EPT"I think the game will be more interesting if we play different maps. I wish Blizzard would support map makers more"
Note that TLO was sick at at the event so his voice is a bit off! Huge thanks to him for doing the interview anyway
:
Interview with TLO on the need for new/better maps
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Slasher
United States1095 Posts
"I think the game will be more interesting if we play different maps. I wish Blizzard would support map makers more" Note that TLO was sick at at the event so his voice is a bit off! Huge thanks to him for doing the interview anyway | ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
| ||
|
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
| ||
|
Spectreman
Brazil52 Posts
 | ||
|
Ushi
United States21 Posts
| ||
|
kochanfe
Micronesia1338 Posts
| ||
|
Darkdwarf
Sweden960 Posts
| ||
|
MagnuMizer
Denmark384 Posts
| ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
| ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On October 24 2013 08:01 Eury wrote: Have to partly blame the players and the community for the limited map design. Players especially are very conservative when it comes to anything outside the established norm for maps. Also many of them want as small map pool as possible and the same for every tournament. You can have a small map pool & new maps at the same time. It's how iCCup's MOTW worked. Thus said, Blizzard may implement MOTM (Maps Of The Month) or something. They may also go back to their MOTS (Maps Of The Season), too. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
|
TeslasPigeon
464 Posts
On October 24 2013 08:01 Eury wrote: Have to partly blame the players and the community for the limited map design. Players especially are very conservative when it comes to anything outside the established norm for maps. Also many of them want as small map pool as possible and the same for every tournament. I never understood this reasoning. I would think the tournaments are the ones to blame. Take DH for instance, if they introduced a new map pool for Winter players would still show up and compete for prize money. In 2012 we had a nearly universal map pool between IEM, DH, IPL, and MLG. If these organizations would change the maps between tournaments players wouldn't cease showing up. But I do agree that it would be nice if Blizzard changed their maps more often. Like every season they get rid of 4 maps and replace them with 4 new ones, then the next season get rid of 4 older maps replacing them as well so that by the end of the year you have a map pool that is completely different than the beginning of the year. | ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
I'm also 100% certain that Protoss will just veto or allin every single game on every good map they create. I think we should just ignore Protoss and make maps for interesting matchups. | ||
|
Quakecomm
United States344 Posts
On October 24 2013 07:31 Spectreman wrote: I miss scrap station yeah well... maybe if u used the symetry tool | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On October 24 2013 09:05 TeslasPigeon wrote: That happened once, the two maps they introduced weren't played very much. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/leagues/2701_2012_DreamHack_Eizo_Open:_Stockholm/main -- see Frigid Pass and Vicious.I never understood this reasoning. I would think the tournaments are the ones to blame. Take DH for instance, if they introduced a new map pool for Winter players would still show up and compete for prize money. | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On October 24 2013 09:32 PineapplePizza wrote: Wait, they don't already do that?I think we should just ignore Protoss and make maps for interesting matchups. With maps like Polar Night and Derelict Watcher, it shouldn't be surprising that Protoss all-ins every game on them given how hard expansions are to take. And then there's Akilon, where long games against Zerg are insanely hard if Zerg goes swarmhost/mass static defence, so Protoss is incentivized to finish the game fast or die by after two hours of fighting locusts. | ||
|
Slasher
United States1095 Posts
On October 24 2013 07:48 Darkdwarf wrote: Haha, gamespot cutting off Slasher's usual ending tirade was really hilarious to me (for some reason). GameSpot.com/esports doesnt exist anymore, so I don't have anything to say...yet  | ||
|
NeThZOR
South Africa7387 Posts
| ||
|
ott
United States74 Posts
| ||
|
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
China6329 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. | ||
| ||
