|
juicyjames
United States3815 Posts
Season 6 of 2013 Ladder competition is just two short weeks away, and with it we’re adding a host of new maps to the 1v1, 3v3, and 4v4 map pools. You might like to give Free-For-All matchmaking a shot this season, because we’re shaking up the FFA map pool as well. We’ve already published the new 1v1, 3v3, and 4v4 maps below to the Custom Games list, so after you’ve given them a quick look here, be sure to log in and get a few practice games on each before the season rolls at 12:01 a.m. on Monday, November 11.
The 1v1 Map Pool
We're adding two new maps to the 1v1 pool in Season 6, and as always, making additions to the ladder pool means we’ll be removing a few of last season’s maps. Ladder Season 6 will once again feature seven 1v1 maps in total. Here are the maps we’ll be removing, followed by the new additions, and a brief introduction to each map from the StarCraft II development team:
1v1 RemovalsAkilon Wastes Whirlwind LE 1v1 Additions+ Show Spoiler [Star Station TE] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RT6RiUf.jpg) This is a two player version of Star Station edited by Aunvilgod from our StarCraft community on Reddit. The flow of the game should be nearly unchanged from the existing four-player version, but this map is simply more polished for 1v1 play with no confusion on start locations. + Show Spoiler [Comparison] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Xya4ur9.jpg) Alterzim Stronghold (we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) is a four-player macro map we’re intending to use in the 2014 World Championship Series map pool. This is a very large map with lengthy rush distances, an easy to take natural expansion, and many opportunities to expand further as the game progresses. When we designed Alterzim Stronghold, we did so with a couple of objectives in mind. We had the specific goal that all combinations of 1v1 spawn locations on Alterzim Stronghold are viable and don’t offer an advantage to any one player –especially during the early game. Please make sure to test this component of the map and let us know what you think.
With this map, we’re also continuing to push toward our ongoing goal of diversity in the ladder map pool. Experimenting with things like the size of the map, expansion layouts, and the number of expansion locations can seem a little intimidating on first glance, but we’re excited to see what sort of games and meta will play out once we get Alterzim into your hands. Further, we’re also willing to make changes to Alterzim if some of these things aren’t working out like we intended.
We worked with our eSports partners to incorporate their knowledge and feedback, but we’d also like to be extra sure that it’s tournament viable, because we’d really love to have this sort of macro map in the WCS pool next year. Again, we’ll be looking to make necessary tweaks not only before the release of the map, but potentially throughout the remainder of this year as we prepare for the WCS in 2014.
Poll: First Impressions of 1v1 Map Removals?Approve (439) 58% Disapprove (238) 31% Neutral (85) 11% 762 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of 1v1 Map Removals? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
Poll: First Impressions of Star Station TE?Disapprove (378) 48% Approve (307) 39% Neutral (97) 12% 782 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of Star Station TE? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
Poll: First Impressions of Alterzim Stronghold TE?Approve (407) 56% Disapprove (222) 30% Neutral (104) 14% 733 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of Alterzim Stronghold TE? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
Now that we’ve unveiled the new maps you’ll be playing on this season, we’re pleased to show you the complete 1v1 map pool for 2013 Ladder Season 6 and the WCS off-season:
Complete Season 6 1v1 Map Pool
Alterzim Stronghold TE
Bel’Shir Vestige LE
Derelict Watcher TE
Frost LE
Polar Night LE
Star Station TE
Yeonsu LE
In addition to the changes being made to the 1v1 map pool, we’re also making changes to the 3v3 and 4v4 map pools. Below, you’ll find the list of removals, along with a description of each map that we’re adding.
3v3 RemovalsGreen Acres Silent Dunes 3v3 Additions+ Show Spoiler [Scorched Vista] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sEuB5pB.jpg) Scorched Vista is a fortress-style 3v3 map. On this map, you start with your allies and there are easy to take expansions at the beginning of the game. Because the additional expansion locations move away from your opponents, we expect this to be a map that’s fairly easy to defend and macro on. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6zBCW01.jpg) The rush distance between starting locations on Untamed Spire is extremely close. However, you’ll start in the same base as your allies, and expanding should be fairly easy to do as well. On this map, we’re hoping for a good mix of teamwork-focused, rush-based plays, as well as expanding while you defend at your ramp.
Poll: First Impressions of 3v3 Removals?Approve (79) 88% Disapprove (7) 8% Neutral (4) 4% 90 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of 3v3 Removals? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
Poll: First Impressions of Scorched Vista?Approve (80) 84% Disapprove (8) 8% Neutral (7) 7% 95 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of Scorched Vista? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
Poll: First Impressions of Untamed Spire?Approve (60) 64% Disapprove (17) 18% Neutral (17) 18% 94 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of Untamed Spire? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
4v4 RemovalsAtlas Station Deadlock Ridge 4v4 Additions+ Show Spoiler [Retribution LE] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QtD5FJm.jpg) Retribution is a TeamLiquid.net map contest winner under the team maps category. It was not only one of the best maps in the contest, but also the most suitable map we were looking for in terms of variety. We definitely expect to see our community continue to produce great team maps in the future, but in the meantime, please play a few games on this map and send us your thoughts. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cGROrX8.jpg) Shattered Terrace is a 4v4 map on which you’ll start with your allies. The overall rush distance between each team’s base is on the shorter side, so make sure to watch out for early game attacks. Depending on your individual spawn location, however, the distance to the opposing team’s base can be quite far if you’re planning to be on the offense. Outside of the safer expansions behind your team’s starting area, additional bases are fairly easy to attack, so this map has a bigger emphasis on early to mid-game plays than drawn out late games.
Poll: First Impressions of 4v4 Removals?Approve (54) 82% Disapprove (6) 9% Neutral (6) 9% 66 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of 4v4 Removals? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
Poll: First Impressions of Retribution LE?Approve (54) 81% Disapprove (7) 10% Neutral (6) 9% 67 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of Retribution LE? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
Poll: First Impressions of Shattered Terrace?Approve (51) 75% Disapprove (9) 13% Neutral (8) 12% 68 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of Shattered Terrace? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
Finally, it’s been quite some time since we’ve refreshed the Free-For-All map pool. This season, we’re shaking up FFA matchmaking by removing three maps, and adding four new ones. If you’re a 1v1 player, you’ll probably recognize these FFA additions from 1v1 ladder pools in previous seasons.
FFA Removals
Quicksand
Tectonic Rift
Abyss
FFA Additions
Whirlwind LE
Red City LE
Frost LE
Alterzim Stronghold TE
Poll: First Impressions of FFA Removals?Approve (51) 82% Neutral (7) 11% Disapprove (4) 6% 62 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of FFA Removals? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
Poll: First Impressions of FFA Additions?Approve (53) 82% Neutral (8) 12% Disapprove (4) 6% 65 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of FFA Additions? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
All six of the new 1v1, 3v3, and 4v4 maps have already been published to the custom games list in order to give you a chance to check them out before the season roll. Feel free to fire up a few games on the new maps and let us know what you think in the comment section below. Once Ladder Season 6 begins at 12:01 a.m. PDT on Monday, November 11, each map will appear in matchmaking queues for competitive play.
Good luck and have fun in the 2013 Season 6 ladder!
http://eu.battle.net//sc2/en/blog/11427412
http://us.battle.net//sc2/en/blog/11427412
|
Need to fix the map images.
Nice to see some refreshing in the map pool though.
|
akilon and WW where my 2 favorite maps lol T_T
|
gotta get rid of derelict watcher
the only really interesting about it is when you take the "corner" base on the other "half" of the map. otherwise the map is just extremely bland.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I am soooo happy to see retribution included!
Also grats to Aunvilgod for getting his Star Station version on ladder
|
Whirlwind is finally out? This is almost as epic as daybreak leaving.
|
Congrats to Aunvilgod to the Star Station TE making it in! Also very cool they've updated the 3v3, 4v4, and FFA map pools. Stoked for next season's maps.
|
Please get rid of derelict watcher...
Too bad about whirlwind, I liked it, but guess it was getting old.
|
Derelict still in?
Remove Derelict and replace it
|
How long is Season 8? Anybody know?
|
I don't like maps with Natural expansions so completely safe inside the base. It creates bad games with extremely fast 3 base builds. Such as 3 base 11 gate blink from Protoss in PvZ
|
I like the new Star Station. Alterzim looks nice but i'll probably veto it after playing a few games.
The rest of the maps(3v3,4v4 and FFA)also seem fine.
|
AKILON WASTES REMOVED....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
And good riddance whirlwind
|
Thanks for changing team list maps, I know a lot of team players complain about the map pool a lot.
However I only play 1 v1 so I can only comment on those maps:
Thank god for removing akilon and whirlwind, was about time. But why not remove bel'shir as well? I played wol on both whirlwind and bel'shir and even though hots changed the flow of the maps I don't really think we need to still play on old wol maps 6+ months after release. I don't see why we get a smaller cross only version of star station when there are tons and tons of maps being created by the community that are way better than star station (though since I had an almost 100% winrate on that map I guess I'm somewhat ok with adding it back in).
I'm somewhat fine with the other one even though I wish blizzard would just leave map making to the community. But I think giving players a free backdoor expansion is something that has been tried a lot and imo it is worth giving it another try. We have so many standard maps that maybe doing something ridiculously big is a nice way of mixing it up, as early wol has shown us how "well" really small maps work in star 2.
@mnck: I once did a 3 base 16 gate allin by the 9 or 10 minute mark on calm before the storm lol.
|
Don't wanna make a thread about this... Is it impossible to get demoted in starcraft 2 while the season is still going on? Even before ladder lockdown.
|
Canada16217 Posts
On November 01 2013 08:20 Mozdk wrote:
Don't wanna make a thread about this... Is it impossible to get demoted in starcraft 2 while the season is still going on? Even before ladder lockdown.
you cannot be demoted mid-season afaik
|
good that akilon and whirlwind are gone, bad that bel'shir and derelict aren't. will never like star station so i guess i know what i will veto :3
|
What, whirlwind?
Better removing bel'shir.
|
Alterzim Stronghold.
PROTOSS!!!
im happy with that.
dont like the removals though, liked both maps.
|
On November 01 2013 08:30 KalWarkov wrote:
Alterzim Stronghold.
PROTOSS!!!
im happy with that.
dont like the removals though, liked both maps.
They've been around forever, they have to be removed eventually.
|
Derelict survived? wtf i hate that map xD
|
United Kingdom1381 Posts
OMG the FFA map pool got updated.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
They really should've added something new and not the "new" Star Station and they should have also retired Bel'shir vestige. It's the new Daybreak in the fact every game is now the same on it and it's boring as hell.
|
NOOOOO. No more whirlwind makes me sad as hell 
|
The new maps are definitely not the epitome of "perfect maps" and they do have some questionable features, BUT, they definitely succeed in accomplishing the goal of adding diversity to the map pool !
|
|
|
I thought Aunvilgod did that map as a joke.
Also, blizzard using "no confusion about start positions" is a joke in itself.
|
On November 01 2013 09:01 a176 wrote:
I thought Aunvilgod did that map as a joke.
Also, blizzard using "no confusion about start positions" is a joke in itself.
|
Starstation is a zerg map. Altzterhim is an avilo-style turtle yawnfest. Can we get some middle ground here?
|
51461 Posts
if bel'shir isn't gone next season i'm going to throw a tantrum. that map feels like it's been around since the dawn of the century.
|
Canada16217 Posts
On November 01 2013 09:16 GTR wrote:
if bel'shir isn't gone next season i'm going to throw a tantrum. that map feels like it's been around since the dawn of the century.
if we want it to be called the new daybreak it has to be around for at least another year 
|
Holy shit FFA's just got a trillion times better.
|
On November 01 2013 09:16 GTR wrote:
if bel'shir isn't gone next season i'm going to throw a tantrum. that map feels like it's been around since the dawn of the century.
Daybreak v2.
|
United States97276 Posts
Glad to see Akilon Wastes finally retired. That map has been out long enough
|
On November 01 2013 09:23 Shellshock wrote:
Glad to see Akilon Wastes finally retired. That map has been out long enough
theyll just reintroduce it in a couple months with half the spawn positions
|
Well the 4v4 pool just got really awesome! Untamed Spire though, man that has got to be the closest rush distance ever. Guess they are trying to make Twisted Vern work... not sure why.
|
Would love to see belshir removed, but I absolutely love the idea of a 1v1 star station...way to go!
Also alterzim, really? Why don´t you guys make much more vulnerable naturals? Would maybe promote some more agressive
TvZ/PvZ play? Would be nice!
|
starstation... really guys.... 3rd so hard to take....
|
Nice they really wanna change it up this time. Voted in the poll but I think a vote doesnt say much so I want to give some thoughts/impressions in words  :
1vs1 :
Akilon Wastes : Nooo why one of the better maps for mech?
Whirlwind LE : Im ok with that had some good games there but some encounters were pretty random too.
Additions:
Star Station TE : A bit smaller now. But Im neutral here didnt played that much before on that map. We will see how that turns out now.
Alterzim Stronghold TE : Dont like that map. Seems too big. In base low ground natural is nice but at last they could cut the middle by a half.
I dont play team games that much due to lack of players/friends but want to give some impressions anyways.
3vs3 :
Scorched Vista : looks like a really good fortress map.
Untamed Spire : rush distance is really short but with good defense and teamplay this might lead into some nice split map scenarios if you expand southways.
4vs4 :
Retribution LE : this could be a nice teamplay map where every player gets at least 2 bases with nice battles for th middle expansions
Shattered Terrace : a bit confusing were spawn loacations are. If 4vs4s werent so cheese and rush oriented this could be a nice addition.Again teamplay seems important here too.
FFA : I might play some ffa again. Some removals are good like Quicksand cause that map was really a magnet for random games(Day 9 alphabetical ffa anyone?). But some are not so good like Abyss. That map seems perfect for a ffa. Alterzim and Red city on the other hand seem nice for ffa.
Sorry for a bit of wall of text but I dont wanna spam useless posts and I was abit in a writing mood  .
|
I yearn for the day I forget about Akilon. Maybe I'll pop some wine. Waffles and wine... 2 weeks you say? Maybe I'll get off my lazy hind and ladder
|
Why do people approve of AS in the 1v1 pool? Given it's context, it is the single worst map in the history of SC2 to be used on the ladder. It will literally take half of all strategies out of the each game on it.
|
Is the new Star Station really that good?
Alterzim Stronghold... Going to veto that quick.
|
I would've preferred Bel'shir out over Whirlwind but SO SO happy Akilon is out.
Glad to see new maps for teams/FFA.
|
On November 01 2013 09:29 MrRicewife wrote:
starstation... really guys.... 3rd so hard to take....
Good. No more quick 3 bases meta.. I miss the days of Xel'Naga Caverns where 2 base was really fun. Just quick 3 bases is really boring.
|
On November 01 2013 09:39 geokilla wrote:
Is the new Star Station really that good?
Its the same map as the older one, minus two bases.
It will play out exactly as if it were cross-spawn in the 4p version.
So no, its not actually adding ANYTHING new to the ladder.
And yes, Blizzard actually just reintroduced an old map as a new map.
|
I just realized Bel'Shir Vestige is still in... Please let it be replaced by the time the first 2014 WCS season starts. It's too old. D:
|
Called it. Alterzim in the map pool.
|
Kinda sad to see whirlwind gone but why all the disapproval on the new star station? It doesn't seem so bad.
|
I guess Blizzard added Alterzim cause they're really excited for 2 nexuses before gate to become part of the meta?
|
Not sure yet what to think of Alterzim, but from my first impression, I don't really like it..
|
|
|
seems quite hard to expend on alterzim...wait to see if it works for zerg.
|
On November 01 2013 09:47 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 09:39 geokilla wrote:
Is the new Star Station really that good?
Its the same map as the older one, minus two bases. It will play out exactly as if it were cross-spawn in the 4p version. So no, its not actually adding ANYTHING new to the ladder. And yes, Blizzard actually just reintroduced an old map as a new map.
I'd be supportive of it if it were in addition to two actually new maps.
Though when it came to my own ladder I did like to take another main as a third on that map and abuse FFs and warp ins and recall after opening phoenixes... My only fun experience with the map is now impossible. Recalling to transfer probes in secret was such a fun feeling.
|
Kinda sad that Bel'shir Vestige is still in, I think it should've gone out the window with Whirlwind and Akilon, seeing as they have been with us the entire WCS 2013. I don't mind Derelict staying since it was only introduced WCS season 2, but yeah Bel'shir is a map I'm gettin sick of.
I don't really mind them putting Star Station back in, it looks way more badass anyways. And Alterzim, well we'll have to see how that works. Won't veto the map because it won't help me understand why I will constantly lose on it haha.
Also 3v3 maps look cool, since I play a lot of 3's with friends this will be nice and refreshing, especially since we've realized green acres sucks for one person since it's hard to get a natural. So yeah, good stuff.
|
I have mixed feelings about the new 1v1 Ladder Pool but I am absolutely thrilled that they are FINALLY doing something about Team Game Maps.
They seriously need to update those pools more often, this once or twice a year crap is NOT cutting it.
|
Please add to OP. ^^
Poll: First Impressions of Bel'Shir Vestige Not Removed?Disapprove (18) 49% Approve (10) 27% Neutral (9) 24% 37 total votes Your vote: First Impressions of Bel'Shir Vestige Not Removed? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral
|
On November 01 2013 10:29 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 09:47 a176 wrote:On November 01 2013 09:39 geokilla wrote:
Is the new Star Station really that good?
Its the same map as the older one, minus two bases. It will play out exactly as if it were cross-spawn in the 4p version. So no, its not actually adding ANYTHING new to the ladder. And yes, Blizzard actually just reintroduced an old map as a new map. I'd be supportive of it if it were in addition to two actually new maps. Though when it came to my own ladder I did like to take another main as a third on that map and abuse FFs and warp ins and recall after opening phoenixes... My only fun experience with the map is now impossible. Recalling to transfer probes in secret was such a fun feeling.
As a rule I absolutely despise 4 player maps for ninja base shenanigans on ladder. I primarily mech in TvT and TvZ and few things are more frustrating to deal with than to lose a drawn out game because you couldn't stomp ninja bases that kept cropping up everywhere fast enough.
|
The new star station looks SICK! Can't wait. The map was already pretty good for a 4 player but the redesign makes it one of the best in the pool.
|
Approve of the removals, disapprove of New Star Station, neutral on Alterzim Stronghold... Should be interesting, look forward to trying these out!
|
Going to veto Alterzim, 3 hatch before pool will be a nightmare.
|
Austria24417 Posts
GGWP Aunvilgod, I was hoping to see this version of Star Station included someday. Came rather soon!
|
as a zerg i hate star station cause the 4th is just horrible for zergs
|
Do the east and west watch towers on the new Star Station have any purpose in this alteration?
|
I don't like Alterzim, its a bit difficult to pronounce.
|
They should keep Akilon Wastes and Whirlwind, add only Star Station and get rid of Bel’Shir Vestige and Yeonsu.
|
star station, the anti zerg map
|
3v3 and 4v4 changes are AMAZING. Decent 1v1 changes too
|
Wow Whirlwind it finally came to this but sadly replaced with a complete train wreck of a map..
And why would Blizzard remove Star Station and then add it in again?!
Still same god awful map...
|
On November 01 2013 11:11 MyaurA wrote:
star station, the anti zerg map
Well 6 pools are better now that you have only 2 spawns 
|
I have mix feelings for alhterzim. You can wall off your natural easily and take a third and do the standard 3 base passive shanengin but then again the map is big so you can easily take a 4-5th base if they decided to turtle. so its half and half.
|
I might possibly create a little 3D version of Whirlwind and just lit it on fire and watch it burn. I might possibly be gleeful about it.
|
|
|
Here's what I see when I look at Alterzin:
Terran, Quick easily defended third. 2 Base all in's become more devistating because they are now the same only with a 3 economy. Preferace with understanding the following:
Zerg, Proxy hatch with a hidden drone in the natural. The previously mentioned 3 Hatch before gas. Easy creep spread between the three bases. If this is a forced cross-spawn 10 pools make a comeback as they are much safer.
Protoss, Proxy ANYTHING in the natural with a hidden probe. 3 base protoss so early that the "Ball" hits in such a way that the only defenense against protoss is an early offense/cheese/effective harass, which if expected as it will be is easily defended.
Either we see this map get removed half way through the season, or we see some seriously great play. I don't think there is any middle ground.
WW should have been gone sooner, Vestige should be gone instead of Akilon IMO.
|
On November 01 2013 11:25 ZergWalter wrote:
Here's what I see when I look at Alterzin:
Either we see this map get removed half way through the season, or we see some seriously great play. I don't think there is any middle ground.
You know though, I am totally ok taking that gamble every single season.
Better we remove a map that didn't work out then be stuck with the same exact metagame for an entire year with a completely stagnant map pool only to despise said maps at the end of the year. I'm looking at you Akilon Wastes.
|
The new star station map looks awesome!! Really happy with these removals / adds... thanks blizz ^_^
|
New Star Station looks way better, actually. Only thing that didn't change is how easy it is to drop, I'd love to see Dear play a good terran on it.
|
On November 01 2013 11:29 Vindicare605 wrote:
You know though, I am totally ok taking that gamble every single season.
Better we remove a map that didn't work out then be stuck with the same exact metagame for an entire year with a completely stagnant map pool only to despise said maps at the end of the year. I'm looking at you Akilon Wastes.
I definitely have to agree with that open minded mentality.
|
On November 01 2013 11:25 a176 wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K5jJjkz.gif)
So what changes were made? I see none outside of losing two spawn locations and naturals.
|
Glad to see the community has become so detached from reality that you would go around discussing maps rather than focusing on the game's strategy. Now I understand why my mother spanked me at a younger age, sheesh.
User was banned for this post.
|
Caldeum1977 Posts
Sad that Akilon is gone, and I didn't like star station, but ever other map removal or addition, especially the team maps, all look quite interesting.
|
On November 01 2013 11:25 ZergWalter wrote:
WW should have been gone sooner, Vestige should be gone instead of Akilon IMO.
All three should have gone this season TBH. Fruitland deserves a shot at being in the 1v1 map pool IMHO. It might encourage map makers to try new things.
|
As zerg player I certainly will veto Alterzim map. This map is good for long TvP, but not for zerg. Avilo FTW !
|
On November 01 2013 11:45 Elite_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 11:25 ZergWalter wrote:
WW should have been gone sooner, Vestige should be gone instead of Akilon IMO. All three should have gone this season TBH. Fruitland deserves a shot at being in the 1v1 map pool IMHO. It might encourage map makers to try new things.
With regard to gameplay Fruitland is actually a very standard map - except for the lemon thing added in GSTL (which there's no way Blizzard would allow on ladder), the aesthetics are basically the only unusual map feature.
|
|
|
Glad to see Akilon Wastes gone, PvZ's on that map were becoming pathetic.
|
United States97276 Posts
On November 01 2013 11:57 AxionSteel wrote:
Glad to see Akilon Wastes gone, PvZ's on that map were becoming pathetic.
Map had basically been around since before HoTS too (Akilon Flats) so it was turning into Daybreak 2.0. It had served its time
|
Star Station back for more? I guess there are not enough maps out there where protoss is forced to go for an all in or take risky third...
|
On November 01 2013 11:59 vhapter wrote:
Star Station back for more? I guess there are not enough maps out there where protoss is forced to go for an all in or take risky third...
Not every map can be an automatic third for Protoss, it's boring as hell and part of the reason that the metagame is so stagnant right now. Every map is based on an automatic third base in every match up, that needs to have variation if we want this metagame to change at all.
|
In base naturals.... not impressed.
Re-vamped Star Station doesn't feel very new to me... still not impressed.
No big thumbs up from Pappi here. Sorry Krunk.
|
They're removing the best mech map from the map pool (akilon). Not happy
|
not happy at all with this, you've taken 1 good toss map away and whirlwind is at least neautral in a zvp/pvz matchup, and added a zerg favored map and another zerg favored map. im not to happy with this pick, I think polar night and frost are horrible maps, woulda much rather daw derelict and frost go, ill work with it anyways but I don't like this
|
Getting rid of Akilon has got to be a Halloween scare, right?
|
Whirlwind nooooooooooo. Not sure how I feel about the new star station, actually setting up a pincer on the third is "possible" with the back path, but only in specific circumstances.
Also yeah, in base nat. Hate it. Did terran put a CC down? or did he proxy 3 barracks on my side of the map? LET'S FIND OUT.
On the other hand new teamgame maps!!!!!! FINALLY!
|
Glad for both of the removals. I dislike Akilon Wastes because it's been around for way too long and the meta there is so stale.
Whirlwind is much the same. It feels decent, but it's still so old and it needs to be taken out.
|
China6329 Posts
Well I have like 80% win rate on Star Station so I'm pretty ok with it.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On November 01 2013 11:57 Shellshock wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 11:57 AxionSteel wrote:
Glad to see Akilon Wastes gone, PvZ's on that map were becoming pathetic.
Map had basically been around since before HoTS too (Akilon Flats) so it was turning into Daybreak 2.0. It had served its time
Even before then it was basically blistering sands
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Blistering_Sands
|
On November 01 2013 12:41 avilo wrote:They're removing the best mech map from the map pool (akilon). Not happy
They kind of had to due to PvZ issues with the map to say nothing of how old the map was at this point.
|
On November 01 2013 13:16 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 11:57 Shellshock wrote:On November 01 2013 11:57 AxionSteel wrote:
Glad to see Akilon Wastes gone, PvZ's on that map were becoming pathetic.
Map had basically been around since before HoTS too (Akilon Flats) so it was turning into Daybreak 2.0. It had served its time Even before then it was basically blistering sands http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Blistering_Sands
Wow, let's not get over ourselves here =)
|
That new Star Station is going straight out of my map pool, ffs T.T
I really like Altzerim Stronghold though.
|
why would they leave yeonsu and polar they are god awful maps
|
On November 01 2013 13:16 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 12:41 avilo wrote:They're removing the best mech map from the map pool (akilon). Not happy They kind of had to due to PvZ issues with the map to say nothing of how old the map was at this point.
Yeh, well it's true it was Protoss favored with 3-4 easy bases, but also happened to be really good for mech, even in TvP. I'm assuming the PvZ issues you meant are Protoss turtling vs Zerg swarmhost turtle making for quite ridiculous games.
I would argue that's more the swarmhost's terrible design then it was anything to do with the map design.
|
Loving the new FFA maps.
I would like to see a Tiny, TINY map for FFA thou. Something slightly larger then blood bath.
|
Whirlwindddd!!! D:
I suppose it's about time to say goodbye, less it go the way of Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom, and Metalopolis. I could deal with this, except...
how the FUCK did bel'shir and derelict outlast it?! aghhhhhhh
especially bel'shir, it's like the new dual site with the majority of the games on it being boring and playing out the same way. Yet it's still immortal for some reason. Die already ><
|
On November 01 2013 14:19 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
Whirlwindddd!!! D:
I suppose it's about time to say goodbye, less it go the way of Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom, and Metalopolis. I could deal with this, except...
how the FUCK did bel'shir and derelict outlast it?! aghhhhhhh
especially bel'shir, it's like the new dual site with the majority of the games on it being boring and playing out the same way. Yet it's still immortal for some reason. Die already ><
Derelict hasn't outlast Whirlwind yet.
|
I think changes like this have to be more frequent. Like a map-of-the-week thing.
|
I have a suspicion that the reason they are so psyched for getting a gigantic map to work is to distract people with new meta gameplay on huge maps leading up to LotV. The purpose being that if people are distracted with this new meta gameplay, they won't hear as much complaining about the lack of sc1-style unit micro, lack of sc1-style pathing, (not that I believe that glitchy pathing should be in sc2, but sometimes sc1 pathing made units units move in a really cool looking way and it always meant you had to manage your army carefully and that's a good thing, and the way it made it difficult to attack through choke points meant that it wasn't possible to just rush up a ramp in 3 seconds and win, which is good too, and battles generalls lasted longer and were more interesting too), and the third issue is that 3 bases gives you a perfect economy whereas in sc1 you could mine much better by spreading workers among more bases, which could create interesting build orders and situations and also, in sc1 having more workers on a single base also gave you more potential for mining than it does in sc2 which can also be interesting. I am typing this out because this is my viewpoint on sc2 and how it is less fun than sc1, and it's based on my reading on the subject so i want to type it out and discuss it in case i'm missing something. i get depressed playing sc2 these days because of it's problems. anyway, the new huge map is not necessarily bad, afterall BW maps were much larger than sc2 maps and that's partly because of the issues i mentioned before. but i wouldn't be surprised if they tried to tout some new huge map meta as being a new exciting gameplay while not providing LotV with the features that it's lacking compared to sc1 and instead pretending the new huge map meta is addressing those issues for those who don't know better.
|
sad day. polar night still around.
|
Word.
|
please get rid of bel'shir!
|
Russian Federation14 Posts
omg why remove whirlwind while belshir still in mappool T_T
|
they wanted alterzim to replace whirlwind I suppose
|
it is so funny how they always talk about confusion about the starting locations on four player maps while they are just too lazy to show them on the loading screen. it would be so easy to clarify but it seems like too much work to do
|
|
|
I'm fine with this. albeit, derelict could have been removed as well without me being all too sad about it.
|
Lets take one of the worst maps in history of sc2 change the name and call it experiment. jeez ... (calm before the storm anyone?!)
|
Who the hell? I don't even...
Like, are you all trying to be funny?
|
I have seen so many awesome maps on reddit lately and they are using their own "shitty maps" i dont know why, all in all they are very average and i am not really looking forward to play on them.
|
On November 01 2013 17:18 EatThePath wrote:Who the hell? I don't even... Like, are you all trying to be funny?
164/323: 0.507 --> 0.51
99/323: 0.306 --> 0.31
60/323: 0.185 --> 0.19
|
On November 01 2013 17:20 XaCez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 17:18 EatThePath wrote:Who the hell? I don't even... Like, are you all trying to be funny? 164/323: 0.507 --> 0.51 99/323: 0.306 --> 0.31 60/323: 0.185 --> 0.19
Ha, that's funny. ^^
I meant the fact that the map is in majority approval. Confusion reigns.
|
the new Alterzim Stronghold TE map is bad in ZvT because you'r overlord only have a 33%chance to scout the terran. and he can just take a 2bace with out you able to do anything. so a loot of zerg would be behind just because the dident get the right scout. if you dont get the right scout you will have trouble seeing if he is doing a 1bace push or just sitting back and micro. so by that you would be behind as zerg.
|
Really sad they didn't even manage to come up with two new maps instead of only one for 1v1... Good that Whirlwind is gone as it's just too old, but I don't really get why they would add Starstation again?!
Overall I think I'm not gonna be pleased with the upcoming map pool, lot's of not so cool maps.
|
|
|
Can't believe they brought back Star fucking Station. I hate that map.
I'm not even gonna start about Delerict... Lasted at least 3 seasons now. lol
|
Every season I think it's the worst map pool I've ever seen, and everytime they surprise me next season with even worse maps. Star station? It was already cross-only last time and they removed it because it sucked, now they made a version for 2 players only and claim that this solved all of its problems.
Derelict still there? Like, wtf?
Also the new map, I don't really like the natural behind the main base. It's gonna be too easy to expand first and still being able to hold anything. I don't feel like deleting one base aggressive play as an option will make the games on this map more entertaining.
|
(we’re pronouncing it ‘ahl-ter-zeem’) weirdly this is also how some Germans are pronouncing retirement home ^^.
|
These changes are shit. Star Station remains a horrible map, 2 player or 4player doesn´t change anything. The new map is neo Calm before the Storm and we all know how well this map worked out to be.
2 very solid maps go out for this. After we had a well rounded good mappool for the last season (which was the first time in SC2 history that there was no map in the ladder pool, that is just bullshit) Blizzard goes back to their true pattern of introducing horrible maps into the ladder pool.
I´m normally a positive guy, but with the planned balance changes and the new ladder mappool things don´t look good at all for the future of SC2.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On November 01 2013 19:08 TeeTS wrote:
These changes are shit. Star Station remains a horrible map, 2 player or 4player doesn´t change anything. The new map is neo Calm before the Storm and we all know how well this map worked out to be.
2 very solid maps go out for this. After we had a well rounded good mappool for the last season (which was the first time in SC2 history that there was no map in the ladder pool, that is just bullshit) Blizzard goes back to their true pattern of introducing horrible maps into the ladder pool.
I´m normally a positive guy, but with the planned balance changes and the new ladder mappool things don´t look good at all for the future of SC2.
Well rounded? They were all the same haha.
|
Star Station coming back is terrible...
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
After playing some 3v3 for a while this week. The 2 new 3v3 maps look pretty cool xD
The Scorched Vista 1 looks epic, looks a tiny map in the picture but clearly isn't as it has so many bases xD
|
FINALLY! Akilon is gooooooone!
Never again will poor Zergs be forced to waste their lives playing avilo on that map.
|
Good but they should add another map and remove Bel'shir. The new Star Station is basically old Star Station - nat and main of the unused sides. Not sure how much i like it
|
FFA does not function in this game since there are no incentives to play aggressively. In my opinion it is not very ambitious by blizzard to simply add match making. They need to take the game mode seriously by adding special mechanics. For instance maps where if you destroy an enemy building it spawns resources you can pick up worth half the cost of the buildings. Or add respawning creeps with resource drops to reward being out on the map.
|
The change to Star Station is welcome.
|
So awesome to have new maps. Especially in 3x3 and 4x4. And FINALLY some WoL maps are gone. (Belshir you are next).
|
i'm very happy they brought back starnation even though its a remake.
|
Congratulations Blizzard for your incompetence to NOT remove Derelict Watcher. You employees and Mappoolcreater are just useless douchebags!
|
On November 01 2013 19:51 Grumbels wrote:
FFA does not function in this game since there are no incentives to play aggressively. In my opinion it is not very ambitious by blizzard to simply add match making. They need to take the game mode seriously by adding special mechanics. For instance maps where if you destroy an enemy building it spawns resources you can pick up worth half the cost of the buildings. Or add respawning creeps with resource drops to reward being out on the map.
everytime I play FFA and there is a zerg, there is always a 7 pool coming
|
uh I wished they remove all and add 8 completely new 1v1 maps. I cant play on them anymore.
|
On November 01 2013 13:42 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 13:16 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 01 2013 12:41 avilo wrote:They're removing the best mech map from the map pool (akilon). Not happy They kind of had to due to PvZ issues with the map to say nothing of how old the map was at this point. Yeh, well it's true it was Protoss favored with 3-4 easy bases, but also happened to be really good for mech, even in TvP. I'm assuming the PvZ issues you meant are Protoss turtling vs Zerg swarmhost turtle making for quite ridiculous games. I would argue that's more the swarmhost's terrible design then it was anything to do with the map design.
I agree partially with that statement I wasn't a fan of Akilon Wastes for a whole host of other reasons aside from Swarm Host play even if it was a good mech map but I do agree that Swarm Host design is far from perfect.
|
Why Derelict is still here ? I dislike this map since day one and I thing i'm not the only one.
|
backdoor expansions are stupid as well as maps where you can jump/blink in from all angles. both new maps suck
|
I dont get this attitude from most people to remove older maps. Shouldn't it be priority to remove lower quality maps untill there is a map pool of high quality maps and then replace old maps with new ones? Now they removed the by far best 4 player map in the game and replaced it with a map that will most likely turn out to be garbage.
At least akilon is gone, never vetoed that map because it was at least good looking, but it leads to atrocious games every once in a while.
|
how the hell can more ppl approve of alterzim stronghold than star station? Star station looks pretty good imo while the other one is just way to big.
|
It's about time Akilon Wastes got removed. That map wasn't that great from the get-go, surprised it stayed for that long.
|
On November 01 2013 19:32 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 19:08 TeeTS wrote:
These changes are shit. Star Station remains a horrible map, 2 player or 4player doesn´t change anything. The new map is neo Calm before the Storm and we all know how well this map worked out to be.
2 very solid maps go out for this. After we had a well rounded good mappool for the last season (which was the first time in SC2 history that there was no map in the ladder pool, that is just bullshit) Blizzard goes back to their true pattern of introducing horrible maps into the ladder pool.
I´m normally a positive guy, but with the planned balance changes and the new ladder mappool things don´t look good at all for the future of SC2. Well rounded? They were all the same haha.
Everytime a map is not identical to the standard half the player base vetos it.
I like the new starstation (at least from watching to it). Still not much of a fan of that giant map. For my personal play style it won't matter vs terran and toss much, vs zerg they get 3 bases with a single location to defend. But I mainly dislike the dependence on the random number generator of such maps. It is completely dependent on luck if you can scout your opponent or not early on. And especially for toss and terran vs another terran you probably end up with a wall-off when you try to scout, and you don't have a clue what is happening behind it. That can happen also on other maps, but then at least you generally can find out when they take their natural.
|
This mappool is only for wcs off season right ? That's why there are not a lot of new maps
|
On November 01 2013 21:16 Killmouse wrote:
This mappool is only for wcs off season right ? That's why there are not a lot of new maps
Blizzcon 8-9th Nov-
New Mappool begins at 11th Nov.
|
Can't say I like this new pool. Akilon and Whirlwind were two of my favourite maps on the ladder so seeing them removed is painful. Alterzim is going straight on my veto list for sure, I played a couple of customs on it and I just couldn't get myself to like it.
I vaguely remember the 4 player version of Star Station for Season 4 ladder and I found it to be an alright map so I'm intrigued to see how the 2 player version will work out.
Now I need to do some customs on Polar Night/Frost to decide which I'm unvetoing in favour of Alterzim.
|
Will they implement name change (as some said - once per season)?
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On November 01 2013 21:44 ZeRoXSC wrote:
Will they implement name change (as some said - once per season)?
They will.
|
i like the facelift on the TL site. looks hip.
so do the maps.
|
im not a fan of the new Alterzim, thats going to be a veto from me on my list.
|
I know my computer will die ... but I want to play Retribution.
|
On November 01 2013 22:44 Foodar wrote:
im not a fan of the new Alterzim, thats going to be a veto from me on my list.
7 maps are too much or why? I wish 16 very very different 1v1 maps.
|
It is kind of depressing that my first map which gets recognized is one that I didn't even make...
Oh well I am not on top of the mapmaking scene anymore anyway.
On November 01 2013 11:00 DarkLordOlli wrote:
GGWP Aunvilgod, I was hoping to see this version of Star Station included someday. Came rather soon!
Its pretty much the same as before, they removed half the changes. Their map choosing seems kind of erratic, the only reason to include this version of Star Station is the notion that 4 player maps suck ass but at the same time they introduce a new 4 player map...
|
On November 01 2013 23:25 Aunvilgod wrote:It is kind of depressing that my first map which gets recognized is one that I didn't even make... Oh well I am not on top of the mapmaking scene anymore anyway. Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 11:00 DarkLordOlli wrote:
GGWP Aunvilgod, I was hoping to see this version of Star Station included someday. Came rather soon! Its pretty much the same as before, they removed half the changes. Their map choosing seems kind of erratic, the only reason to include this version of Star Station is the notion that 4 player maps suck ass but at the same time they introduce a new 4 player map...
Did they talk to you about any of the changes or that this was happening, or was the map just put into the pool and you found out when everyone else did?
|
On November 01 2013 23:46 HeavenResign wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 23:25 Aunvilgod wrote:It is kind of depressing that my first map which gets recognized is one that I didn't even make... Oh well I am not on top of the mapmaking scene anymore anyway. On November 01 2013 11:00 DarkLordOlli wrote:
GGWP Aunvilgod, I was hoping to see this version of Star Station included someday. Came rather soon! Its pretty much the same as before, they removed half the changes. Their map choosing seems kind of erratic, the only reason to include this version of Star Station is the notion that 4 player maps suck ass but at the same time they introduce a new 4 player map... Did they talk to you about any of the changes or that this was happening, or was the map just put into the pool and you found out when everyone else did?
They asked me maybe 2 months ago if they could possibly use the map. No further communication. I mean I don't care if they ask me or not, this is their map after all, I just wish their changes made more sense.
On the other hand this is really bad for Protoss and I am not fond of watching Protoss.
|
I really despise the new Star Station - it has all the flaws of the original but you don't get neat things like hidden bases and now almost all the bases are impossible to take unless you're zerg. It's like a really bad version of forced cross spawns without any ability to be creative.
|
On November 01 2013 17:18 EatThePath wrote:Who the hell? I don't even... Like, are you all trying to be funny?
They don't realize what they truly have in their hands, did you saw Meta? how they compared Alterzim to Whirlwind? compare a 192^2 to a 160^2 map, damn....
I mean yes the map will be interesting in the sense that we will see some extreme late game scenarios happen, but after the novelty wears off, this map will be so freaking hated like only Incineration Zone has known.
|
WHAT? NEW FFA MAPS? WHAT?
FUCK YEAH
|
So many people dislike Star Station v 2.0? Why? D:
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On November 02 2013 00:23 Alryk wrote:
So many people dislike Star Station v 2.0? Why? D:
They can't adopt for wide-open 3rd base. They are lazy to adopt to other game styles.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On November 02 2013 00:24 Existor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 00:23 Alryk wrote:
So many people dislike Star Station v 2.0? Why? D: They can't adopt for wide-open 3rd base. They are lazy to adopt to other game styles.
Hey, everyone loves free 3rd bases. Well, except for zergs.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Hey, everyone loves free 3rd bases. Well, except for zergs.
Ehm, zergs have more advatange when 3rd base is open, because more chances to cancel it for enemy?
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On November 02 2013 00:27 Existor wrote:Ehm, zergs have more advatange when 3rd base is open, because more chances to cancel it for enemy?
I mean that everyone loves free 3rd bases similar to that of BigAssMap. But zergs, since they usually need +1 base that is either: suddenly not that free; harder to punish greedier openings.
|
here are my entire thoughts on this,
the fact that blizzard is reintroducing the map back onto the ladder under the guise that its "new", when really all they did was remove 2 bases off in the corners. everything else is the same, the map will play out virtually the same.
even worse is their rationale,
"this map is simply more polished for 1v1 play with no confusion on start locations"
this bugs me because they're also releasing Alterzim, a 4p map, with all spawn points enabled
so they have one map where they removed 2 spawn points to not confuse players, and they have another map with 4 spawn points and you have to scout all of them again
seriously who the hell is in charge of blizzard's map pool?
so like, can we actually get some REAL, NEW MAPS ?! you know, there were a bunch that made it as finalists in the last TLMC, the TLMC before that. oh and we have the redbull TLMC going on too ...
|
China6329 Posts
On November 02 2013 00:31 a176 wrote:here are my entire thoughts on this, the fact that blizzard is reintroducing the map back onto the ladder under the guise that its "new", when really all they did was remove 2 bases off in the corners. everything else is the same, the map will play out virtually the same. even worse is their rationale, Show nested quote +
"this map is simply more polished for 1v1 play with no confusion on start locations"
this bugs me because they're also releasing Alterzim, a 4p map, with all spawn points enabledso they have one map where they removed 2 spawn points to not confuse players, and they have another map with 4 spawn points and you have to scout all of them again seriously who the hell is in charge of blizzard's map pool? so like, can we actually get some REAL, NEW MAPS ?! you know, there were a bunch that made it as finalists in the last TLMC, the TLMC before that. oh and we have the redbull TLMC going on too ...
They remove spawns from maps like Antiga and Star Station not because "new players get frustrated", those maps has balance issues when not spawning at cross positions (4th base location on Antiga, short horizontal rush distance on Star Station), so the tournaments forced cross spawn in the first place, that's where the frustration really came from. On other maps like Whirlwind, such spawn imbalance doesn't exist thus no force spawn is used at all.
|
On November 02 2013 00:34 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 00:31 a176 wrote:here are my entire thoughts on this, the fact that blizzard is reintroducing the map back onto the ladder under the guise that its "new", when really all they did was remove 2 bases off in the corners. everything else is the same, the map will play out virtually the same. even worse is their rationale,
"this map is simply more polished for 1v1 play with no confusion on start locations"
this bugs me because they're also releasing Alterzim, a 4p map, with all spawn points enabledso they have one map where they removed 2 spawn points to not confuse players, and they have another map with 4 spawn points and you have to scout all of them again seriously who the hell is in charge of blizzard's map pool? so like, can we actually get some REAL, NEW MAPS ?! you know, there were a bunch that made it as finalists in the last TLMC, the TLMC before that. oh and we have the redbull TLMC going on too ... They remove spawns from maps like Antiga and Star Station not because "new players get frustrated", those maps has balance issues when not spawning at cross positions (4th base location on Antiga, short horizontal rush distance on Star Station), so the tournaments forced cross spawn in the first place, that's where the frustration really came from. On other maps like Whirlwind, such spawn imbalance doesn't exist thus no force spawn is used at all.
starstation is a mirrored map so both players are faced with the same circumstance where they spawn, unlike rotational maps like antiga. anyways, those aren't my words, those are blizzard's.
|
The only injustice here is not removing Derelict Watcher. Everyone else are just a bunch of whiners
|
On November 02 2013 00:59 autechr3 wrote:The only injustice here is not removing Derelict Watcher. Everyone else are just a bunch of whiners
I'm far more annoyed that Bel'Shir Vestige is still in the pool than Derelict Watcher honestly. Map feels extremely dated at this point.
|
Thank you for finally getting rid of POS Akilon
|
no 2v2 maps change? this isvthe worst 2v2 mappool ever
|
Fuuck, they removed one shitty and one decent 3:3 map and added two shitty maps. I hate shared bases and this forces me to play one since I'm out of vetoes. 3:3 was the only thing I could play without being forced to sc2 dumbed down shit. IN broodwar there wasnt even fored spawns on hunters and it was still balanced. In the sc2 ladder there isnt even a map without ramps to the main.
Well I'm just raging now but I'm in the prefect mix of pissed of and sad. Why do I have to play shared base maps? Do people really prefer them? I really dislike to die just coz one of my allies gets fucked. On sensible maps I can atleast counter.
|
I kinda feel bad for zergs in zvt on the new star station..and thats coming from a terran. It seems too easy for terran to cover 4 bases with his army while keeping constant pressure on the zergs 4th base. Especially with the watch tower giving the terran a lot of time to react to potential flanks from the zerg.
|
Much whine in here. "This map sucks 3rd too hard to take." "This map sucks easy 3 bases." You can see who plays which race. Veto the maps, or you can learn to deal with it. If you were expecting maps to let you do the same thing every game, well you're out of luck.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On November 02 2013 02:06 Eatme wrote:
Fuuck, they removed one shitty and one decent 3:3 map and added two shitty maps. I hate shared bases and this forces me to play one since I'm out of vetoes. 3:3 was the only thing I could play without being forced to sc2 dumbed down shit. IN broodwar there wasnt even fored spawns on hunters and it was still balanced. In the sc2 ladder there isnt even a map without ramps to the main.
Well I'm just raging now but I'm in the prefect mix of pissed of and sad. Why do I have to play shared base maps? Do people really prefer them? I really dislike to die just coz one of my allies gets fucked. On sensible maps I can atleast counter.
Well, without shared bases ZZZ can be kinda... goooooood.
|
On November 02 2013 00:23 Alryk wrote:
So many people dislike Star Station v 2.0? Why? D:
Dude we have to have super standard maps only so we can bitch about only having standard maps.
|
On November 02 2013 03:28 havok55 wrote:
Much whine in here. "This map sucks 3rd too hard to take." "This map sucks easy 3 bases." You can see who plays which race. Veto the maps, or you can learn to deal with it. If you were expecting maps to let you do the same thing every game, well you're out of luck.
its funnier that people even think that the new starstation is in anyway different from the old starstation.
|
On November 02 2013 03:40 Lorch wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 00:23 Alryk wrote:
So many people dislike Star Station v 2.0? Why? D: Dude we have to have super standard maps only so we can bitch about only having standard maps.
I guess its the reaper gayness (non homophobic) in TvT, the blink surface in TvP and the open 3rd in TvZ. I cant find the words to describe this map. I guess if you dont play T, you can maybe find a good point about it.
(edit: also no ramp on the nat)
|
The complaint on a lot of these maps is that the third is hard to take as Protoss, meaning that the map itself limits the viability of strategies and dulls gameplay.
Re: Star Station... not quite sure why they put it back.. it's the exact same map but with the corners chopped off. Every Protoss will either 1-2 base all-in or die trying to secure a third.
Re: Alterzim Stronghold TE.. get ready for Nexus first PvP!
|
I feel like the least Blizzard could do is put a little effort into their map pool, especially if they're going to continue to have absolutely no support for map makers.
Taking somebody's edit to one of their own maps, then taking away most of the changes except the removal of two spawn points, and after that calling it a new map.....
I dunno. Kind of feels like Blizzard thinks we're all too focused on 3+ base macro games to notice anything else.
|
i loved the maps they removed ¬¬
|
On November 01 2013 17:56 poult wrote:
the new Alterzim Stronghold TE map is bad in ZvT because you'r overlord only have a 33%chance to scout the terran. and he can just take a 2bace with out you able to do anything. so a loot of zerg would be behind just because the dident get the right scout. if you dont get the right scout you will have trouble seeing if he is doing a 1bace push or just sitting back and micro. so by that you would be behind as zerg.
Very bad reason, same as whirlwind and you can drone scout btw... Also, whirlwind was OP for Zerg in ZvT, imo.
|
Whirlwind was fine, I can't believe they're keeping Polar Night, that's an abortion of a map.
|
So when's Cloud Kingdom getting added back in?
|
On November 02 2013 01:49 SSVnormandy wrote:
no 2v2 maps change? this isvthe worst 2v2 mappool ever
I wholeheartedly disagree. Best 2v2 map pool by far.
|
Why was Star Station taken out anyway? It's a shitty map. I don't like this remake either. Why couldn't the guy add something interesting to the bases he simply cut? It's lazy. Blizzard could've done it themselves if they weren't even lazier when it comes to maps.
Alterzim Stronghold would be decent if it weren't for basically 3 free bases. I sure hope the space in the corners aren't as dead as it looks. I also think PvP is going to be hell.
Edit: Also backdoor bases? When there is Photon Overcharge?
|
On November 02 2013 04:28 sM.Zik wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 17:56 poult wrote:
the new Alterzim Stronghold TE map is bad in ZvT because you'r overlord only have a 33%chance to scout the terran. and he can just take a 2bace with out you able to do anything. so a loot of zerg would be behind just because the dident get the right scout. if you dont get the right scout you will have trouble seeing if he is doing a 1bace push or just sitting back and micro. so by that you would be behind as zerg. Very bad reason, same as whirlwind and you can drone scout btw... Also, whirlwind was OP for Zerg in ZvT, imo.
So op it is about 50%. Damn broken map.
|
On November 02 2013 06:02 Ravomat wrote:
Why was Star Station taken out anyway? It's a shitty map. I don't like this remake either. Why couldn't the guy add something interesting to the bases he simply cut? It's lazy. Blizzard could've done it themselves if they weren't even lazier when it comes to maps.
Because I didn't want to change the map that much. It should still be Star Station. If I would have had big changes in mind I would have started a new map from scratch.
|
i dislike recycling maps because it's boring and repetitive and defeats the point of even changing the map pool, so thumbs down on star station
alterzim is nice visually and i'm in favor of experimenting with the huge map size, but the map itself is pretty boring. it's still just a big open flat in the middle of the map with random doodads (chasms, pillars, etc) added to force choke points so protoss can forcefield everything to hell no matter where they are, just like most maps
|
nooo akilon nooooooooooooo!!!!!!
2nd new map are awesome
1st new map are suck
|
On November 02 2013 07:47 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 06:02 Ravomat wrote:
Why was Star Station taken out anyway? It's a shitty map. I don't like this remake either. Why couldn't the guy add something interesting to the bases he simply cut? It's lazy. Blizzard could've done it themselves if they weren't even lazier when it comes to maps. Because I didn't want to change the map that much. It should still be Star Station. If I would have had big changes in mind I would have started a new map from scratch.
It's half of Star Station. I play Protoss and on those 2 mains that disappeared were important proxy pylon locations. It was already difficult to expand, now it's impossible to get any proxy pylons up in PvZ, too. In PvT drops can't be intercepted or even spotted anymore before they reach the natural unless it happens just outside Terran's base because the map is like 25% dead airspace now. Also the possibility of taking a hidden base vanished.
I'd have liked to see the watch towers go. They make controlling the map almost effortless.
I get that you didn't want to spend a lot of time on an existing map but something should be where there is only dead space now. Then again why did you even bother changing the map in the first place? Do you like it that much?
I didn't veto Star Station the first time it was in the pool, but I'll have to veto it this time.
Edit: grammer
|
United States97276 Posts
not a fan of the new star station. Would have rather seen them try something new. At least Alterizim should be interesting... I hope
|
i'll miss Akilion wastes, yeah overplayed / old. but really well made made map, pretty balanced imo
|
On November 02 2013 18:13 Ravomat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 07:47 Aunvilgod wrote:On November 02 2013 06:02 Ravomat wrote:
Why was Star Station taken out anyway? It's a shitty map. I don't like this remake either. Why couldn't the guy add something interesting to the bases he simply cut? It's lazy. Blizzard could've done it themselves if they weren't even lazier when it comes to maps. Because I didn't want to change the map that much. It should still be Star Station. If I would have had big changes in mind I would have started a new map from scratch. I get that you didn't want to spend a lot of time on an existing map but something should be where there is only dead space now. Then again why did you even bother changing the map in the first place? Do you like it that much?
I don't believe in dead space. I think it has no negative impact. It makes drop easier and more powerful. Fine with me. The argument that you should use ever bit of space you have is even more stupid because then you should make every map a circle. After all you are not limited in size.
|
On November 02 2013 18:55 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 18:13 Ravomat wrote:On November 02 2013 07:47 Aunvilgod wrote:On November 02 2013 06:02 Ravomat wrote:
Why was Star Station taken out anyway? It's a shitty map. I don't like this remake either. Why couldn't the guy add something interesting to the bases he simply cut? It's lazy. Blizzard could've done it themselves if they weren't even lazier when it comes to maps. Because I didn't want to change the map that much. It should still be Star Station. If I would have had big changes in mind I would have started a new map from scratch. I get that you didn't want to spend a lot of time on an existing map but something should be where there is only dead space now. Then again why did you even bother changing the map in the first place? Do you like it that much? I don't believe in dead space. I think it has no negative impact. It makes drop easier and more powerful. Fine with me. The argument that you should use ever bit of space you have is even more stupid because then you should make every map a circle. After all you are not limited in size.
I never said there should be no dead space at all. I merely said something should have replaced the spawn positions that vanished, move their thirds a little more to the corner, or combine them, just something. The map already had much (enough) air space as it is, drops were strong too. My point is you could have made the map more interesting, instead you just took from it, and you didn't even take the towers that oversee everything. And Blizzard put a, in my opinion, now lacking version of the map in the pool for its 5th season.
I don't even understand why they didn't put in an entirely new map or a different old one. Bifrost would have been a good choice. It's old, it has a backdoor expansion like Alterzim, but it wasn't in the ladder before.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On November 02 2013 18:37 ROOTCatZ wrote:
i'll miss Akilion wastes, yeah overplayed / old. but really well made made map, pretty balanced imo
I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm really unsure how anyone could possibly say that. It was one of the worst examples of why SC2 map design is so bad.
|
Blizzard seems intent on continuing their tradition of being bad at competitive maps. I have to wonder if it's a running gag inside the company.
|
I'm really sad about the whirlwind removal, its been with us since WOL. It would also be really cool if they remixed a super old map like metropolis or something. But that new map looks pretty fun, cant wait!
|
On November 02 2013 20:05 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 18:37 ROOTCatZ wrote:
i'll miss Akilion wastes, yeah overplayed / old. but really well made made map, pretty balanced imo I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm really unsure how anyone could possibly say that. It was one of the worst examples of why SC2 map design is so bad.
Yeah, it's completely uninspired and completely sloppy. Looks like someone sat down with no ideas at all and spent like twenty minutes on it. Blizzard is pretty good about trying different things and creating a sort of well-rounded pool, even if their execution isn't good, but this was like their standard macro 2p map so it has nothing going for it at all. It was an okay map to introduce HotS stuff on but it shouldn't have stayed around any longer than this. I would have gotten rid of it six months ago.
|
I played a tvz on Alterzim cross spawns and it seemed almost impossible to get across. Even drops have to fly around the world with lots of opprtunities to get intercepted. Instaveto for all terrans, or is there a way to win?
|
On November 02 2013 20:05 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 18:37 ROOTCatZ wrote:
i'll miss Akilion wastes, yeah overplayed / old. but really well made made map, pretty balanced imo I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm really unsure how anyone could possibly say that. It was one of the worst examples of why SC2 map design is so bad.
So it's a good map?
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On November 03 2013 20:26 S1eth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 20:05 Qikz wrote:On November 02 2013 18:37 ROOTCatZ wrote:
i'll miss Akilion wastes, yeah overplayed / old. but really well made made map, pretty balanced imo I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm really unsure how anyone could possibly say that. It was one of the worst examples of why SC2 map design is so bad. So it's a good map?
Sorry you'll have to forgive my terrible wording of that. I mean it's one of the main examples that shows why SC2 map design in my eyes is terrible.
You can get four bases with very minimal army movement which is very bad design. Even three bases should either force you to split up your army or move it around a lot. Being able to blob and sit in one place to defend all three bases is one of the largest problems.
|
On November 03 2013 20:51 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 20:26 S1eth wrote:On November 02 2013 20:05 Qikz wrote:On November 02 2013 18:37 ROOTCatZ wrote:
i'll miss Akilion wastes, yeah overplayed / old. but really well made made map, pretty balanced imo I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm really unsure how anyone could possibly say that. It was one of the worst examples of why SC2 map design is so bad. So it's a good map? Sorry you'll have to forgive my terrible wording of that. I mean it's one of the main examples that shows why SC2 map design in my eyes is terrible. You can get four bases with very minimal army movement which is very bad design. Even three bases should either force you to split up your army or move it around a lot. Being able to blob and sit in one place to defend all three bases is one of the largest problems.
That's the mindset of somebody who has a race with high mobility
If what you said was true, Protoss would never be able to take 3 bases. Ever.
Like on Polar Night.
Polar Night is in my view one of the worst SC2 maps ever for Protoss. According to your description it's a good map though. But all I know is that as soon as I try to get 3 bases on that map, Zerg overruns me on multiple fronts, mutas come from 360° in my main, and I'm not even speaking of Terran drops.
Reasonable distances between the natural and third ( without too much open space ) is a critical feature of a decent Protoss map.
If you think otherwise, don't go complaining that Protoss only ever does 2 base all-ins.
|
On November 03 2013 20:51 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 20:26 S1eth wrote:On November 02 2013 20:05 Qikz wrote:On November 02 2013 18:37 ROOTCatZ wrote:
i'll miss Akilion wastes, yeah overplayed / old. but really well made made map, pretty balanced imo I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm really unsure how anyone could possibly say that. It was one of the worst examples of why SC2 map design is so bad. So it's a good map? Sorry you'll have to forgive my terrible wording of that. I mean it's one of the main examples that shows why SC2 map design in my eyes is terrible. You can get four bases with very minimal army movement which is very bad design. Even three bases should either force you to split up your army or move it around a lot. Being able to blob and sit in one place to defend all three bases is one of the largest problems.
It is perfectly fine to have one map in the pool that allows for easier expanding. And from all the games I've seen, it's not exactly easy to defend all four bases from attacks/drops.
|
Happy they removed Akilon, though sad that Whirlwind also had to go. Hopefully new maps will bring more exciting strategies.
|
I thought Akilon deserved to stay, it's still providing pretty exciting and interesting games. Whirlwind was excellent but have probably been around too long. Bel'Shir should go next, Star Station TE is going to be another nightmare for Protoss with an impossible 3rd...
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On November 03 2013 23:12 Khai wrote:
I thought Akilon deserved to stay, it's still providing pretty exciting and interesting games. Whirlwind was excellent but have probably been around too long. Bel'Shir should go next, Star Station TE is going to be another nightmare for Protoss with an impossible 3rd...
If it's hard for the toss to take, it's also easy to attack into so players will just, for the first time in SC2 have to actually tailor builds to that map be it expanding behind a 2 base attack or doing some form of all in, or even expanding far away from their main sneakily.
|
Love that blizzard is trying to mix in maps that will cause different styles of games while taking out maps that have become stale.
|
Very sad to see Akilon go. Not a fan of Star Station, but Alterzim looks kickass! 20 bases! 20 of them!
Also I like the 3v3 maps a lot, 4v4 I'm a little confused where the starting positions are on the second one...
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On November 03 2013 22:48 Nyast wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 20:51 Qikz wrote:On November 03 2013 20:26 S1eth wrote:On November 02 2013 20:05 Qikz wrote:On November 02 2013 18:37 ROOTCatZ wrote:
i'll miss Akilion wastes, yeah overplayed / old. but really well made made map, pretty balanced imo I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm really unsure how anyone could possibly say that. It was one of the worst examples of why SC2 map design is so bad. So it's a good map? Sorry you'll have to forgive my terrible wording of that. I mean it's one of the main examples that shows why SC2 map design in my eyes is terrible. You can get four bases with very minimal army movement which is very bad design. Even three bases should either force you to split up your army or move it around a lot. Being able to blob and sit in one place to defend all three bases is one of the largest problems. That's the mindset of somebody who has a race with high mobility If what you said was true, Protoss would never be able to take 3 bases. Ever. Like on Polar Night. Polar Night is in my view one of the worst SC2 maps ever for Protoss. According to your description it's a good map though. But all I know is that as soon as I try to get 3 bases on that map, Zerg overruns me on multiple fronts, mutas come from 360° in my main, and I'm not even speaking of Terran drops. Reasonable distances between the natural and third ( without too much open space ) is a critical feature of a decent Protoss map. If you think otherwise, don't go complaining that Protoss only ever does 2 base all-ins.
High mobility? High mobility? All I ever play is mech. In fact, I got so bored of the map rotation being so stale and so easy to get three bases (which benefits me considerably) that I stopped playing the game completely and went back to play BW again.
|
On November 04 2013 00:28 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 22:48 Nyast wrote:On November 03 2013 20:51 Qikz wrote:On November 03 2013 20:26 S1eth wrote:On November 02 2013 20:05 Qikz wrote:On November 02 2013 18:37 ROOTCatZ wrote:
i'll miss Akilion wastes, yeah overplayed / old. but really well made made map, pretty balanced imo I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm really unsure how anyone could possibly say that. It was one of the worst examples of why SC2 map design is so bad. So it's a good map? Sorry you'll have to forgive my terrible wording of that. I mean it's one of the main examples that shows why SC2 map design in my eyes is terrible. You can get four bases with very minimal army movement which is very bad design. Even three bases should either force you to split up your army or move it around a lot. Being able to blob and sit in one place to defend all three bases is one of the largest problems. That's the mindset of somebody who has a race with high mobility If what you said was true, Protoss would never be able to take 3 bases. Ever. Like on Polar Night. Polar Night is in my view one of the worst SC2 maps ever for Protoss. According to your description it's a good map though. But all I know is that as soon as I try to get 3 bases on that map, Zerg overruns me on multiple fronts, mutas come from 360° in my main, and I'm not even speaking of Terran drops. Reasonable distances between the natural and third ( without too much open space ) is a critical feature of a decent Protoss map. If you think otherwise, don't go complaining that Protoss only ever does 2 base all-ins. High mobility? High mobility? All I ever play is mech.
Concerning Protoss... Ugh this is my biggest problem with it all right now. Not how the race is, but how much people complain about it. It's completely impossible to implement any sort of even slightly distant third base without everyone whining about Protoss.
Here's what I think happened: Back in like 2011, Protoss was having a hard time. We were all unhappy with Blizzard maps in general, and I guess with patches as well. Naturally we were trying to balance the games with maps. The Koreans were already moving towards it, releasing Daybreak around that time for example. We were unfortunately impatient, not allowing players to keep trying to adapt and Blizzard to patch when they felt it was time. The TLMC happened and Cloud Kingdom, Ohana and Korhal Compound were released. People loved CK and Ohana but hated Korhal because the third was too hard to take. From then on there was no chance undoing our mistake. Maybe by now enough people are complaining about easy thirds they a movement back would be accepted. I hope so.
Oddly enough the thirds on Ohana, Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak, despite being pretty close, don't have the easiest to defend designs. All three have more open paths in for the attacker than the defender, on CK due to your own nexus being in the way since the map is squished into too small of bounds and there wasn't enough room. So even back in WoL we could have done a better job without risking the balance much, and I tried to a little as it became apparent to me but it wasn't really anything significant by the time HotS came out.
On HotS Protoss is definitely more equipped with msc to hold thirds so I think that helps some too. They still seem to (at least in people's minds) require closer thirds than the other races do, but by less than in WoL, right? It's definitely about time we had some further away thirds. I think I'll make it my goal to get a BW style 12 base 4p map into the pools. FS from proleague does seem to have some tough winrates for PvZ but I'm sticking to my guns about this. To put it extremely: we should be playing on maps that make interesting games no matter how imba they are, and Blizzard should be forced to patch.
Edit: And I think Mech and Protoss are likely in similar positions here. T could end up playing a lot more bio, and Blizzard will hopefully still change that but it would be a lower priority than making Protoss winrates okay, I expect. And they have at times given up on the idea of mech being viable, so I guess there could be some problems on that front if we move in that direction.
For maps, proper use of choke points and on occasion maybe some extra gas in the resource ratio could help.
|
IMO easy thirds are not automatically bad. You can make up for them by making drops/mutas powerful. You can also make the nat vulnerable to counterattacks. You can also make thirds seemingly easy by making the nat nearly invulnerable but in exchange allow the attacker to have a nice concave. Another thing that factors in is the distance of the 3rd from the opponent. The trick is to make Immortal-Sentry-Bullshit unattractive while still allowing the Terran/Zerg to pull the Protoss out of position.
Of course it would be helpful if Blizzard finally made Protoss a less all-in race but I am not very confident in that respect.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Edit: And I think Mech and Protoss are likely in similar positions here. T could end up playing a lot more bio, and Blizzard will hopefully still change that but it would be a lower priority than making Protoss winrates okay, I expect. And they have at times given up on the idea of mech being viable, so I guess there could be some problems on that front if we move in that direction.
For maps, proper use of choke points and on occasion maybe some extra gas in the resource ratio could help.
You can have a "far" third and still have it easily defendable for both Protoss and Terran. Do a fighting spirit style third with a one wide ramp you can either wall or forcefield but have it slightly further from the natural than many maps now and bam you have a good map I'd say.
|
I hoped they would removed Bel'shir Vestige .. I hate that map >.<
|
On November 04 2013 01:49 Aunvilgod wrote:
IMO easy thirds are not automatically bad. You can make up for them by making drops/mutas powerful. You can also make the nat vulnerable to counterattacks. You can also make thirds seemingly easy by making the nat nearly invulnerable but in exchange allow the attacker to have a nice concave. Another thing that factors in is the distance of the 3rd from the opponent. The trick is to make Immortal-Sentry-Bullshit unattractive while still allowing the Terran/Zerg to pull the Protoss out of position.
Of course it would be helpful if Blizzard finally made Protoss a less all-in race but I am not very confident in that respect.
Yeah, I wouldn't say that every map needs to be a further third, but at least some, and I'd argue probably most.
Closer more open thirds remove a lot of the gameplay, which means emphasis on the remaining parts. That can be a good thing so long as it doesn't get too dull or without skill. If you give the attacker a concave and have a close third, you're saying players don't have to use movement and positioning as much, and adding more risk to moving out with a few units (part of a larger army) or investing in something that doesn't aid in defense. Games on Ohana were a lot about risk/reward like that, rather than positioning, weren't they? There was a little bit of movement around from the nat to the third but it was more about strategic decisions. If you have less positioning or tactics or terrain use or whatever you put more emphasis on other elements, and those become the deciding factors more often on that map.
I think overall it would be better to add more risk/reward gameplay than to remove positional gameplay, but that might not be doable for every map. At least not without some crazy feature or something.
Generally speaking I feel that maps with close open thirds or something like that, emphasizing strategy, something that has more to do with game design than map design, tend to all feel about the same. If you emphasize the positional and such, and have more space between the nat and third for variability on the map, you can make each map feel like a more significant change. I think most people would say that would be a good thing. That's another reason I think it should be a more common style than closer thirds.
|
|
|
On November 04 2013 02:42 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 01:49 Aunvilgod wrote:
IMO easy thirds are not automatically bad. You can make up for them by making drops/mutas powerful. You can also make the nat vulnerable to counterattacks. You can also make thirds seemingly easy by making the nat nearly invulnerable but in exchange allow the attacker to have a nice concave. Another thing that factors in is the distance of the 3rd from the opponent. The trick is to make Immortal-Sentry-Bullshit unattractive while still allowing the Terran/Zerg to pull the Protoss out of position.
Of course it would be helpful if Blizzard finally made Protoss a less all-in race but I am not very confident in that respect. Yeah, I wouldn't say that every map needs to be a further third, but at least some, and I'd argue probably most. Closer more open thirds remove a lot of the gameplay, which means emphasis on the remaining parts. That can be a good thing so long as it doesn't get too dull or without skill. If you give the attacker a concave and have a close third, you're saying players don't have to use movement and positioning as much, and adding more risk to moving out with a few units (part of a larger army) or investing in something that doesn't aid in defense. Games on Ohana were a lot about risk/reward like that, rather than positioning, weren't they? There was a little bit of movement around from the nat to the third but it was more about strategic decisions. If you have less positioning or tactics or terrain use or whatever you put more emphasis on other elements, and those become the deciding factors more often on that map. I think overall it would be better to add more risk/reward gameplay than to remove positional gameplay, but that might not be doable for every map. At least not without some crazy feature or something. Generally speaking I feel that maps with close open thirds or something like that, emphasizing strategy, something that has more to do with game design than map design, tend to all feel about the same. If you emphasize the positional and such, and have more space between the nat and third for variability on the map, you can make each map feel like a more significant change. I think most people would say that would be a good thing. That's another reason I think it should be a more common style than closer thirds.
In my opinion proper army positioning is something the top players should be expected to have down at this point. What I am trying to create is the opportunity for ongoing battles and even trades. I want the T/Z to attack into the Protoss, have an even trade and then have the T/Z go for the next wave of attack. With closer and open 3rds I am pretty much trying to recreate the current 4M TvZ in TvP and PvZ. That should be, in my opinion, the current goal for SC2 mapmakers and Blizzard. I cannot believe people want to see mech with its 200 supply deathball in this game.
|
On November 04 2013 02:57 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 02:42 Gfire wrote:On November 04 2013 01:49 Aunvilgod wrote:
IMO easy thirds are not automatically bad. You can make up for them by making drops/mutas powerful. You can also make the nat vulnerable to counterattacks. You can also make thirds seemingly easy by making the nat nearly invulnerable but in exchange allow the attacker to have a nice concave. Another thing that factors in is the distance of the 3rd from the opponent. The trick is to make Immortal-Sentry-Bullshit unattractive while still allowing the Terran/Zerg to pull the Protoss out of position.
Of course it would be helpful if Blizzard finally made Protoss a less all-in race but I am not very confident in that respect. Yeah, I wouldn't say that every map needs to be a further third, but at least some, and I'd argue probably most. Closer more open thirds remove a lot of the gameplay, which means emphasis on the remaining parts. That can be a good thing so long as it doesn't get too dull or without skill. If you give the attacker a concave and have a close third, you're saying players don't have to use movement and positioning as much, and adding more risk to moving out with a few units (part of a larger army) or investing in something that doesn't aid in defense. Games on Ohana were a lot about risk/reward like that, rather than positioning, weren't they? There was a little bit of movement around from the nat to the third but it was more about strategic decisions. If you have less positioning or tactics or terrain use or whatever you put more emphasis on other elements, and those become the deciding factors more often on that map. I think overall it would be better to add more risk/reward gameplay than to remove positional gameplay, but that might not be doable for every map. At least not without some crazy feature or something. Generally speaking I feel that maps with close open thirds or something like that, emphasizing strategy, something that has more to do with game design than map design, tend to all feel about the same. If you emphasize the positional and such, and have more space between the nat and third for variability on the map, you can make each map feel like a more significant change. I think most people would say that would be a good thing. That's another reason I think it should be a more common style than closer thirds. In my opinion proper army positioning is something the top players should be expected to have down at this point. What I am trying to create is the opportunity for ongoing battles and even trades. I want the T/Z to attack into the Protoss, have an even trade and then have the T/Z go for the next wave of attack. With closer and open 3rds I am pretty much trying to recreate the current 4M TvZ in TvP and PvZ. That should be, in my opinion, the current goal for SC2 mapmakers and Blizzard. I cannot believe people want to see mech with its 200 supply deathball in this game.
The thing about this though is that Protoss's natural tactical and strategic inclination is to "save up" their army until they can take a decisive battle because they have so much trouble fighting cost effectively when they're behind. The risk of arriving in such a position by engaging without a clear shot at winning is too much. So I feel overall open 3rds just promote deathball turtling style play from protoss especially.
|
So 2v2 has the worst map pool of all leagues but there are yet again no changes to it?
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On November 04 2013 02:57 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 02:42 Gfire wrote:On November 04 2013 01:49 Aunvilgod wrote:
IMO easy thirds are not automatically bad. You can make up for them by making drops/mutas powerful. You can also make the nat vulnerable to counterattacks. You can also make thirds seemingly easy by making the nat nearly invulnerable but in exchange allow the attacker to have a nice concave. Another thing that factors in is the distance of the 3rd from the opponent. The trick is to make Immortal-Sentry-Bullshit unattractive while still allowing the Terran/Zerg to pull the Protoss out of position.
Of course it would be helpful if Blizzard finally made Protoss a less all-in race but I am not very confident in that respect. Yeah, I wouldn't say that every map needs to be a further third, but at least some, and I'd argue probably most. Closer more open thirds remove a lot of the gameplay, which means emphasis on the remaining parts. That can be a good thing so long as it doesn't get too dull or without skill. If you give the attacker a concave and have a close third, you're saying players don't have to use movement and positioning as much, and adding more risk to moving out with a few units (part of a larger army) or investing in something that doesn't aid in defense. Games on Ohana were a lot about risk/reward like that, rather than positioning, weren't they? There was a little bit of movement around from the nat to the third but it was more about strategic decisions. If you have less positioning or tactics or terrain use or whatever you put more emphasis on other elements, and those become the deciding factors more often on that map. I think overall it would be better to add more risk/reward gameplay than to remove positional gameplay, but that might not be doable for every map. At least not without some crazy feature or something. Generally speaking I feel that maps with close open thirds or something like that, emphasizing strategy, something that has more to do with game design than map design, tend to all feel about the same. If you emphasize the positional and such, and have more space between the nat and third for variability on the map, you can make each map feel like a more significant change. I think most people would say that would be a good thing. That's another reason I think it should be a more common style than closer thirds. In my opinion proper army positioning is something the top players should be expected to have down at this point. What I am trying to create is the opportunity for ongoing battles and even trades. I want the T/Z to attack into the Protoss, have an even trade and then have the T/Z go for the next wave of attack. With closer and open 3rds I am pretty much trying to recreate the current 4M TvZ in TvP and PvZ. That should be, in my opinion, the current goal for SC2 mapmakers and Blizzard. I cannot believe people want to see mech with its 200 supply deathball in this game.
I don't find that at all enjoyable. It's just two sides rallying stuff into each other and it really isn't interesting at all.
|
On November 04 2013 03:50 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 02:57 Aunvilgod wrote:On November 04 2013 02:42 Gfire wrote:On November 04 2013 01:49 Aunvilgod wrote:
IMO easy thirds are not automatically bad. You can make up for them by making drops/mutas powerful. You can also make the nat vulnerable to counterattacks. You can also make thirds seemingly easy by making the nat nearly invulnerable but in exchange allow the attacker to have a nice concave. Another thing that factors in is the distance of the 3rd from the opponent. The trick is to make Immortal-Sentry-Bullshit unattractive while still allowing the Terran/Zerg to pull the Protoss out of position.
Of course it would be helpful if Blizzard finally made Protoss a less all-in race but I am not very confident in that respect. Yeah, I wouldn't say that every map needs to be a further third, but at least some, and I'd argue probably most. Closer more open thirds remove a lot of the gameplay, which means emphasis on the remaining parts. That can be a good thing so long as it doesn't get too dull or without skill. If you give the attacker a concave and have a close third, you're saying players don't have to use movement and positioning as much, and adding more risk to moving out with a few units (part of a larger army) or investing in something that doesn't aid in defense. Games on Ohana were a lot about risk/reward like that, rather than positioning, weren't they? There was a little bit of movement around from the nat to the third but it was more about strategic decisions. If you have less positioning or tactics or terrain use or whatever you put more emphasis on other elements, and those become the deciding factors more often on that map. I think overall it would be better to add more risk/reward gameplay than to remove positional gameplay, but that might not be doable for every map. At least not without some crazy feature or something. Generally speaking I feel that maps with close open thirds or something like that, emphasizing strategy, something that has more to do with game design than map design, tend to all feel about the same. If you emphasize the positional and such, and have more space between the nat and third for variability on the map, you can make each map feel like a more significant change. I think most people would say that would be a good thing. That's another reason I think it should be a more common style than closer thirds. In my opinion proper army positioning is something the top players should be expected to have down at this point. What I am trying to create is the opportunity for ongoing battles and even trades. I want the T/Z to attack into the Protoss, have an even trade and then have the T/Z go for the next wave of attack. With closer and open 3rds I am pretty much trying to recreate the current 4M TvZ in TvP and PvZ. That should be, in my opinion, the current goal for SC2 mapmakers and Blizzard. I cannot believe people want to see mech with its 200 supply deathball in this game. I don't find that at all enjoyable. It's just two sides rallying stuff into each other and it really isn't interesting at all.
The matchup is evolving though. Zergs have, since the Overseer buff, been getting hive more and more often. Terrans have started mixing in Thors. The age of the never ending push seems to have come to an end anyway. From what I have been seeing the matchup is much more diverse now. The compositions remain mainly the same, yes, but they HAVE to settle at one point anyway. Unless you expect Blizzard to buff/nerf the game forever which (1) won't happen and (2) greatly decrease the legitimacy of SC2 as a sport. You don't change the rules of football every few months to keep it interesting either, do you?
And if you still don't like that, what would you like better? A 20 minute turtle until max followed by a move-out and a short fight?
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On November 04 2013 04:33 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 03:50 Qikz wrote:On November 04 2013 02:57 Aunvilgod wrote:On November 04 2013 02:42 Gfire wrote:On November 04 2013 01:49 Aunvilgod wrote:
IMO easy thirds are not automatically bad. You can make up for them by making drops/mutas powerful. You can also make the nat vulnerable to counterattacks. You can also make thirds seemingly easy by making the nat nearly invulnerable but in exchange allow the attacker to have a nice concave. Another thing that factors in is the distance of the 3rd from the opponent. The trick is to make Immortal-Sentry-Bullshit unattractive while still allowing the Terran/Zerg to pull the Protoss out of position.
Of course it would be helpful if Blizzard finally made Protoss a less all-in race but I am not very confident in that respect. Yeah, I wouldn't say that every map needs to be a further third, but at least some, and I'd argue probably most. Closer more open thirds remove a lot of the gameplay, which means emphasis on the remaining parts. That can be a good thing so long as it doesn't get too dull or without skill. If you give the attacker a concave and have a close third, you're saying players don't have to use movement and positioning as much, and adding more risk to moving out with a few units (part of a larger army) or investing in something that doesn't aid in defense. Games on Ohana were a lot about risk/reward like that, rather than positioning, weren't they? There was a little bit of movement around from the nat to the third but it was more about strategic decisions. If you have less positioning or tactics or terrain use or whatever you put more emphasis on other elements, and those become the deciding factors more often on that map. I think overall it would be better to add more risk/reward gameplay than to remove positional gameplay, but that might not be doable for every map. At least not without some crazy feature or something. Generally speaking I feel that maps with close open thirds or something like that, emphasizing strategy, something that has more to do with game design than map design, tend to all feel about the same. If you emphasize the positional and such, and have more space between the nat and third for variability on the map, you can make each map feel like a more significant change. I think most people would say that would be a good thing. That's another reason I think it should be a more common style than closer thirds. In my opinion proper army positioning is something the top players should be expected to have down at this point. What I am trying to create is the opportunity for ongoing battles and even trades. I want the T/Z to attack into the Protoss, have an even trade and then have the T/Z go for the next wave of attack. With closer and open 3rds I am pretty much trying to recreate the current 4M TvZ in TvP and PvZ. That should be, in my opinion, the current goal for SC2 mapmakers and Blizzard. I cannot believe people want to see mech with its 200 supply deathball in this game. I don't find that at all enjoyable. It's just two sides rallying stuff into each other and it really isn't interesting at all. The matchup is evolving though. Zergs have, since the Overseer buff, been getting hive more and more often. Terrans have started mixing in Thors. The age of the never ending push seems to have come to an end anyway. From what I have been seeing the matchup is much more diverse now. The compositions remain mainly the same, yes, but they HAVE to settle at one point anyway. Unless you expect Blizzard to buff/nerf the game forever which (1) won't happen and (2) greatly decrease the legitimacy of SC2 as a sport. You don't change the rules of football every few months to keep it interesting either, do you? And if you still don't like that, what would you like better? A 20 minute turtle until max followed by a move-out and a short fight?
The only reason why mech is currently a 20 minute turtle until max is that where the bases are so close together it's impossible to do any real harassment as mech before your major push. People sit with their army in one huge blob, which then defends all their bases incredibly easy since they're all so close together.
It removes the ability like in SC1 to be roaming around with vultures (hellions) in this instance doing damage wherever they can do it since none of the bases force the opponent to spread out enough to ever actually do any damage at all. Also the thing with SC1 mech is it wasn't 20 minutes turtle until a short fight and game ends, it was all about the enemy preparing and trying to stop the push by constantly trying to do damage, when the push came they'd usually get about two-three armies worth of units to try and stop it and even then, since the bases were further, a lot further apart it meant the other person could rebuild their infrastructure elsewhere and the game would continue despite losing their main.
Maps have bases that are far too close together. They also have too many bases in general and no map other than the Kespa proleague maps Arkanoid and Fighting Spirit ever force anybody to move to another corner of the map to continue expanding. The reason why games end so quickly and very often by base trades is that once you lose your one army, that's the entire game over and you can't ever just lose one base and continue the game, since if they kill one base it usually means they're already on top of your main and you die.
Also the only reason mech has to turtle up is that tanks are bad and smaller number of tanks can't do the job of a lot more so you can't really leave any units at home to defend while you push with small contingencies in the midgame as you'll get counter attacked and die (see Flash vs Curious) and also another thing is, mech can't really do any damage to the enemy without outright having to push into their main army due to all the bases being so close together once again.
People have this very odd conception that smaller maps are what favour maps, when in fact it's maps like Alterzim where mech can actually Flourish as it allows them to be more active on the map with their harassment units (hellions and banshees now I guess) while also pushing forward to take expansions behind and since the bases are further apart and also further away from the enemy it means even if they counter attack you, you have able time to split your army/push slightly and then move back and defend. Smaller maps actually hurt mech far more than people realise.
Akilon Wastes for example is terrible for mech TvP since if it gets past the stage of them getting their fourth base (which wasn't hard for them) it left them with more than enough gas to go Skytoss and although mech could deal with that with their own 4 bases, you couldn't ever really push into the four base toss to actually stop the transition happening or do any harassment since their whole army is on top of everything.
If you want the game to lose even more popularity and have very few viable options for the three races then go ahead, I'm sure if every map continues on the same you and the 10 other people left watching will have a great time.
|
Hmm... Now I'm feeling second thoughts about the half bases I added to Shrieking Breeze.
The more I think about it the more I like Alterzim though. Could easily become my favorite blizz map.
|
|
|
This map is more than a bit depressing T_T. And Aunvilgod I'm right up in there with you in regards to your opinions. This is all just theorycrafting and is good fun but I will rue the day that mech becomes anywhere close to near standard because it's absolutely terrible for gameplay. Forcing zerg to go into swarmhost turtle style in response to Terran turtle deathball style is the most boring game (outside of PvZ where both sides turtle, which ALREADY HAPPENS) you can possibly watch OR play.
Bio-mine is awesome. It is amazing to watch and play. It is by far (along with Zerg compositional response) the most interesting composition to play with and has the most utility. Could it have more? YES. But it already STRESSES players. It forces them to get faster work harder and demonstrate skill.
I wish the game could be like that for all match-ups. All the people whining about compositions - there is ALWAYS going to be an optimal composition, get with it! This game should not be a shallow game of counters it should be a game of depth and the flagship match-up (to an extent) demonstrates that.
|
Well I think I pretty much agree in that I don't want deathballs and turtling. I think further thirds would help in that regard and closer thirds make it worse, though.
Whether it's better or worse for mech overall, it's gotta be worse for turtling. More spread out bases I mean.
|
I think Alterzim will be just what the doctor ordered (and single handedly save sc2 lol). I read this mapmaker's analysis and everything he points out seems to me a positive; considering where HOTS is right now. I also can't help remembering everyone's first thoughts about whirlwind and how "obviously too big of a map" it was called when it came out. While it did feel like that for a while, players and play styles adjusted.
In General: The mapmaker thinks that map size will cause more passive turtly play. But with no sight towers and soooo many bases I feel a turtle will be hard pressed to actually kill a player who aggressively takes the map. I have played this map a bit and feel it not as easy to take a 3rd and 4th as Akilon, but it is easier to expand almost indefinitely after that. The third is VERY open and walling it off as toss might be too difficult. That being said, the rush distance will allow for a big defenders advantage (not so much against toss, but that might be toss's saving grace from the sheer size of the map)
A player who takes too many bases however, will be hard pressed to defend them all.
Doom Drops: The main looks very easy to defend from the doom drops and muta harass, while the natural is a actually quite a long walking distance from the third making the natural air defense very important (think calm before the storm).
Base Trades: Seem like they will be more common on this map, and also not nesessarily end the game... With so many bases, I feel it might be more common so see the game stabalize if both players manage to wipe out each others mains and have to rebuild production.
TvT: If the combined mech upgrades and teh tank buff go through, (i feel they will) then mech vs mech might become much more common which many terrans seem to hate. I can't imagine a mech player being able to walk this across the map against a bio player until very late in the game.
For this map I'd expect for bio vs mech to remain a preference decision, and for the edge to go bio (into air) unless we all underestimated what 2.7 firerate will mean in TvT. If the changes don't go through, bio-raven-cattlebruiser might be the norm.
PvT: While this MU is in kind of a rut, and has (debatably) many problems in the early, mid and late game, I don't expect to see this map play like Akilon or any other map (maybe frost a little).
-Early pressures every terran hates to deal with should be slowed down just enough to make them not worth the investment. I'd expect very predictable macro openers from terran, and either full fledged all ins, or just as greedy play from toss.
-Protoss-Death-Balls will not be able to gather up and make the death march as easily as other maps, but with recall and a massive number of pylon positions, I'd expect to see a lot more multi-tasking and hit-and run tactics as games move past the inevitable "all-in phase" of a new map.
-As said before, doom drops at least feel less potent on this map, but drops in the natural, 4th, 5th ect.. seem very strong.
While I'd expect many a nexus snipe, the defenders advantage for protoss feels so strong on this map, I can't see scv pulls working. Both races should have to work much harder to break down their opponent to overcome the map size.
I'm not sold on who this map should favor(leaning towards terran), but I have a feeling we will see units we normally do not normally see, performing tasks they normally don't perform...
ZvT: While this MU has possibly the most action in it and some of the longest games (lets ignore tvt ) spectators seem to be split on whether they are bored of the repetition or love the mechanics-take-all aspect.
I'd expect the edge to go to zerg on this map.
After the reign of the OP-hellbat-drop followed by the even worse reign of the inno-widow-mide-rally this map might just shake up the match up. Although the MU does change a lot on its own, the existing terran strats will need to be either more aggressive, sharper and hit before zerg can take the map (might not be possible due to size), or be much more passive. I expect Mutas and Lings to reign supreme on this map and expect for terrans to have to dig deep in the hat for the next go-to-tvz-build. Either way, like all the MU id expect longer games, but not in the wtf firecake vs mana kind of way. Which brings up to .... don't watch unless you are a glutton for pain http://us.esl.tv/video/0ed3d83ac361d90e/
ZvP: I have no idea how this map will play out ZvP. However, I can't see protoss ever being suffocated by swarm hosts and static defense on this map, unless already very behind. I am interested to see if the map size + all defense concentrated on the third will be enough for protoss to take their third and keep it against any combination of lings, roachs, hydras, and vipers.
-Mutas will obviously be tempting choices for many reasons: infinite gas, a juicy natural, huge-fucking-map, but pheonix might be just as good, at least defensively.
-2 base all-in: I am not decided on whether the map size and force fields not being too good in the open will be able to overcome the strength of protoss 2-base all-ins, and whether the open-ness of the third will make it impossible to pull off for protoss or impossible not to try. And while I do realize that the two are not mutually exclusive, I feel like the former is more likely.
I'd expect to see more stargates, and warp prisms on this map. Or a completely broken map favoring either race
Finall Thoughts: I feel like this might be a another attempt from Blizzard to get players to play the game the way the developers (and fans) envisioned...
TLDR
Terran: Mech IS NOW VIABLE....not. But seriously, if terrans don't want to play the late game this map will FORCE them to.
Protoss: Skytoss, recall, warp prism not only powerful, but necessary.
Zerg: Wol had patch-zergs, this might be the birth of the map-zergs (I am fully aware of how terrible that was). Nydus become common...maybe in my dreams.
I hope this map produces lots of macro games with battles in the middle, multitasking being much more important than timings, and all-ins only being used to keep the greed level in check. I'm looking at you CatZ...I can already see your 5 hatch before super strat.
|
On November 04 2013 06:52 Gfire wrote:
The more I think about it the more I like Alterzim though. Could easily become my favorite blizz map.
Could... you elaborate??
|
Whirlwind and Akilon was kinda decent map. I would get rid of Derelict Watcher and Polar Night. About the new maps: Star Station is horrible, Alterzim will be ok
|
On November 04 2013 18:27 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 06:52 Gfire wrote:
The more I think about it the more I like Alterzim though. Could easily become my favorite blizz map. Could... you elaborate??
If you changed anything about it it would take away from something it has. So there aren't really any mistakes, only features. They might be unwanted features, and we should decide that later, but I can't just say it has anything I would %100 change right away. It's less sloppy than most Blizz maps. More well thought out than most. They did a fair job executing a concept which I think is worth trying even if it doesn't turn out well.
No other blizz maps come to mind that quite do it as well. A lot of them needed some spawns removed right away, though, and if you disregard that aspect of those maps they might be able to qualify.
The aesthetics are pretty good too.
|
On November 05 2013 03:28 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 18:27 EatThePath wrote:On November 04 2013 06:52 Gfire wrote:
The more I think about it the more I like Alterzim though. Could easily become my favorite blizz map. Could... you elaborate?? If you changed anything about it it would take away from something it has. So there aren't really any mistakes, only features. They might be unwanted features, and we should decide that later, but I can't just say it has anything I would %100 change right away. It's less sloppy than most Blizz maps. More well thought out than most. They did a fair job executing a concept which I think is worth trying even if it doesn't turn out well. No other blizz maps come to mind that quite do it as well. A lot of them needed some spawns removed right away, though, and if you disregard that aspect of those maps they might be able to qualify. The aesthetics are pretty good too.
Okay, I can agree with that. I find the whole thing totally misguided, but it's definitely worth noting that it was made correctly (finally), so to speak.
|
I just played 6 back-to-back PvZ's on Akilon Wastes and won all of them.
I'm ready to retire the map from the ladder pool now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v2qJIea.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LufEldp.png)
