|
juicyjames
United States3815 Posts
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8796361461?page=7#122
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.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8796361461
We have a discussion going on with the major tournaments around the world about making Star Station diagonal only spawn positions to make the map more fair in all the matchups. We'd like to get your feedback also before we make this change. One other thing on maps is there was a really interesting suggestion for Klontas Mire. This map is turning out to be really rush friendly as expected, but one downside was that it also encourages timing all in attacks. So the suggestion was to add destructible towers on the bridge area so that early game rushes are still possible, but all in attacks are delayed in the early mid game. We know that most people think all 1v1 maps should be macro only and rush maps just don't work for tournament level play, but we'd really like to explore map variety which includes trying out different versions of rush maps. -David Kim
Poll: Make Star Station cross-spawn only?Approve (276) 88% Disapprove (33) 11% Neutral-prove (5) 2% 314 total votes Your vote: Make Star Station cross-spawn only? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral-prove
Poll: Add destructible towers to the bridge of Klontas Mire?Approve (140) 59% Neutral-prove (63) 27% Disapprove (33) 14% 236 total votes Your vote: Add destructible towers to the bridge of Klontas Mire? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral-prove
|
Yes good post. I have no idea why star station isnt cross only.
|
...How do destructible towers delay midgame timing attacks?
What is Klontas Mire?
|
I'd rather remove Star station altogether. The third is atrocious for protoss to take.
|
They should just remove klontas. It's a nice effort to make a map that's not just "3 base, macro" but klontas is just another one of those idiotic "2 base all-in rush + 3rd base is ONE MILE AWAY" maps.
If they want to implement their concept well it should be maps with multiple attack paths, or special terrain features, like multiple ramps but short attack distance...something, anything other than "i just got to your base in 2 seconds" and "i can't expo past 2 base because my 3rd is all the way at the bottom of the map.
And 2 base rush maps should almost always be diagonal spawns not horizontal or vertical. That way it's more natural taking expansions.
|
On May 16 2013 08:09 -Kaiser- wrote:
...How do destructible towers delay midgame timing attacks?
What is Klontas Mire?
lol so you vetoed it too?
on point : fuck destructible stuff.
|
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 
|
I still say just remove that Klontas Mire POS. Adding rocks to the bridge and removing the rocks to make you able to expand downward easier would be nice if they were going to keep it though.
|
How about get rid of two mediocre maps?
|
What the hell is the difference between being "rush friendly" and "encouraging all-ins"?
|
remove klontas mire. much better
|
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...
|
|
|
About as long as it takes to put them in the OP...
|
Make a destructible bridge instead, so you can collapse the entire terrain bridge :3
|
Even tho it's kind of amusing to watch Protoss players rage when you get close positions as a Zerg, I think that non cross-only maps are pretty retarded cause it just makes early game a big gamble since you can't scout properly.
|
How about just completely get rid of Klontas Mire forever.
|
Just remove them. They're both terrible.
|
why can't the community vote on maps they want in the pool, created by talented mapmakers and not blizzard?
Then, the mapmakers can be paid handsomely if their map is chosen.
|
On May 16 2013 08:20 avilo wrote:
They should just remove klontas. It's a nice effort to make a map that's not just "3 base, macro" but klontas is just another one of those idiotic "2 base all-in rush + 3rd base is ONE MILE AWAY" maps.
If they want to implement their concept well it should be maps with multiple attack paths, or special terrain features, like multiple ramps but short attack distance...something, anything other than "i just got to your base in 2 seconds" and "i can't expo past 2 base because my 3rd is all the way at the bottom of the map.
And 2 base rush maps should almost always be diagonal spawns not horizontal or vertical. That way it's more natural taking expansions.
This. The game is quite silly for protoss right now. It's basically encouraging 2 base timings so you can avoid 3 base because of how terrible these maps are.
They REALLY, and I mean REALLY need to look to old Kespa maps for ideas on maps. I made a really long video on this a while ago and I'm quite sad I didn't highlight it. Maybe I'll make another video on kespa maps in the next week to highlight how amazing they were compared to what we're playing on right now. (attack pathing ramps etc)
If you don't understand how big of a deal this is simply think of this:
Protoss, Zerg, and Terran are all forced into certain play styles on certain maps. Moreover, these play styles more than likely favor one race over the others. If maps are not balanced well along each races strengths and weaknesses then you just end up with maps that completely favor one race over the other. You then step away from balancing the game and rely on maps to balance it(he lost map 1 so has to win map 2 cuz it favors him). However, blizzard is still here. They should not only be constantly balancing units, but the maps as well. They need to take this much more seriously considering it's some people's life and it matters.
|
I want more 4 spawn maps (for sneaky early eco plays), but Star Station is shitty for anyone not playing Terran if you don't spawn cross.
Klonta's Mire is just a bad map no matter what.
I would love to see maps that encourage rushing (to change things up), but there also needs to be viability for macro play. As such, maybe a 3 spawn map with short rush distances, the natural on low ground behind the main, and the third in the front similar to a natural, with a moderately open choke (so it's not TOO easy to take) and the center of the map could be a high ground area. Current ramps leading out of the natural go downhill to make it easy to defend the natural. If we changed that to going uphill (since this IS the third base), then there is incentive to at least maintain some control over the high ground area. That would be interesting. It would be natural choke, into more flat ground, then about half a screen width away from the natural (keep in mind this is actually the third) choke, we have the central high ground with a BIG entrance. And maybe it could be that there are 6 paths from the central area: 3 to the spawning positions, and 3 more to additional bases (4th, 5th, and 6th). We could even have additional bases on the high ground (or just before it), though I don't think it'd be a good idea. Like, if you want a balanced 1v1 individual league map for rushing, that's sort of what you have to go for, and it sounds so weird and has so many gimmicks and hoops to jump through. Better to just make good macro maps. Kids need to learn to macro anyway.
|
Just get rid of both maps and give the community mapmakers a chance to have their work represented on ladder.
|
Well the best option would be, like many people said, to have community or GSL/Kespa maps.
These changes would still be good though, I think both make a lot of sense. They would make bad maps mediocre if they work out.
|
On May 16 2013 08:09 Rainmansc wrote:
Yes good post. I have no idea why star station isnt cross only.
that map is freaking huge, why do we need cross spawned only? add some variations ffs.
|
I have a conflicting relationship with Klontas. On one hand, I really like the super narrow choke that is also the short attack path. On the other hand, it's hard to expand on it even without the attack path.
Also, thank you for adding the maps to the OP. 
|
Forced cross spawn for Star Station would be really nice imo. Idk why they want destructible rocks to prevent all-ins. Macro play is good, but not everyone wants that on every map. I have it vetoed, so I guess my opinion is null either way. 
|
Klontas is just horrid, they should just remove it entirely. I feel neutral towards Star Station cross spawns. I don't feel like it's too close. It happened with Antiga because there was positional imbalance, I don't feel like SS has this...
|
On May 16 2013 09:13 Zheryn wrote:
Even tho it's kind of amusing to watch Protoss players rage when you get close positions as a Zerg, I think that non cross-only maps are pretty retarded cause it just makes early game a big gamble since you can't scout properly.
Interesting. I've always preferred close positions on that map versus zerg. Feels like mid-late game is way easier because you can actually do colossi timings without vipers on the field, due to not having to run a marathon to attack a base, and obviously it's a lot easier to retreat if need be. As for early game... even though the third isn't the best, it sure as hell beats neo planet. At least you don't need to get into a car to visit your third, and colossi can utilize the main/terrain to defend the natural and the third.
As for Kiontas or w/e it's called, lol. I can't believe people have played it enough to have that much of a developed opinion on it. If you've played it once, it's about as automatic as a veto gets. I didn't even realize the map was meant to be taken seriously. Figured it was a joke or something. Also interesting.
|
I don't mind Star Station in its current form, but I can see how it would be really obnoxious. I think Klontas is a poor man's Scrap Station and that is saying something because Scrap Station is a map I look back on fondly, but I know in my heart of hearts it was a shitty map. If Klontas isn't gone by next season I will be pretty disappointed.
|
Klontas map seems little bit interseting, but i don't think many people play on that map.
blizzard should get rid of this and put some map from community map makers or use GSL/Kespa maps.
I know few people already mentioned it, but yes.
|
I don't quite comprehend, star station clearly broken in close positions. Blizzard does the sane thing in response and makes a move to remove close position. Pauses said move to then consult the community just to see if the vote would tip towards the disapprove side before making this obviously correct change. I don't know who they expected to vote no and why these people haven't been shot yet.
|
they might as well scrap Klontas Mire and bring back Scrap Station aka crap station if they want to add destructibles on the bridge
|
On May 16 2013 08:38 aksfjh wrote:About as long as it takes to put them in the OP...
Most anyone reading this thread is already going to know exactly what Star Station is and will most likely know at least that Klontas Mire is the crappy ladder map that everyone downvotes.
I think that experimenting with new map types is a fantastic idea, but it seems Blizzard finds it challenging enough to make good macro maps, so I don't have too much faith that we'll see a great tournament map that encourages more aggressive play coming out of blizzard.
|
The rocks aren't going to fix Klontas Mire, just remove the center bridge! 
Or move the map entirely :D
|
|
|
Klontas Mire is the new Steppes of War! =P It's funny how only the top half of the map ever gets used.
|
On May 16 2013 09:21 RogerChillingworth wrote:
why can't the community vote on maps they want in the pool, created by talented mapmakers and not blizzard?
Then, the mapmakers can be paid handsomely if their map is chosen.
Now THAT'S a suggestion. Though I'm sure it would bring in WAY too much extra hassle/bullshit to pay mapmakers, letting the community choose makes so much more sense.
|
On May 16 2013 08:27 IgnE wrote:
What the hell is the difference between being "rush friendly" and "encouraging all-ins"?
Exactly what I was thinking. Yet more evidence that David Kim has no idea what he is doing.
|
The maps suck either way, who cares.
|
Star Station is still an automatic veto for protoss because of third bases, and kluntas is still an automatic veto because it's fucking shit lol
Let's just replace them with 2 new maps plzzz
|
I hope neither return for next season.
|
Wish they put the new proleague and gsl maps in the map pool instead of shitty maps never seen in tournaments. Blizzards maps have always been shady though so i guess it's to be expected
|
The best way to improve Klontas is to...REMOVE IT!!!
|
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.
|
I have them both vetoed, so I'm fine with the changes I suppose.
|
Sadly we will never get any variety in SC2 maps because of what is shown clearly in this topic: every map that might be slightly different than the standard map and might mean you have to play a bit different than standard is automatically veto'd by everyone. Honestly I don't even know why blizzard still bothers, they might as well just only change map skins.
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.
|
On May 16 2013 09:15 GHSTxJet wrote:
How about just completely get rid of Klontas Mire forever.
this.
|
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?
|
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).
|
do any zergs even like klontas? the lack of counter-attack paths really annoy me
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
|
The bridge on Klontas is actually super interesting though. Clearly encourages rush play, but as late game approaches trying to push a big army through that thing is hell. Swarm host armies and air-based armies with a little ground support can push along there pretty well, but bio, mech, zergling/baneling, roach/hydra, zergling/infestor, zealot/archon, or colossus-based armies have to go around. It's a pretty cool mechanic imo.
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.
|
Star Station isn't too bad, with the cross-spawn only it would be decent. Klontas Mire though... Please just remove this of the map pool asap.
|
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".
|
Good changes on SS, but the other one:
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.
|
I agree completely with the star station play :D good change that is needed lol.
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
|
On May 16 2013 17:11 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +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".
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.
|
I vetod this map so it doesn't matter...
|
United Kingdom20285 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
|
-On May 16 2013 19:59 grs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 17:11 EatThePath wrote: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". 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
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8796361461?page=7#122
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.
|
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?
The problem is that Klontas Mire is the same as every other map. The entire dynamic of bases and armies are exactly the same except attacking is more effective.
If you want actually different maps, take a look at the Proleague map pool, where the maps encourage vastly different play.
|
I think a more interesting change to Klontas would be to make the bridge one tile wide to limit the specific units that can cross.
|
On May 16 2013 09:31 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 08:20 avilo wrote:
They should just remove klontas. It's a nice effort to make a map that's not just "3 base, macro" but klontas is just another one of those idiotic "2 base all-in rush + 3rd base is ONE MILE AWAY" maps.
If they want to implement their concept well it should be maps with multiple attack paths, or special terrain features, like multiple ramps but short attack distance...something, anything other than "i just got to your base in 2 seconds" and "i can't expo past 2 base because my 3rd is all the way at the bottom of the map.
And 2 base rush maps should almost always be diagonal spawns not horizontal or vertical. That way it's more natural taking expansions. This. The game is quite silly for protoss right now. It's basically encouraging 2 base timings so you can avoid 3 base because of how terrible these maps are. They REALLY, and I mean REALLY need to look to old Kespa maps for ideas on maps. I made a really long video on this a while ago and I'm quite sad I didn't highlight it. Maybe I'll make another video on kespa maps in the next week to highlight how amazing they were compared to what we're playing on right now. (attack pathing ramps etc) If you don't understand how big of a deal this is simply think of this: Protoss, Zerg, and Terran are all forced into certain play styles on certain maps. Moreover, these play styles more than likely favor one race over the others. If maps are not balanced well along each races strengths and weaknesses then you just end up with maps that completely favor one race over the other. You then step away from balancing the game and rely on maps to balance it(he lost map 1 so has to win map 2 cuz it favors him). However, blizzard is still here. They should not only be constantly balancing units, but the maps as well. They need to take this much more seriously considering it's some people's life and it matters.
I highlighted the problem here.
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks."
So then they decide to add rocks to the bridge "so that early game rushes are still possible, but all in attacks are delayed in the early mid game." What they don't understand apparently is that the rocks actually delay early rushes far more than early mid game all-in attacks, because the all-ins have a lot more units with them and come a bit later, meaning players will have more time and more firepower to take down the rocks, but the early pressure rushes won't have the time or firepower to take down the rocks, and thus must go the long way. In fact, by doing so Blizzard would make the map more all-in friendly, as early pressure is less likely, and thus won't throw people off their build order.
Maybe I am just crazy, but Blizzard seems wholly incompetent when it comes to balance and map making. They make decisions with reasoning that simply doesn't make any sense, and often makes the issue they seek to resolve worse (see above). Heads have needed to roll at Blizzard for so long.
But maybe I just don't understand, and if that is the case, I'd appreciate if someone could explain.
|
Okay, now seriously. Why the fuck is Star Station hated on so much? Obviously the third is harder to take than some maps...but it's seriously no where close to impossible, easier with structure walls.
What actual fucking facts make the map so bad that everyone hates it for seemingly no reason. Are close spawns 100% without a doubt BROKEN? If the answer is no then shut up already.
(And none of you stupid kids respond with stupid '55/45'ish claims or that it favors certain strategies..that's not broken lmao, 100% acceptable)
edit: Unless of course that's the reason, which I guess I can't get all huffy over, just because I accept such maps doesn't mean everyone does. Honestly just, genuinely curious why everyone hates it so much.
|
,_, klontas might as well be remade with the textures that made antiga shipyard and rebrand it as scrap station 2.
|
I always feel doing this is a band-aid to poor map design. It's better than leaving the map as it was, but the bottom line to me is that the map should never have been considered. I really like 3-4 player (spawn) maps but really dislike forced cross spawns. + Show Spoiler + an exception to this would be Crux Korhal Floating Island which is designed to play out differently depending on starting locations
I also really think KM needs some changes to the rocks/ramp going down into the natural.
|
On May 18 2013 15:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks."
Thank you, I was going to post to ask exactly that. Someone might need to explain it to me (maybe I just fail to see it because I'm just a lowly Plat/Diamond player).
Simply put, it's been more than 2 years since Sc2 came out, and my way of seeing things is that a map "that favors rushes" necessarily has short rush distances, and in turn maps with short rush distances will inevitably lead to strong all-ins. I can't see how it could work otherwise.
In other words, it seems like Blizzards can't get to decide between allowing fast attacks (what they call "rushes" and which they like because it makes bronze players able to attack before the 30 minute mark), and denying systematic all-ins (which is bad because bronze players who die to all-ins get frustrated after a while and stop playing). And, in turn, we end up with odd rush distances (just short of being Steps-of-War-esque), and with gibberish patch notes which look like they have been written by a 15 year old girl whose conscience is torn between staying "pure" until marriage, and having a night of torrid and barely legal sexual activities with her 16 year old lover...
|
On May 18 2013 16:28 Xylocaine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 15:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks." Thank you, I was going to post to ask exactly that. Someone might need to explain it to me (maybe I just fail to see it because I'm just a lowly Plat/Diamond player). Simply put, it's been more than 2 years since Sc2 came out, and my way of seeing things is that a map "that favors rushes" necessarily has short rush distances, and in turn maps with short rush distances will inevitably lead to strong all-ins. I can't see how it could work otherwise.
With collapsable towers, as proposed by blizzard.
|
On May 18 2013 16:28 Xylocaine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 15:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks." Thank you, I was going to post to ask exactly that. Someone might need to explain it to me (maybe I just fail to see it because I'm just a lowly Plat/Diamond player). Simply put, it's been more than 2 years since Sc2 came out, and my way of seeing things is that a map "that favors rushes" necessarily has short rush distances, and in turn maps with short rush distances will inevitably lead to strong all-ins. I can't see how it could work otherwise. In other words, it seems like Blizzards can't get to decide between allowing fast attacks (what they call "rushes" and which they like because it makes bronze players able to attack before the 30 minute mark), and denying systematic all-ins (which is bad because bronze players who die to all-ins get frustrated after a while and stop playing). And, in turn, we end up with odd rush distances (just short of being Steps-of-War-esque), and with gibberish patch notes which look like they have been written by a 15 year old girl whose conscience is torn between staying "pure" until marriage, and having a night of torrid and barely legal sexual activities with her 16 year old lover...
Short ground distances aren't the only way to allow rushes. But that terminology is really unhelpful. What does it mean to "allow rushes"? (As has been pointed out already.)
One thing for sure is that short rush distances are really bad for zerg, especially with otherwise "normal" map features like an easy to defend natural, and especially in zvt. It creates a situation where lots of degenerate strategies are open to one player but not the other, and you have to defend against unfair things that may or may not becoming. Which just amplifies the imbalance. If you try to "fix" this by providing other zerg-friendly features to "balance it out", it often messes up the other matchups, and you're really just creating a scripted environment where players don't get to choose their strategies.
The goal would be to have a situation where attack timings are possible but scoutable and defendable without taking losing amounts of damage, which effectively widens the playing field to let players show more overall interaction. And with more interaction comes more opportunity to gain an advantage through skill. Distance is a pretty blunt instrument for achieving this. (Although combined with other things, as attempted in Klontas, can be useful.)
A crucial point here is that certain map features can make little-used unit compositions more viable at certain timings, which has a cascading effect throughout a game which allows the midgame and lategame transitions to look very different than a standard 3base macro game. This is the most fertile area of "unconventional" map design but it's the hardest as well.
^ As an example, Cloud Kingdom was taken out of the ladder for HotS so it isn't widely seen with today's PvP, but has been used in some tournaments still. That map allows a lot more effective blink stalker pressure, which was a big concern during beta and early days of HotS, but is really a languishing opening these days, usually pulled out as a very specific all-in, mostly chosen blind (before any scouting would trigger it). But given some time, PvP is pretty stable against blink strategies and the early fear about MSC high ground vision + blink isn't as relevant in the matchup now. So on CK, you get games you would never see on the current ladder maps, where a player can use blink to pin their opponent and expand, old school. Going into the midgame when both players have 2 bases, this creates HotS games that play out very differently than what we usually see now because of the much heavier component of stalkers, which affects both players' transitions and engagement decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GGNpcOK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/g0446gJ.jpg)
