|
China6329 Posts
If you've kept up with our most recent round of Heart of the Swarm balance testing, then by now, you've become very comfortable with Bel'Shir Vestige LE as the home for your playtests. After reviewing suggestions from pro players and the StarCraft II community, we decided to create two additional Balance Test Maps to help ensure more comprehensive testing and offer extra variety from game to game. All three of the Balance Test Maps below have already been published to the Custom Games list so you can jump in and start your next playtest session right away. Balance Test Map Pool
Bel’Shir Vestige LE (2.0.11 Balance v1.1)
Yeonsu LE (2.0.11 Balance v1.1)
Alterzim Stronghold TE (2.0.11 Balance v1.1) Bel'Shir Vestige and Yeonsu should look familiar, as both are present in the official StarCraft II Ladder and World Championship Series map pools. Alterzim Stronghold, however, is a brand new map that we're debuting today, and we'd love to review any feedback you might be able to share with us. The StarCraft II development team kindly provided a brief introduction to Alterzim Stronghold to help you get your feet wet before you jump in to your next game:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZsrY3mP.jpg)
Map analyse thread: Alterzim Stronghold TE
Read the rest introduction about the new map and the balance changes here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/11345417/new-maps-for-heart-of-the-swarm-balance-testing-10-23-2013
Poll: Impression on new map?Hooray! (595) 70% No, thanks. (186) 22% No idea. (64) 8% 845 total votes Your vote: Impression on new map? (Vote): Hooray!
(Vote): No, thanks.
(Vote): No idea.
|
Makes sense to test changes on a variety of maps, for obvious reasons.
|
United States33389 Posts
Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player.
that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace
|
On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player. that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace
The technology is there now.
|
|
|
So we're trying the whole in base expansion thing again?
Not a fan. Not a fan at all.
|
On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player. that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace Just looking at the map, they have failed with that goal. On non-cross positions, one person always has easier access to attacking the other's back expansion, which is an advantage to one side. And that is in all position but cross.
|
Oracle moment speed increase? Was that always there in the last balance test changes?
I wish they would bring back Xel'Naga Caverns and Shakuras Plateau. Updated of course. They'd be amazing to play in HOTS.
|
The middle reminds me of entombed...its all just flat ground.
but i enjoy the tileset
|
Map is too big, too many bases (20 wtf), and too easy to secure 3 bases.
On October 24 2013 13:06 geokilla wrote:
Oracle moment speed increase? Was that always there in the last balance test changes?
I wish they would bring back Xel'Naga Caverns and Shakuras Plateau. Updated of course. They'd be amazing to play in HOTS.
Lol I don't think swarm host stalemates across the middle of Shakuras Plateau would exactly be "amazing to play".
|
The widow mine nerf seems to be subtle enough that it won't drastically change TvZ, so it looks pretty good.
|
I don't really think that keep updating balance packs helps...
|
where is Akilon Waste TE 
|
United States23455 Posts
On October 24 2013 13:08 -NegativeZero- wrote:
Lol I don't think swarm host stalemates across the middle of Shakuras Plateau would exactly be "amazing to play".
Come on man it would be fun!
|
United States23455 Posts
Not a huge fan of the new map, in base expos are kinda meh, with a small ramp at your main basically you can and will always fast expand. Plus once you get three bases, it looks super turtle-y.
|
Um, Alterzim is 192x192. That's bigger than Tal'Darim, bigger than Korhal City, shit, it's bigger than most 4v4 maps. Strikes me as a map designed just to make the 200 supply cap a pain in the ass.
|
On October 24 2013 13:08 -NegativeZero- wrote:Map is too big, too many bases (20 wtf), and too easy to secure 3 bases. Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 13:06 geokilla wrote:
Oracle moment speed increase? Was that always there in the last balance test changes?
I wish they would bring back Xel'Naga Caverns and Shakuras Plateau. Updated of course. They'd be amazing to play in HOTS. Lol I don't think swarm host stalemates across the middle of Shakuras Plateau would exactly be "amazing to play".
Who says you can't do that here? Or on any other map for that matter. And that's why I said, "Updated of course." Some old maps were pretty bad like Scrap Station, but others were rather fun. I'd rather play on those maps than this constant 3 base macro game Blizzard is forcing us to play. As you said, too easy to secure 3 bases, map is too big, and 20 bases. I really can't think of any rushes or cheeses either for any race on a map like this one that they're putting out.
On October 24 2013 13:23 NewSunshine wrote:
Um, Alterzim is 192x192. That's bigger than Tal'Darim, bigger than Korhal City, shit, it's bigger than most 4v4 maps. Strikes me as a map designed just to make the 200 supply cap a pain in the ass.
Where'd you find that?
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
20 bases? What were they drinking instead of tea/coffee/beer?
|
On October 24 2013 13:20 Darkhoarse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 13:08 -NegativeZero- wrote:
Lol I don't think swarm host stalemates across the middle of Shakuras Plateau would exactly be "amazing to play". Come on man it would be fun! Infestor/Broodlord levels of fun. Yaaaaaay!!!!
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 24 2013 13:27 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 13:20 Darkhoarse wrote:On October 24 2013 13:08 -NegativeZero- wrote:
Lol I don't think swarm host stalemates across the middle of Shakuras Plateau would exactly be "amazing to play". Come on man it would be fun! Infestor/Broodlord levels of fun. Yaaaaaay!!!!
Infestor BL against toss in WoL = pure fun.
|
I like how the new map is nice and open, but I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to scout for anything...
|
United States97276 Posts
Bring back calm before the storm
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 24 2013 13:35 Redrot wrote:
I like how the new map is nice and open, but I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to scout for anything...
You can go 3 hatch before pool on this one. Every game. Yes, it is THAT big.
|
United States97276 Posts
On October 24 2013 13:36 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 13:35 Redrot wrote:
I like how the new map is nice and open, but I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to scout for anything... You can go 3 hatch before pool on this one. Every game. Yes, it is THAT big.
probably wouldnt even be able to scout it that easily if you took the pocket base 3rd
|
Alterzim Stronghold - map for mech?
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 24 2013 13:40 Porishan wrote:
Alterzim Stronghold - map for mech?
Mech will need like half an hour to get to enemy on cross spawns.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 24 2013 13:38 Shellshock wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 13:36 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 24 2013 13:35 Redrot wrote:
I like how the new map is nice and open, but I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to scout for anything... You can go 3 hatch before pool on this one. Every game. Yes, it is THAT big. probably wouldnt even be able to scout it that easily if you took the pocket base 3rd
Actually scouting worker/overlord would get to base way after pool is complete.
|
wellp, guess they're still going through with that huge widow mine nerf with an absolutely garbage siege tank buff. I seriously don't know wtf they're thinking
|
more cannon rushing potential? 
|
On October 24 2013 13:43 lolfail9001 wrote:Mech will need like half an hour to get to enemy on cross spawns.
And then Zerg instantly remaxes and puts a Nydus in the Terran's main. Big map? No problem! Or if you're Protoss, Instant Zealot Remax!
On October 24 2013 13:47 Nightsz wrote:
wellp, guess they're still going through with that huge widow mine nerf with an absolutely garbage siege tank buff. I seriously don't know wtf they're thinking
Macro macro macro. Blizzard wants us to play no rush 20 minute.
|
The new map looks like it'll be a 50 minute game every time
|
On October 24 2013 13:24 geokilla wrote:
Where'd you find that?
I opened it up in the editor and checked. I do that for every Blizzard map, but this one looked really fucking big, so I couldn't wait lol.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 24 2013 13:55 geokilla wrote:
Macro macro macro. Blizzard wants us to play no rush 20 minute.
Hey, on this map nydus can be pretty good. Especially considering amount of time i may take for terran to get to his own natural :D
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 24 2013 14:00 NewSunshine wrote:I opened it up in the editor and checked. I do that for every Blizzard map, but this one looked really fucking big, so I couldn't wait lol.
It is like overly big. Especially considering that 4th base location is BAD.
|
United States97276 Posts
On October 24 2013 14:00 Holdenintherye wrote:
The new map looks like it'll be a 50 minute game every time
At least it's not a map that should have 3 hour games ^^ It could be like the new CBTS though. Maybe we'll see some interesting tech rushes
|
They really need to make smaller maps!
|
Canada13389 Posts
New map looks like a 1v1v1v1 map tbh
|
On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player. that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace
Hilarious! What they probably meant to say is that it has rotational symmetry. And a 4 player map could work that way, but would look quite boring.
|
On October 24 2013 13:35 Redrot wrote:
I like how the new map is nice and open, but I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to scout for anything...
who needs to scout, double expand before gate/rax/pool please
|
On October 24 2013 14:06 Shellshock wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 14:00 Holdenintherye wrote:
The new map looks like it'll be a 50 minute game every time At least it's not a map that should have 3 hour games ^^ It could be like the new CBTS though. Maybe we'll see some interesting tech rushes
Yeah looks like it won't just split in two like Akilon. Interesting tech? Maybe (hopefully) we'll see mech! 
|
I love the tile set. Shak x Cloud <3
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 24 2013 14:19 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 13:35 Redrot wrote:
I like how the new map is nice and open, but I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to scout for anything... who needs to scout, double expand before gate/rax/pool please
Nah:
4 hatch gas pool as zerg;
CC->Rax->CC->CC as terran
Nexus first->gateway->Nexus->cybercore as toss.
Seems pretty good. I bet you can have zerglings/rines/zealots against 6 pool with those builds in time.
|
United States97276 Posts
Didn't MarineKing do like 3 CC before rax and 4 CC off 1 rax vs JYP on Atlantis Spacebear once (he was up by a couple of maps in fight club already if I remember right so it didn't really matter)? He lost the game to a 6 gate which was kind of funny but maybe we can see more crazy shit like that but serious
|
On October 24 2013 14:21 shin_toss wrote:
I love the tile set. Shak x Cloud <3
Cloud Kingdom is Shakuras tileset...
|
New map looks fresh! Tile-set and expansions will both bring something new to the game and I don't really see any balance issues at first glance.
|
I actually like this map and think it fits SC2's design better than a lot of the more traditional maps.
|
On October 24 2013 14:19 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 13:35 Redrot wrote:
I like how the new map is nice and open, but I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to scout for anything... who needs to scout, double expand before gate/rax/pool please
It's doable for Protoss and Zergs. Not for Terran though.. There's literally no defense for Terrans. Protoss at the very least has a Photo Overcharge and Cannons.
|
God is this map a step in the wrong direction. Let's not give Protoss easy access to 4 bases, please!
Love the tileset, though.
|
Calm before the Storm..?!
|
I like the idea of this new map a lot. We'll have to see how it plays though, obviously.
|
I hate to just parrot "bliz map, does suck", but....
This displays all the usual problems with blizzard map design and execution. Why are there no plates on the inbase ramp? I guess zerg is supposed to expand outside first so as not to get cannon rushed? Why make a rotational map if your explicit goal is positional balance?
Try to make 4 spawn enabled map, ends up huge with 20 bases. Noobest of mapmaking results.
I just don't ever understand what they are trying to achieve, or how they manage to miss the mark all the same.
|
Map is Fugging big! XDXDXDXDXD
Love it.... though no rush distance is too great for warpgates haha...
Nerf warpgates! XD
|
Not to my taste. Yuk. It's just so stinking huge...
|
Well Whirldwind is huge and its the best map over there... So I think this map can be very cool to play on.
There are obvious problem (one army pos to defend 5 bases, no plates in the inbase...) but I really want to see games on this map.
|
Generally I always think people complain too much when maps are a bit different than what is normal, but seriously, wtf Blizzard? I also don't get how this is popular in the poll.
I already in general don't like 4p maps considering the importance of the random number generator: where scouting purely depends on pre-determined luck, but this one is ridiculous. A free natural, easiest to defend third ever.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On October 24 2013 15:46 Sissors wrote:
Generally I always think people complain too much when maps are a bit different than what is normal, but seriously, wtf Blizzard? I also don't get how this is popular in the poll.
I already in general don't like 4p maps considering the importance of the random number generator: where scouting purely depends on pre-determined luck, but this one is ridiculous. A free natural, easiest to defend third ever.
It's popular because people don't realise how large the map is.
|
alterzim amazing looking and great name.
starcraft jizz fest
|
I guess this will replace Whirlwind. And Akilon Wastes for the most turtliest map. This design doesn't encourage any new strategies, just promotes the existing ones. Oh well, mutas and drops gg.
|
United States97276 Posts
On October 24 2013 15:59 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 15:46 Sissors wrote:
Generally I always think people complain too much when maps are a bit different than what is normal, but seriously, wtf Blizzard? I also don't get how this is popular in the poll.
I already in general don't like 4p maps considering the importance of the random number generator: where scouting purely depends on pre-determined luck, but this one is ridiculous. A free natural, easiest to defend third ever. It's popular because people don't realise how large the map is.
Are the dimensions listed somewhere? I didn't see them. I feel like if I visualize overlaying a map like Derelict Watcher on it the new map is like 1.5x as big cross spawns at least
|
Austria24417 Posts
Digging the new map, it reminds me of calm before the storm... which was protoss heaven so yeah. Besides I've always loved big maps. I'm a big fan of expanding aggressively when I'm ahead and doing lots of small attacks everywhere.
Can't wait to see the reactions I get after going 3 nexus before gateway
|
Another dark map. Seriously why there are so many dark and depressing maps especially hard to play when sun is shining directly into the room?
|
Looks awesome, love the purple theme.
|
On October 24 2013 13:08 -NegativeZero- wrote:
Map is too big, too many bases (20 wtf), and too easy to secure 3 bases.
Just my thought! i believe this map will be a "Turtle Fest!" and will not give any interesting games Pro or not! But that´s just my opinion!
|
I mean it doesn't look as awful as the maps they used to make. But for the love of god have the people who make sc2 maps spent their time doing something productive. If they would have spent all that time adding features to battle.net, working on new additions to the expansions or even just improving the netcode or cross server lag, instead of torturing us with their maps, we'd probably have a way better game right now. You have a huge community full of people making maps for free for you, use those. And please for the love of god stop making maps at blizzard.
Other than that nice that they give you 3 maps for what was once a ptr..
|
I don't know, in my opinion people are overreacting to this map(in a negative way), I think that it will be cool.
We may see some bad matches, but we also might see some cool ones where we have a ton of bases and fights all over the map.
It looks a lot like Entombed Valley to me and I saw some amazing matches there.
|
like the new map, quiet interested if it works well.
|
Huge fan of the new map. Now I kinda want to try the balance test maps just to test that new map!
|
On October 24 2013 17:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:
I don't know, in my opinion people are overreacting to this map(in a negative way), I think that it will be cool.
We may see some bad matches, but we also might see some cool ones where we have a ton of bases and fights all over the map.
It looks a lot like Entombed Valley to me and I saw some amazing matches there.
It's just the vocal minority , if u look at the poll most of the ppl are ok with that map and it's stated the map is not final, probaby more changes to come until wcs 2014
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player. that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace
Actually it does work in SC2 purely because they put 4 bases on each corner :/
I just wish rather than updating Bel'shir that they'd just move on with something else. Also I really wish they'd have the back base as a mineral only, having 3 gas that easy is just so dumb and is the biggest issue with SC2.
|
This looks like a map just begging for long drawn out games
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
One thing I will say are bigger maps are actually better for SC2. It means you can have a map like Fighting Spirit where it actually takes a bit to push over to the enemy base and due to units being so fast it means you can't go for an insta counter attack and force a base trade every single game.
|
The tileset of the map looks amazing, but nromally I don't like maps that are insanely big and have backdoor expos so we'll see..
|
On October 24 2013 18:19 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote:Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player. that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace Actually it does work in SC2 purely because they put 4 bases on each corner :/ I just wish rather than updating Bel'shir that they'd just move on with something else. Also I really wish they'd have the back base as a mineral only, having 3 gas that easy is just so dumb and is the biggest issue with SC2.
Actually it doesn't work like that. For example if both players spawn bottom than the south-east players can drop way faster in the natural than the south-west player.
If they truly wanted it to not offer advantages they should have never made it rotational symmetric, but instead normal symmetric (mirrored both on the x and y-axis). Then you there is no fixed spawning advantage.
And then there is the random advantage, do you happen to scout in the correct direction or not. That can make a HUGE difference. Considering the size of the map in general that is really big here. Only thing to compensate for it is that it is so ridiculously easy to defend early aggression that scouting isn't important anyway.
But really if they wanted a map which doesn't offer advantages depending on spawn position they did it really wrong.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On October 24 2013 18:27 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 18:19 Qikz wrote:On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote:Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player. that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace Actually it does work in SC2 purely because they put 4 bases on each corner :/ I just wish rather than updating Bel'shir that they'd just move on with something else. Also I really wish they'd have the back base as a mineral only, having 3 gas that easy is just so dumb and is the biggest issue with SC2. Actually it doesn't work like that. For example if both players spawn bottom than the south-east players can drop way faster in the natural than the south-west player. If they truly wanted it to not offer advantages they should have never made it rotational symmetric, but instead normal symmetric (mirrored both on the x and y-axis). Then you there is no fixed spawning advantage. And then there is the random advantage, do you happen to scout in the correct direction or not. That can make a HUGE difference. Considering the size of the map in general that is really big here. Only thing to compensate for it is that it is so ridiculously easy to defend early aggression that scouting isn't important anyway. But really if they wanted a map which doesn't offer advantages depending on spawn position they did it really wrong.
I completely disagree. You say they can drop in the natural easier, but it means usually they'll have a smaller area to drop so you should be able to defend it much easier, but then if you're in the other position they can drop your main yes, but you can avoid the damage by good building placement and leaving some defending units. There's also the possibility to just not take your in base natural and wall off the one in your base to start with and take it as your third so you can leave/build defenses when you need to rather than at the beginning of the game. Expansion pattern makes a huge difference in defense but thanks to SC2 having such terrible maps since release we've never been able to see it thanks to people comstantly whining there's no easy third/fourth.
There's zero issues with the fact you have to double scout, since if you want every map to be forced cross spawn, what's the point in even having anything outside of 2 player maps? What's wrong with it being possible to have cheeses somewhat more viable on the map and what's wrong with people being able to stop you scouting, especially on such a big map.
Toss have observers, Zerg have overlords/seers and Terran have scan, which you don't even need an Academy for. It really isn't hard to scout in SC2 and it just means you can't blindly go 14CC or 15 Nexus or 13/14/15 Hatch blindly without a pool and that's a good thing. Build some god damn units to defend your bases rather than building 120 workers and hoping for the best. (yes I realise I'm exaggerating)
|
New maps is always nice. Lets play it, find out if its fun and take it from there. We can always veto so no need to overreact. These huge maps that favor very macro oriented builds always makes me a bit concerned about strength of warp in mechanichs and power of 20 gates when you just traded armys. But not much we can do about that now.
|
I'd like to see a smaller gap between the natural and the ground next to it - some nice counter-macro techniques like blink or siege-tanks could be used to deny this ultra-defensive exp.
The middle is all flat - I have mixed feelings about it, there ought to be at least a small place for terrain utilization. Pushing through the middle vs Zerg will be quite difficult.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On October 24 2013 18:55 sctstarcraft wrote:
I'd like to see a smaller gap between the natural and the ground next to it - some nice counter-macro techniques like blink or siege-tanks could be used to deny this ultra-defensive exp.
The middle is all flat - I have mixed feelings about it, there ought to be at least a small place for terrain utilization. Pushing through the middle vs Zerg will be quite difficult.
push just around the edge of the cross and it means you can utilise the chokes there to your benefit.
|
Perfect for me to turtle to 10+ orbitals and and then use mass mules to fuel a 180 supply army hehe.
|
Map looks like neo Calm before the Storm. Really innovative Blizzard, wow!
|
Alterzim Stronghold TE... Blizzard maps just don't look as good.
|
Cool intention. Putting the patch on a new map to increase tester numbers. Hope it works.
|
On October 24 2013 17:47 Lorch wrote:
I mean it doesn't look as awful as the maps they used to make. But for the love of god have the people who make sc2 maps spent their time doing something productive. If they would have spent all that time adding features to battle.net, working on new additions to the expansions or even just improving the netcode or cross server lag, instead of torturing us with their maps, we'd probably have a way better game right now. You have a huge community full of people making maps for free for you, use those. And please for the love of god stop making maps at blizzard.
Other than that nice that they give you 3 maps for what was once a ptr..
People who design maps almost certainly don't have the skillset for working on battle.net features. They are almost certainly separate teams...so no time is being "wasted" here.
I do agree, the community maps tend to be made with people who actually have experience with the game at a high level, or at least get lots of input from people who do.
|
On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player. that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace
If a map has mirror symmetry there is no positional imbalance. It's only the rotational "symmetry" that creates positional imbalances.
But yeah, since this one is rotational, there are positional imbalances, however offset by a the big distances everywhere.
|
On October 24 2013 18:37 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 18:27 Sissors wrote:On October 24 2013 18:19 Qikz wrote:On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote:Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player. that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace Actually it does work in SC2 purely because they put 4 bases on each corner :/ I just wish rather than updating Bel'shir that they'd just move on with something else. Also I really wish they'd have the back base as a mineral only, having 3 gas that easy is just so dumb and is the biggest issue with SC2. Actually it doesn't work like that. For example if both players spawn bottom than the south-east players can drop way faster in the natural than the south-west player. If they truly wanted it to not offer advantages they should have never made it rotational symmetric, but instead normal symmetric (mirrored both on the x and y-axis). Then you there is no fixed spawning advantage. And then there is the random advantage, do you happen to scout in the correct direction or not. That can make a HUGE difference. Considering the size of the map in general that is really big here. Only thing to compensate for it is that it is so ridiculously easy to defend early aggression that scouting isn't important anyway. But really if they wanted a map which doesn't offer advantages depending on spawn position they did it really wrong. I completely disagree. You say they can drop in the natural easier, but it means usually they'll have a smaller area to drop so you should be able to defend it much easier, but then if you're in the other position they can drop your main yes, but you can avoid the damage by good building placement and leaving some defending units. There's also the possibility to just not take your in base natural and wall off the one in your base to start with and take it as your third so you can leave/build defenses when you need to rather than at the beginning of the game. Expansion pattern makes a huge difference in defense but thanks to SC2 having such terrible maps since release we've never been able to see it thanks to people comstantly whining there's no easy third/fourth. There's zero issues with the fact you have to double scout, since if you want every map to be forced cross spawn, what's the point in even having anything outside of 2 player maps? What's wrong with it being possible to have cheeses somewhat more viable on the map and what's wrong with people being able to stop you scouting, especially on such a big map. Toss have observers, Zerg have overlords/seers and Terran have scan, which you don't even need an Academy for. It really isn't hard to scout in SC2 and it just means you can't blindly go 14CC or 15 Nexus or 13/14/15 Hatch blindly without a pool and that's a good thing. Build some god damn units to defend your bases rather than building 120 workers and hoping for the best. (yes I realise I'm exaggerating)
I would completely agree with you, if it made any sense in relation to this map.
First of all, the natural drop was just an example. The point is that any rotational symmetrical map is NOT equal for spawn positions. If their goal was to make it equal just make it mirror symmetric, problem solved. That you can take measures to reduce the issue doesn't change the fact that it is not equal for players. Taking your third as natural leaves you in a much weaker position and I would really consider that a bad idea.
You think people whine too much that they should have easy third and fourths. I completely agree! Yet what do we have here, a map where the natural is free, the third is trivial to defend, and the fourth is also very easy to defend.
You say the problem is people blindly going for very greedy builds. Again I completely agree. But especially this map heavily promotes that. Which is why I said in the beginning of this post: I would completely agree with you, if it made any sense.
The point where I disagree is that it is good it is trivial to stop scouting. Without scouting you cannot even call it a strategy game. I am all for agressive play, I do it myself alot. But I am not in favour of games where winning completely depends on if you happen to guess the correct BO, because you cannot properly scout.
|
God I hate these kind of map with a vast plain it's sooooooo boring
It's a solid condemned ridge level map... + Show Spoiler + it means that it's really bad
|
On October 24 2013 19:14 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 17:47 Lorch wrote:
I mean it doesn't look as awful as the maps they used to make. But for the love of god have the people who make sc2 maps spent their time doing something productive. If they would have spent all that time adding features to battle.net, working on new additions to the expansions or even just improving the netcode or cross server lag, instead of torturing us with their maps, we'd probably have a way better game right now. You have a huge community full of people making maps for free for you, use those. And please for the love of god stop making maps at blizzard.
Other than that nice that they give you 3 maps for what was once a ptr.. People who design maps almost certainly don't have the skillset for working on battle.net features. They are almost certainly separate teams...so no time is being "wasted" here. I do agree, the community maps tend to be made with people who actually have experience with the game at a high level, or at least get lots of input from people who do.
Wait they have actual people whos fulltime job it is to only make these maps? Well I always figured they'd have some of their people do it on the side when they have time or have interns do them...
Holy crap those poor people working at blizzard only to make shitty maps. Well I guess as I don't want them to loose their jobs, gogo keep up the shitty work!
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On October 24 2013 19:28 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 18:37 Qikz wrote:On October 24 2013 18:27 Sissors wrote:On October 24 2013 18:19 Qikz wrote:On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote:Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player. that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace Actually it does work in SC2 purely because they put 4 bases on each corner :/ I just wish rather than updating Bel'shir that they'd just move on with something else. Also I really wish they'd have the back base as a mineral only, having 3 gas that easy is just so dumb and is the biggest issue with SC2. Actually it doesn't work like that. For example if both players spawn bottom than the south-east players can drop way faster in the natural than the south-west player. If they truly wanted it to not offer advantages they should have never made it rotational symmetric, but instead normal symmetric (mirrored both on the x and y-axis). Then you there is no fixed spawning advantage. And then there is the random advantage, do you happen to scout in the correct direction or not. That can make a HUGE difference. Considering the size of the map in general that is really big here. Only thing to compensate for it is that it is so ridiculously easy to defend early aggression that scouting isn't important anyway. But really if they wanted a map which doesn't offer advantages depending on spawn position they did it really wrong. I completely disagree. You say they can drop in the natural easier, but it means usually they'll have a smaller area to drop so you should be able to defend it much easier, but then if you're in the other position they can drop your main yes, but you can avoid the damage by good building placement and leaving some defending units. There's also the possibility to just not take your in base natural and wall off the one in your base to start with and take it as your third so you can leave/build defenses when you need to rather than at the beginning of the game. Expansion pattern makes a huge difference in defense but thanks to SC2 having such terrible maps since release we've never been able to see it thanks to people comstantly whining there's no easy third/fourth. There's zero issues with the fact you have to double scout, since if you want every map to be forced cross spawn, what's the point in even having anything outside of 2 player maps? What's wrong with it being possible to have cheeses somewhat more viable on the map and what's wrong with people being able to stop you scouting, especially on such a big map. Toss have observers, Zerg have overlords/seers and Terran have scan, which you don't even need an Academy for. It really isn't hard to scout in SC2 and it just means you can't blindly go 14CC or 15 Nexus or 13/14/15 Hatch blindly without a pool and that's a good thing. Build some god damn units to defend your bases rather than building 120 workers and hoping for the best. (yes I realise I'm exaggerating) I would completely agree with you, if it made any sense in relation to this map. First of all, the natural drop was just an example. The point is that any rotational symmetrical map is NOT equal for spawn positions. If their goal was to make it equal just make it mirror symmetric, problem solved. That you can take measures to reduce the issue doesn't change the fact that it is not equal for players. Taking your third as natural leaves you in a much weaker position and I would really consider that a bad idea. You think people whine too much that they should have easy third and fourths. I completely agree! Yet what do we have here, a map where the natural is free, the third is trivial to defend, and the fourth is also very easy to defend. You say the problem is people blindly going for very greedy builds. Again I completely agree. But especially this map heavily promotes that. Which is why I said in the beginning of this post: I would completely agree with you, if it made any sense. The point where I disagree is that it is good it is trivial to stop scouting. Without scouting you cannot even call it a strategy game. I am all for agressive play, I do it myself alot. But I am not in favour of games where winning completely depends on if you happen to guess the correct BO, because you cannot properly scout.
See this is where I think me and you differ on opinions. The very fact the fouth is somewhat easy to defend is offset by how far it is away from the other bases and also from what I can tell the minerals are actually siegable by siege units on the fourth from the cliff behind it.
The natural depending on whether you go in base or out is a problem as one of them really should be a mineral only base, but to be honest, the distances between all the bases in general outside of the first three (which thanks to whining/the game design have to be close together) it looks like a relatively solid map past three bases. Part of the issue with SC2 is that people sit in one corner of the map no matter what the positions, where as on this map the large distances between all the bases spread the players out more by proxy of where the bases are which, although fair enough that doesn't lead to Fighting Spirit style taking two corners, but it could lead to a hell of a lot more interesting games which are not just insta counter attacks into death with games hinging on one battle.
The biggest thing about this map for me is purely that fact, it may still be somewhat of a broken game, but atleast they can use the macro mechanics to make the games look more interesting and less, oh you lost a battle, better GG!
Maps like this also reward small groups of units moving around pressuring which in turn reward splitting your army to defend.
|
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
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
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
I realise I just made a huge post, but I agree with this. Bigger maps in SC2 lead to more BW style games as the game isn't decided on one battle.
|
On October 24 2013 19:30 Lorch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 19:14 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On October 24 2013 17:47 Lorch wrote:
I mean it doesn't look as awful as the maps they used to make. But for the love of god have the people who make sc2 maps spent their time doing something productive. If they would have spent all that time adding features to battle.net, working on new additions to the expansions or even just improving the netcode or cross server lag, instead of torturing us with their maps, we'd probably have a way better game right now. You have a huge community full of people making maps for free for you, use those. And please for the love of god stop making maps at blizzard.
Other than that nice that they give you 3 maps for what was once a ptr.. People who design maps almost certainly don't have the skillset for working on battle.net features. They are almost certainly separate teams...so no time is being "wasted" here. I do agree, the community maps tend to be made with people who actually have experience with the game at a high level, or at least get lots of input from people who do. Wait they have actual people whos fulltime job it is to only make these maps? Well I always figured they'd have some of their people do it on the side when they have time or have interns do them... Holy crap those poor people working at blizzard only to make shitty maps. Well I guess as I don't want them to loose their jobs, gogo keep up the shitty work!
Who do you think makes the single player campaign maps?
On October 24 2013 19:47 Qikz 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 I realise I just made a huge post, but I agree with this. Bigger maps in SC2 lead to more BW style games as the game isn't decided on one battle.
I could maybe agree with this if it wasn't for Protoss.
|
On October 24 2013 19:30 Lorch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 19:14 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On October 24 2013 17:47 Lorch wrote:
I mean it doesn't look as awful as the maps they used to make. But for the love of god have the people who make sc2 maps spent their time doing something productive. If they would have spent all that time adding features to battle.net, working on new additions to the expansions or even just improving the netcode or cross server lag, instead of torturing us with their maps, we'd probably have a way better game right now. You have a huge community full of people making maps for free for you, use those. And please for the love of god stop making maps at blizzard.
Other than that nice that they give you 3 maps for what was once a ptr.. People who design maps almost certainly don't have the skillset for working on battle.net features. They are almost certainly separate teams...so no time is being "wasted" here. I do agree, the community maps tend to be made with people who actually have experience with the game at a high level, or at least get lots of input from people who do. Wait they have actual people whos fulltime job it is to only make these maps? Well I always figured they'd have some of their people do it on the side when they have time or have interns do them... Holy crap those poor people working at blizzard only to make shitty maps. Well I guess as I don't want them to loose their jobs, gogo keep up the shitty work!
Their fulltime job is probably to make maps for Legacy of the Void. The ladder maps are probably a side project for them.
|
Bigger maps change very little about that due to the mechanics of SC2.
Also the reason many don't like such large maps is that what some call 'macro games' are in practise NR15-NR20 games which are boring as hell (neither fun nor rewarding) that end in one big battle. Action packed games does not mean it should be over in 10 minutes on tier 1-1.5 units, it means there should happen something.
|
Can tanks shell the inbase natural from the side ? It would be so cool (to watch)
|
|
|
Alterzim is insane. :o 192x192, wow.
Big maps are nice in theory, but the actual game mechanics in general seem to disfavour them somewhat, both the supply cap, the income mechanics, and the remax mechanics. Big maps would be really cool if things could be a bit more BWesque on them, but it doesn't turn out that way most of the time.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
|
I hope this map goes into the FFA map ladder pool. The maps in there are stagnated and some of them are pretty bad. Specifically Fractured Glacier, that map is so bad for ffa.
Tectonic Rift and Star Station are pretty bad too though..
That being said, I hope this map replaces Polar Night. That map is terrible in 1v1.
|
Middle of the map is too flat...again. Give us some high variance please.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On October 24 2013 20:43 Aeceus wrote:
Middle of the map is too flat...again. Give us some high variance please.
I understand why you'd want it, but since high ground has no meaning in SC2 it's pretty much pointless. When there is highground people complain about forcefields on ramps too.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51485 Posts
Looks like they updated Shakuras imo xD
Still looks good, was some sick games on that map
|
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 Kingdom12022 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 Kingdom12022 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.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 24 2013 22:56 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +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.
SH is intended like a way to break the turtle (combined with viper). Oracle is just strong anti-worker unit with map control possibilities.
|
On October 24 2013 23:09 andrewlt wrote:
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.
The game would start dropping frames a lot on every PC.
|
Since the patch they are testing are focusing pretty heavily on Mech i can't help but feeling that this map won't add anything in terms of balance testing, simply because i don't think that anyone is going to try Mech on such a huge map.
|
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.
But that's not the fault of the maps. Noone hindered mapmakers from making different maps, it was just that the layout was very popular - and these days is very unpopular.
They were amazing maps and I would love it if some tournaments would cycle one old map in from time to time. Maybe not exactly the map, but a redone version (there are so many 'legendary' maps that you could rework and use in a tournament; Daybreak, Cloud Kingdome, Bel'Shire Beach, Tal'Darim Altar, Crossfire, Shattered Temple, Metalopolis, Shakuras Plateau, Antiga Mvp Shipyard)
|
does someone know what kind of terrain that is?(sc2 MapEditor)
|
Why does we never get forced cross spawns on 4v4maps? Its much more fun.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 24 2013 23:45 SneakingApple wrote:
Why does we never get forced cross spawns on 4v4maps? Its much more fun.
Forced cross spawns on 4 player maps are only good if map itself is completely different on different spawns. Like Korhal island.
|
We need Fruitland with new Lemon OP strat ! If blizzard can't diversify the game with unit, do it with the maps !!
|
Holy shit 4 base Terran meching heaven on Alterzim Stronghold.
|
On October 24 2013 23:52 EngrishTeacher wrote:
Holy shit 4 base Terran meching heaven on Alterzim Stronghold.
And then a doomdrop in the main destroys your base while the bio player takes 99 bases that you can't threaten because you can't move out at all, since you will get flanked from 720 degree.
|
On October 25 2013 00:02 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 23:52 EngrishTeacher wrote:
Holy shit 4 base Terran meching heaven on Alterzim Stronghold. And then a doomdrop in the main destroys your base while the bio player takes 99 bases that you can't threaten because you can't move out at all, since you will get flanked from 720 degree.
Not every matchup is TvT, and the main doesn't look that hard to defend against doomdrop.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 25 2013 00:02 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 23:52 EngrishTeacher wrote:
Holy shit 4 base Terran meching heaven on Alterzim Stronghold. And then a doomdrop in the main destroys your base while the bio player takes 99 bases that you can't threaten because you can't move out at all, since you will get flanked from 720 degree.
Actually on close spawns this map is indeed mech heaven. Not to mention that main is rather easy to protect with good turret ring.
|
On October 24 2013 12:52 digmouse wrote:Poll: Impression on new map?Hooray! (595) 70% No, thanks. (186) 22% No idea. (64) 8% 845 total votes Your vote: Impression on new map? (Vote): Hooray!
(Vote): No, thanks.
(Vote): No idea.
Brought to you by the same people who voted in Metropolis.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 25 2013 00:15 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 12:52 digmouse wrote:Poll: Impression on new map?Hooray! (595) 70% No, thanks. (186) 22% No idea. (64) 8% 845 total votes Your vote: Impression on new map? (Vote): Hooray!
(Vote): No, thanks.
(Vote): No idea.
Brought to you by the same people who voted in Metropolis.
This map does not lag and is kinda impossible to really split.
|
This is so good for Terran Mech!
 Can't wait
|
On October 25 2013 00:15 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 12:52 digmouse wrote:Poll: Impression on new map?Hooray! (595) 70% No, thanks. (186) 22% No idea. (64) 8% 845 total votes Your vote: Impression on new map? (Vote): Hooray!
(Vote): No, thanks.
(Vote): No idea.
Brought to you by the same people who voted in Metropolis.
Except Metropolis was an excellent map imo. Easy 2 base, not so easy third. Yes in WoL there were split map situations, but such won't happen in HOTS I don't think.
On October 25 2013 00:19 Psychobabas wrote:This is so good for Terran Mech! Can't wait
Whoever goes Terran mech on this map, I'm just going to doom drop them while mass expanding.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 25 2013 00:27 geokilla wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 00:15 a176 wrote:On October 24 2013 12:52 digmouse wrote:Poll: Impression on new map?Hooray! (595) 70% No, thanks. (186) 22% No idea. (64) 8% 845 total votes Your vote: Impression on new map? (Vote): Hooray!
(Vote): No, thanks.
(Vote): No idea.
Brought to you by the same people who voted in Metropolis. Except Metropolis was an excellent map imo. Easy 2 base, not so easy third. Yes in WoL there were split map situations, but such won't happen in HOTS I don't think. Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 00:19 Psychobabas wrote:This is so good for Terran Mech! Can't wait Whoever goes Terran mech on this map, I'm just going to doom drop them while mass expanding.
He meant mech TvZ i bet /s
|
grunching
shakuras plateau!
|
On October 25 2013 00:30 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 00:27 geokilla wrote:On October 25 2013 00:15 a176 wrote:On October 24 2013 12:52 digmouse wrote:Poll: Impression on new map?Hooray! (595) 70% No, thanks. (186) 22% No idea. (64) 8% 845 total votes Your vote: Impression on new map? (Vote): Hooray!
(Vote): No, thanks.
(Vote): No idea.
Brought to you by the same people who voted in Metropolis. Except Metropolis was an excellent map imo. Easy 2 base, not so easy third. Yes in WoL there were split map situations, but such won't happen in HOTS I don't think. On October 25 2013 00:19 Psychobabas wrote:This is so good for Terran Mech! Can't wait Whoever goes Terran mech on this map, I'm just going to doom drop them while mass expanding. He meant mech TvZ i bet /s
I would actually love to start seeing ventral sacs roach/baneling all ins
|
I don't get why they would put a full expansion behind your main. Would really like the map if that were like 5-6 patches and one gas. Also think removing the rocks behind the 4th/5th (whatever you wanna call it) would probably have been good.
|
|
|
China6329 Posts
On October 25 2013 00:52 Big J wrote:btw, since there is a mapthread for this map on TL.net this should go into the OP: Alterzim Stronghold TE
Added!
|
On October 25 2013 00:53 digmouse wrote:Added!
Wow, that was fast. Makes me look quite bad for writing you a PM after you already did it :D
|
On October 24 2013 23:45 iliketurtles wrote:
does someone know what kind of terrain that is?(sc2 MapEditor)
If you mean the tileset it is Shakuras.
|
Am i the only person who misses cloud kingdom?
|
On October 25 2013 01:05 partydude89 wrote:
Am i the only person who misses cloud kingdom?
No.
A retro map season would be awesome. Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, Tal Darim... Steppes of War just for giggles?
|
That's a U-turn from steppes of war or incineration zone, did the design philosophy changed ?
|
On October 25 2013 01:07 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 01:05 partydude89 wrote:
Am i the only person who misses cloud kingdom? No. A retro map season would be awesome. Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, Tal Darim... Steppes of War just for giggles?
Doesn't have to be a whole season, but imagine a mappool like this for WCS:
- some currently popular maps
- some new maps
- 1 "legacy" map, meaning an old one or a rework of an old one
|
This new map seems very very interesting, reminds me of some old BW maps, However we will seen 14 cc 15 nex and even 3 hatch before pool. So some sick macro play? easy 3rd and 4th as well. I think this map for Mech is going to be BRUTAL
|
I really miss the different metagame that other maps (desert oasis, scrap station) could bring
this is just the 5th clone of taldarim altar.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 25 2013 01:53 xuanzue wrote:
I really miss the different metagame that other maps (desert oasis, scrap station) could bring
this is just the 5th clone of taldarim altar.
Rather larger and richer version of Calm before the storm.
|
Woot, Cloud Kingdom terrain is back! Hell yeah!
|
|
|
On October 25 2013 01:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 01:07 H0i wrote:On October 25 2013 01:05 partydude89 wrote:
Am i the only person who misses cloud kingdom? No. A retro map season would be awesome. Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, Tal Darim... Steppes of War just for giggles? Doesn't have to be a whole season, but imagine a mappool like this for WCS: - some currently popular maps - some new maps - 1 "legacy" map, meaning an old one or a rework of an old one
That would be so fun... better than the current META..
|
On October 25 2013 01:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 01:07 H0i wrote:On October 25 2013 01:05 partydude89 wrote:
Am i the only person who misses cloud kingdom? No. A retro map season would be awesome. Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, Tal Darim... Steppes of War just for giggles? Doesn't have to be a whole season, but imagine a mappool like this for WCS: - some currently popular maps - some new maps - 1 "legacy" map, meaning an old one or a rework of an old one
I'd love to have a neo scrap station added for a season.
|
Finally! A map where I can secure my 3rd base painfully early and macro up, throwing my deathball at the opposong deathball......wait.........
Something seems familiar here......
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On October 25 2013 01:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 01:07 H0i wrote:On October 25 2013 01:05 partydude89 wrote:
Am i the only person who misses cloud kingdom? No. A retro map season would be awesome. Cloud Kingdom, Daybreak, Tal Darim... Steppes of War just for giggles? Doesn't have to be a whole season, but imagine a mappool like this for WCS: - some currently popular maps - some new maps - 1 "legacy" map, meaning an old one or a rework of an old one
You mean like the remake of Bel'shir Vestige? x_x
|
i like the design of the map but not sure if it would be fun to play
|
I have always dreamt of a spot (at least) that would be used for "retro" maps like Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom, Ohana or even Shakuras Plateau or Xel'naga Caverns. I'm not sure many people would like it though, besides those maps could be unsuitable for HotS metagame.
|
Jungle Stronghold IV, the new map.
|
On October 24 2013 19:48 S1eth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 19:30 Lorch wrote:On October 24 2013 19:14 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On October 24 2013 17:47 Lorch wrote:
I mean it doesn't look as awful as the maps they used to make. But for the love of god have the people who make sc2 maps spent their time doing something productive. If they would have spent all that time adding features to battle.net, working on new additions to the expansions or even just improving the netcode or cross server lag, instead of torturing us with their maps, we'd probably have a way better game right now. You have a huge community full of people making maps for free for you, use those. And please for the love of god stop making maps at blizzard.
Other than that nice that they give you 3 maps for what was once a ptr.. People who design maps almost certainly don't have the skillset for working on battle.net features. They are almost certainly separate teams...so no time is being "wasted" here. I do agree, the community maps tend to be made with people who actually have experience with the game at a high level, or at least get lots of input from people who do. Wait they have actual people whos fulltime job it is to only make these maps? Well I always figured they'd have some of their people do it on the side when they have time or have interns do them... Holy crap those poor people working at blizzard only to make shitty maps. Well I guess as I don't want them to loose their jobs, gogo keep up the shitty work! Who do you think makes the single player campaign maps? .
I come from fps were traditionally the people in charge for mp maps are different from those in charge of SP maps. I guess it would explain why their mp maps are so terrible given that they spent most of their time doing sp maps.
|
Alterzim Stronghold TE is one of the worst maps Blizzard's brought out yet. It's the Yin to Steppes of War's Yang. At least with Steppes we could have short, exciting games -- too short, naturally, but at least you wouldn't fall asleep part way through a game.
Edit: Frankly, I'm quite surprised Blizzard didn't learn from their mistakes with Condemned Ridge. This is even worse than that map.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 25 2013 05:21 iamcaustic wrote:
Alterzim Stronghold TE is one of the worst maps Blizzard's brought out yet. It's the Yin to Steppes of War's Yang. At least with Steppes we could have short, exciting games -- too short, naturally, but at least you wouldn't fall asleep part way through a game.
And with this map we can have long, exciting games after NR15 :D
Akilon is much smaller, yet it is one of candidates on most boring map ever up there with Daybreak.
|
Edit: Frankly, I'm quite surprised Blizzard didn't learn from their mistakes with Condemned Ridge. This is even worse than that map.
Thought the exact same. Condemned Ridge was supremely bad, yet this map seems to manage to magnify every problem Condemned Ridge had.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 25 2013 05:25 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +Edit: Frankly, I'm quite surprised Blizzard didn't learn from their mistakes with Condemned Ridge. This is even worse than that map. Thought the exact same. Condemned Ridge was supremely bad, yet this map seems to manage to magnify every problem Condemned Ridge had.
As someone who completely missed 2012 in SC2 can you explain? Except for the fact of that Ridge map being stupidly large (at least LP claims so), being not symmetric on close vertical spawns (and ofc more splittable than Shakuras) nothing comes to mind.
|
Map is way too big. Needs to be severely shrunken down, In fact it needs to be smaller than whirlwind.
|
You could float to the natural at the start to see if you could confuse the crap out of somebody. It'd be so legit.
|
in base expo nooooooo. it burns ussssss.
|
That actually showcased nothing, lol.. Tnx for the effort though
|
Is it just me or do you obviously always have an advantage over the base clockwise of you (their in base natural expansion is exposed by air, yours isnt)?
I don't think they get it...
|
On October 25 2013 05:22 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 05:21 iamcaustic wrote:
Alterzim Stronghold TE is one of the worst maps Blizzard's brought out yet. It's the Yin to Steppes of War's Yang. At least with Steppes we could have short, exciting games -- too short, naturally, but at least you wouldn't fall asleep part way through a game. And with this map we can have long, exciting games after NR15 :D Akilon is much smaller, yet it is one of candidates on most boring map ever up there with Daybreak.
I thought DayBreak was a magnificient map just unfortunate units and game dynamics resulted in an eventually terrible dominant strategy. TO that point though it had a lovely balance and flow to it.
|
On October 24 2013 14:06 Shellshock wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 14:00 Holdenintherye wrote:
The new map looks like it'll be a 50 minute game every time At least it's not a map that should have 3 hour games ^^ It could be like the new CBTS though. Maybe we'll see some interesting tech rushes
Is there a vod of this 3 hour game? Seen it mentioned here and on the battlenet blog, want to watch it.
|
|
|
On October 25 2013 05:22 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 05:21 iamcaustic wrote:
Alterzim Stronghold TE is one of the worst maps Blizzard's brought out yet. It's the Yin to Steppes of War's Yang. At least with Steppes we could have short, exciting games -- too short, naturally, but at least you wouldn't fall asleep part way through a game. And with this map we can have long, exciting games after NR15 :D
Nah, what happens most of the time is we have NR15. Then both players meet in the middle with 200/200, followed by a gg at 15:10.
|
I don't get the purpose of these balance changes. They need to buff mech. They're not buffing mech. The armory merging the homogenization of upgrades won't do a thing. Siege tank going from 3.0 to 2.7 won't do much either. Try again, blizzard.
|
So like every new map and balance change, how many people here commenting (negatively) on the two actually have played 15+ games on the new map and other test maps?
|
On October 25 2013 12:49 Sufinsil wrote:
So like every new map and balance change, how many people here commenting (negatively) on the two actually have played 15+ games on the new map and other test maps?
How many people don't need to? Serious question.
|
On October 25 2013 13:39 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 12:49 Sufinsil wrote:
So like every new map and balance change, how many people here commenting (negatively) on the two actually have played 15+ games on the new map and other test maps? How many people don't need to? Serious question.
When you have played 15 000 ++ games and are master/gm you know before testing this map....
That's just fucking bad design and a retarded map, the big macro game is the most boring crap in this game ever, because they last 10 top Sec and the winner..... Win the game.
The smaller map is the future, yea no change in hell I'm reinstalling sc2
When you see potential wasted, that's sad, for me Broodwar and sc2 are my favorite rats and still.... Was really sad to retire from sc2.....well no way you will know I'm who , let just say I did play..... did play a lot of games in sc2 and was decent.....
|
Blizzard needs to understand that putting 20 bases on a map doesn't make people expand more and use more of the map.
People will just keep ignoring half the map as if it were just international air space.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On October 25 2013 21:58 LaLuSh wrote:
Blizzard needs to understand that putting 20 bases on a map doesn't make people expand more and use more of the map.
People will just keep ignoring half the map as if it were just international air space.
If they want people to use more than the map then they need to do what should have been done ages ago and have only 3 bases per corner.
It's the only reason why I liked Antiga since it forced you to move to the other side of the map to take a fourth. Even Entombed wouldn't have been too bad had they not had the dumb as helll fourth bases which should've been mineral only between the two spawns.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 25 2013 21:58 LaLuSh wrote:
Blizzard needs to understand that putting 20 bases on a map doesn't make people expand more and use more of the map.
People will just keep ignoring half the map as if it were just international air space.
Pfft, this map is going to be FFA map too i bet.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 25 2013 22:22 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 21:58 LaLuSh wrote:
Blizzard needs to understand that putting 20 bases on a map doesn't make people expand more and use more of the map.
People will just keep ignoring half the map as if it were just international air space. If they want people to use more than the map then they need to do what should have been done ages ago and have only 3 bases per corner. It's the only reason why I liked Antiga since it forced you to move to the other side of the map to take a fourth. Even Entombed wouldn't have been too bad had they not had the dumb as helll fourth bases which should've been mineral only between the two spawns.
Fighting Spirit to map pools lol :D?
|
I just don't like this huge 4 player maps. The ones like Bel'Shir Vestige are much more fun...
|
On October 25 2013 23:40 Akaann wrote:
I just don't like this huge 4 player maps. The ones like Bel'Shir Vestige are much more fun...
I hate games on BelShir. It mostly finishes after one fight.
I prefer games on huge map like whirlwind.
|
On October 25 2013 23:46 Insoleet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 23:40 Akaann wrote:
I just don't like this huge 4 player maps. The ones like Bel'Shir Vestige are much more fun... I hate games on BelShir. It mostly finishes after one fight. I prefer games on huge map like whirlwind.
Me too. It's nice have maps where you can be greedy and sneak a base.
It would also be nice to have small maps as well.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 26 2013 01:20 TeslasPigeon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 23:46 Insoleet wrote:On October 25 2013 23:40 Akaann wrote:
I just don't like this huge 4 player maps. The ones like Bel'Shir Vestige are much more fun... I hate games on BelShir. It mostly finishes after one fight. I prefer games on huge map like whirlwind. Me too. It's nice have maps where you can be greedy and sneak a base. It would also be nice to have small maps as well.
We have yeonsu for that.
|
Holy shit.
Why don't they add more Warp Prism buffs and maybe make Gateways cheaper? That would seem to satisfy Blizzards goal of making Warpgate the most abusive and powerful mechanic in any RTS.
|
On October 25 2013 23:46 Insoleet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 23:40 Akaann wrote:
I just don't like this huge 4 player maps. The ones like Bel'Shir Vestige are much more fun... I hate games on BelShir. It mostly finishes after one fight. I prefer games on huge map like whirlwind.
the new map is absolutely huge, 1.44x the size of whirlwind
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 26 2013 01:56 kaos00 wrote:
Holy shit.
Why don't they add more Warp Prism buffs and maybe make Gateways cheaper? That would seem to satisfy Blizzards goal of making Warpgate the most abusive and powerful mechanic in any RTS.
Wtf are you talking about?
|
This is map another super safe expansion map. Got to try it.
|
On October 26 2013 02:01 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2013 01:56 kaos00 wrote:
Holy shit.
Why don't they add more Warp Prism buffs and maybe make Gateways cheaper? That would seem to satisfy Blizzards goal of making Warpgate the most abusive and powerful mechanic in any RTS. Wtf are you talking about?
It's way above your head.
Keep making your 60 posts/day of this content level, Mr. Spambot.
|
On October 25 2013 06:41 DinoMight wrote:
Is it just me or do you obviously always have an advantage over the base clockwise of you (their in base natural expansion is exposed by air, yours isnt)?
I don't think they get it...
You are correct, sir. Although it is arguably a very small advantage.
|
On October 24 2013 21:02 jdsowa wrote:
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.
:'D
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 26 2013 02:53 kaos00 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2013 02:01 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 26 2013 01:56 kaos00 wrote:
Holy shit.
Why don't they add more Warp Prism buffs and maybe make Gateways cheaper? That would seem to satisfy Blizzards goal of making Warpgate the most abusive and powerful mechanic in any RTS. Wtf are you talking about? It's way above your head. Keep making your 60 posts/day of this content level, Mr. Spambot.
Your statement in context of this topic was about as out of one as you could get. And i do hate Protoss as race.
Ah yeah, never mind, good baiting though.
|
On October 24 2013 12:58 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player map, designed with the specific goal in mind that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player. that's not how four player maps work unless you're breaking the laws of timespace
This, looked at the map architecture and depending on spawns there is still rather obvious advantages to having one spawn over another.
|
woohoo even worse than akilon
|
more macro oriented maps!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
