EPTOn November 03 2013 07:34 Yhamm wrote:
ah ok, I didn't know.
which rounds did they play the lava map then?
ah ok, I didn't know.
which rounds did they play the lava map then?
Here's the Bracket
Red Bull TLMC Finalists - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
Here's the Bracket | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On November 03 2013 05:49 19Meavis93 wrote: So far I've seen all maps but polaris rhapsody being played, the only one I really approve of is jungle valley, though It may need to be made cross due to the power of positional imbalance. Not a good iidea. Look at the overview again - no Potential direct Opponent is completely against the idea. On November 03 2013 05:51 Gfire wrote: I honestly can't see this positional imbalance people keep talking about on jungle valley. It seems quite well done. Thank you! It is conceptual Sound imo. One third is easier to attack on the ground, but BOTH Thirds have cliffs Above! | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
semifinals. Unfortunately the only games on that map in that round were short PvP all-ins. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On November 03 2013 02:48 NonY wrote: Well, the point is, that these maps will not result into 'shaking up the metagame' as was advertised, neither did TLMC2.feedback for graveside: blink stalkers were getting stuck in random places in the middle of the map. btw you can do any build order you want but the different maps have different "optimal" build orders. and of course in any scenario where you become predictable in starcraft, you are gonna get punished. so if a build is so good that everyone does it, other ppl are gonna have counter-builds that in general dont seem "good for the map" but are good at countering the build that is good for the map. so in that sense, yeah any build is good for any map. but having a variety of maps still gives people the option of becoming a multi-style multi-build player Basically, we have not seen any new strategies as a result of the TLMC 2 winners because the maps do not provide incentive for it. Consider Icarus, a map that did truly shake up the metagame. The first professional game on that map already saw a specific cheese which works only on that map and only in ZvP. It was a very well engineered cheese taking advantage of the new features of the map and it worked. Later on we saw very specific strategies on Icarus that only worked on Icarus, we say something fresh. People complain about biomine being used all the time and ask Blizzard to change the hard variables of the game. The truth is that if you do it like this, you change it for evry map, say biotank becomes the standard due to what Blizzard does, then we will see biotank on every map. A far simpler solution is just to screw the standard in maps, make different maps. Make a map with a natural which has 6 patches but 3 geysers and see what happens and what people do with extra gas and less minerals. There is no need for Blizzard to intervene at all. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
If you feel that changing resource ratios is the best way to shake up the metagame, I understand your disappointment. When I've sat down and tried to make some different and interesting maps, they haven't usually involved that yet, but you're right, it really should be tried more. I'm personally not really a fan of mixed gold and blue bases but I'd love to see some triple gas and whatnot. That's a good idea, and considering there are seven finalists all with pretty basic setups in that regard, it is a little disappointing. I suppose a change like that would change the compositions people use even the first time they played the map... I'd argue, though, that that's not even metagame since it's just the players having a different set of resources and adapting to it once they're already in the game. Anything truly meta requires more time outside of tournament matches for the players to think and prepare, right? I think it's impossible, by definition, to shake up the metagame in less than a day.a | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
I feel like they should do a highlights video for each map so people can make an informed decision. | ||
|
VArsovskiSC
Macedonia563 Posts
As for bad maps for example - can't wrap my head around how did Jungle-Valley make it into the final pool ?? It's like crazy - how's a Zerg supposed to play on it ?  Other maps seem descent though, still - think would go with Graveside..  | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Then again it might actually be the opposite as NPR and Jungle Valley might get a lot of attention for being somewhat different. I could see NPR getting a cult following (I will also say I made a melee map with flooding back around WoL beta or early release so hipster glasses and stuff) but people don't seem to like Jungle Valley as much. Jungle Valley might be the most underestimated so I'd love to see it win. Not really the biggest fan of the aesthetics or the name but the layout is sick. | ||
|
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 05 2013 05:34 iHirO wrote: Here's the link to vote for your favourite map. We'll have our own thread advertising this momentarily. (aka soon(tm)) | ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On November 05 2013 03:35 Gfire wrote: Jungle Valley might be the most underestimated so I'd love to see it win. Not really the biggest fan of the aesthetics or the name but the layout is sick. <3 i have the feeling the overview kinda looks more imbalanced than it is and that puts many people off. their fears are based on a misjudgement - the map could "look" more balanced, if done a bit differently, mainly the cw and ccw thirds. NO matter the outcome in the voting I will release the map after this whole thing is over and get this fixed. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
Currently you might as well replace the lava by an electric field that just zaps everything once per five minutes. | ||
| ||
