EPTInterview with TLO on the need for new/better maps - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
| ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 27 2013 01:26 ReachTheSky wrote: Just remember one thing. Smaller maps lead to more aggressive play which is ALWAYS more entertaining. Maps like whirlwind and that new map blizzard made are way too big and lead to boring gameplay. Yet whirlwind usually generates one of the best and action packed games. Especially TvZs. Maps that have easy to establish economy and are well splitable lead to boring gameplay though, see all those split map pfftfests on Daybreak and Akilon. | ||
|
Moonsalt
267 Posts
| ||
digmouse
China6331 Posts
On October 27 2013 01:37 Moonsalt wrote: I really like the idea to bring back the old terrain from Brood War for example a type of terrain where you can't build proxys at certain locations... Starcraft 2 needs more attention from map makers because everytime there are like only Terrans/Zergs/Protosses in the semifinals they tend to nerf the shit out of them where as the real problem maybe in the poor map design. Proleague map Fighting Spirit has that feature. Most part of the middle is unbuildable. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On October 27 2013 01:37 Moonsalt wrote: I really like the idea to bring back the old terrain from Brood War for example a type of terrain where you can't build proxys at certain locations... Starcraft 2 needs more attention from map makers because everytime there are like only Terrans/Zergs/Protosses in the semifinals they tend to nerf the shit out of them where as the real problem maybe in the poor map design. I think the problem is the races and how they're simply designed. If we give a map that has a far third do you really think that will somehow fix balance? Or will it get veto'd by 40% of the players because the third isn't easier? | ||
|
Vicissitude
Sweden28 Posts
On October 27 2013 02:33 IronManSC wrote: I think the problem is the races and how they're simply designed. If we give a map that has a far third do you really think that will somehow fix balance? Or will it get veto'd by 40% of the players because the third isn't easier? Of course it's a problem, but that is also why a veto system for maps even exists. If a map is made in a way that makes it thoroughly broken in certain matchups, they will be vetoed, and should definitely be. The point TLO is trying to raise is that there is so much unused potential. If map makers were more creative, or rather, if there were more of an incentive to be creative with maps, games could play out more differently than if all of them, like TLO also pointed out and according to little me, follow the same pattern. A map that screws up a MU's balance will always trickle through, but if there is a veto system to safeguard against the majority of this while at the same time allowing more map diversity, and above all, game diversity that brings totally new builds, strategies or even unusued units into the game, then I'm fully behind it. The issue here might be (I'm still a new poster and haven't got the best insight into Blizzard's recent actions or statements) the fear Blizzard seems to have in doing more sweeping changes, or maybe they haven't fully realized how much map making made SC1 into what it is. | ||
| ||
