|
On October 24 2013 19:45 ]Skyline wrote:I LOVE big maps. I don't know why people always bash on long Macro-Games. If you want to have Action, go to Dota or LoL, seriously. However, the bigger the Maps, the more skill you need to win, because to win by an All-In/Cheese is easy. There is no skill behind executing a build and hoping for the best. However if you have to win by: 1. Managing your economy 2. Keep your opponent busy 3. Managing to deal with all distractions that's way more fun. I can see people want to see action-packed Pro-Matches. But remember, it's more fun and rewarding to play the "boring style". (It's not boring at all because you are as occupied as an NASA-Engineer at Rocket-Launch.) Why don't we just make two map pools like "Macro", with huge 16+ Base Maps, and "Action", with rather small 10-16 Base Maps. Reminds me kinda of BW. After writing this I cut out the explanation and thought it would be better to open up a new thread on b.net for this since this is a suggestion. Here is the link: Click me
A lot of the most exciting games are sub 15 minute rushes with sick defense, or two people rushing into some crazy ass base trade microing a handful of units.
Granted, macro games can and are epic at times - but your post vaguely seems to indicate that you'd be happy if all maps were large. Which would lead to a shit tonne of 3 hatch before pool, nexus/CC first style builds... which is even more stale than cheese. At least cheese is over and we can move on. We don't want Free Units vs Lazers every PvZ.
|
Looks like a pretty good map by 1998 standards. Just a nice large, dead, flat 2D space. Perfect for sitting in your base for 15 minutes, staring at your structures, robotically executing build orders you read off the internet. Should be an immediate hit with casuals and spectators.
|
Oh cool thank you 
|
I'm sick of these dark blue maps, are we doomed to have one desert map a year?
|
On the one hand, the 4 base turtle swarnhost style on Alterzim looks more defensible than on Akilon,
On the other hand, Akilon gives the non-Turtle player 8 bases to the Swarmhoster's 4. On Alterzim, you get an easy 14 with two bases contested, meaning that you can afford to be a lot less cautious and cost efficient breaking it.
|
United Kingdom12024 Posts
On October 24 2013 21:00 liberate71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 19:45 ]Skyline wrote:I LOVE big maps. I don't know why people always bash on long Macro-Games. If you want to have Action, go to Dota or LoL, seriously. However, the bigger the Maps, the more skill you need to win, because to win by an All-In/Cheese is easy. There is no skill behind executing a build and hoping for the best. However if you have to win by: 1. Managing your economy 2. Keep your opponent busy 3. Managing to deal with all distractions that's way more fun. I can see people want to see action-packed Pro-Matches. But remember, it's more fun and rewarding to play the "boring style". (It's not boring at all because you are as occupied as an NASA-Engineer at Rocket-Launch.) Why don't we just make two map pools like "Macro", with huge 16+ Base Maps, and "Action", with rather small 10-16 Base Maps. Reminds me kinda of BW. After writing this I cut out the explanation and thought it would be better to open up a new thread on b.net for this since this is a suggestion. Here is the link: Click me A lot of the most exciting games are sub 15 minute rushes with sick defense, or two people rushing into some crazy ass base trade microing a handful of units. Granted, macro games can and are epic at times - but your post vaguely seems to indicate that you'd be happy if all maps were large. Which would lead to a shit tonne of 3 hatch before pool, nexus/CC first style builds... which is even more stale than cheese. At least cheese is over and we can move on. We don't want Free Units vs Lazers every PvZ.
If someone can make the whole turtle with swarm host style on a map where unlike Akilon the swarm hosts in the middle of the map can't cover every single base work, then by god they're some kind of genius.
The reason why the free units vs lasers thing happens is because maps are too small which allows the swarmhosts to cover every angle on the map without any issues. You can siege the opponents natural ramp from just outside your own third with swarmhosts with creep there, it's ridiculous. Atleast on a map like this you'll be able to abuse the mobility of swarmhosts and later broodlords. This is the perfect map for getting rid of that sort of stuff.
Also cheese just isn't interesting in Starcraft 2 in general due to the sheer lack of defenders advantage so unless you prepared specificially to defend a certain type of cheese, you'll lose the game outright with no chance of any clutch comebacks or anything.
|
I'm pretty sure I would like this map if they cut about 20-30 hexes off the dimensions (160x160 or 170x170 is a lot easier to deal with than 192x192?!?!?!), but I'll reserve final judgement until I've played a few on it. My suspicion is that Zerg will love this map, Protoss will have a love/hate relationship with it (four bases YAY, drop and flank harass BOO), and Terran will grit their teeth, try to go mech, and then get flattened by the 6 base Zerg tech switches.
|
Hmmm, someone said that this map in the middle could have higher ground plateau that could be used for Siege-Tanks.. Tend to agree..
Guess it's a damn good map for Balance tests, since no-one will fight with sub 170 supply on it, still - don't think that all the required changes are made.. For example - the WM needs also a buff, not just a nerf.. It got nerf vs Zerg - which I'm happy about, still - nothing to fix the 2 big problems:
1 - TvP mech play
2 - PvZ lategame stalemate break tech (Mana vs Firecake game  )..
So - IDK, the changes feel alright, but the 2 big problems still remain untact..
|
|
|
Tileset is awesome, baselocations nah i dunno, i miss the xelnaga towers also ;(
|
I want Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak back
|
United Kingdom12024 Posts
On October 24 2013 22:19 goodCat14 wrote:I want Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak back
That'd be cool, let's bring back the two maps that pretty much destroyed the SC2 mapping scene and pigeon holed every map into being the same.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
So did anyone actually played some games on it? It is already up on Battle.net, do not forget.
|
Entombed Valley? Is that you?
|
On October 24 2013 22:28 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 22:19 goodCat14 wrote:I want Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak back That'd be cool, let's bring back the two maps that pretty much destroyed the SC2 mapping scene and pigeon holed every map into being the same.
could you explain that to me? I mean they were both very popular, but I remember Lost Temple and Luna being very popular too back in the old BW days and they were not hindering mapmakers being creative.
But I think the quality of blizzard maps prooves again the lack of gameunderstanding in the blizzard headquarter. They have some pretty cool design ideas, (I really like the concept of Swarm Hosts, Vipers, Oracles and Tempest in HotS for excample), but lack of theoretical understanding of the game and the math behind itself.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 24 2013 22:41 TeeTS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 22:28 Qikz wrote:On October 24 2013 22:19 goodCat14 wrote:I want Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak back That'd be cool, let's bring back the two maps that pretty much destroyed the SC2 mapping scene and pigeon holed every map into being the same. could you explain that to me? I mean they were both very popular, but I remember Lost Temple and Luna being very popular too back in the old BW days and they were not hindering mapmakers being creative. But I think the quality of blizzard maps prooves again the lack of gameunderstanding in the blizzard headquarter. They have some pretty cool design ideas, (I really like the concept of Swarm Hosts, Vipers, Oracles and Tempest in HotS for excample), but lack of theoretical understanding of the game and the math behind itself.
I thought it is known that pretty much every 2p map after Daybreak and Cloud kingdom after some point was it's version of a kind. Belshir vestige (not LE version) is pretty good example.
|
On October 24 2013 22:54 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 22:41 TeeTS wrote:On October 24 2013 22:28 Qikz wrote:On October 24 2013 22:19 goodCat14 wrote:I want Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak back That'd be cool, let's bring back the two maps that pretty much destroyed the SC2 mapping scene and pigeon holed every map into being the same. could you explain that to me? I mean they were both very popular, but I remember Lost Temple and Luna being very popular too back in the old BW days and they were not hindering mapmakers being creative. But I think the quality of blizzard maps prooves again the lack of gameunderstanding in the blizzard headquarter. They have some pretty cool design ideas, (I really like the concept of Swarm Hosts, Vipers, Oracles and Tempest in HotS for excample), but lack of theoretical understanding of the game and the math behind itself. I thought it is known that pretty much every 2p map after Daybreak and Cloud kingdom after some point was it's version of a kind. Belshir vestige (not LE version) is pretty good example.
That´s the effect, but I was hoping to get a reason for it.
|
On October 24 2013 22:41 TeeTS wrote:
But I think the quality of blizzard maps prooves again the lack of gameunderstanding in the blizzard headquarter. They have some pretty cool design ideas, (I really like the concept of Swarm Hosts, Vipers, Oracles and Tempest in HotS for excample), but lack of theoretical understanding of the game and the math behind itself.
What are u talking about?
Btw: What is he concept of Swarm Host and the Oracle? Cuz I don't really get what the idea behind is
SH is a flying BL and the Oracle is something that feels very wierd... I can't see any concept at all...
When it had those spells in the beta, it looked much better...
sry those last lines are offtopic.
|
On October 24 2013 21:00 liberate71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 19:45 ]Skyline wrote:I LOVE big maps. I don't know why people always bash on long Macro-Games. If you want to have Action, go to Dota or LoL, seriously. However, the bigger the Maps, the more skill you need to win, because to win by an All-In/Cheese is easy. There is no skill behind executing a build and hoping for the best. However if you have to win by: 1. Managing your economy 2. Keep your opponent busy 3. Managing to deal with all distractions that's way more fun. I can see people want to see action-packed Pro-Matches. But remember, it's more fun and rewarding to play the "boring style". (It's not boring at all because you are as occupied as an NASA-Engineer at Rocket-Launch.) Why don't we just make two map pools like "Macro", with huge 16+ Base Maps, and "Action", with rather small 10-16 Base Maps. Reminds me kinda of BW. After writing this I cut out the explanation and thought it would be better to open up a new thread on b.net for this since this is a suggestion. Here is the link: Click me A lot of the most exciting games are sub 15 minute rushes with sick defense, or two people rushing into some crazy ass base trade microing a handful of units.
These are the most uninteresting games to me. I prefer large maps, especially when players start getting spread out to 4 or more bases and you start seeing lots of runbys and stuff. Maps that make it easier to get to this phase of the game are good, but a lot of times big maps end up being designed poorly and just encourage turtle fests. Having an easy to take natural is fine, most of the time an easy to take 3rd is ok too, but past that you need to have bases that have multiple entrances, maybe cliffs overlooking the minerals/gas, destructible rocks to open up more pathways, etc.
|
Since this map is for testing anyway, they should experiment with upping the supply cap to 500 since the new map looks like it can support it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
