely anti-zerg in ways that are already well understood. It can't be an experiment because it fails before it begins. My point (though I admit it's not immediately apparent) is that our standards should be higher than to accept flagrant imbalance for the sake of novelty, and I am one who is staunchly in favor of novelty. The fact that Klontas is waved around in our faces like the path forward demonstrates the same old incompetence and hubris, and it'd be so easy to dispel by sourcing maps from the community. | ||
|
juicyjames
United States3815 Posts
Updated - 5:00 pm PDT - 5/17/2013: Star Station spawn positions have been updated. Players will now only spawn diagonally while playing on Star Station. No changes have been made to Klontas Mire; however, we will continue to monitor your feedback surrounding potential changes. | ||
| ||
