|
Hey, since I played 10 ish games on these maps I figured to share my opinion on the maps themselves.
Terraform - it's too similar to the GSL map (I forgot the name), it will be very hard to get into macro game on this map in any match-up so it will most likely just be 2-3 base allins 2/5 score.
Dash and Terminal - Terran can float to gold and you cannot expand on this map as Terran because natural is way too messed up, which will result in Terrans always floating to the gold 0.5/5.
Ecosphere - this map would be maybe 2.5/5 if it had no back rocks, since it has back rocks it's just bad.
Noah's Ark - I played this map in Starbow quite a lot and I like it, it's different but i'm not sure if it fits into SC2 play style in general. I'd give it 2.5/5.
Bridgehead - I love the concept of this map, I guess the idea for this map was taken from BW map which name I cant remember again  Remove the rocks on the natural base, remove the rocks from the main ramp and make the main base a bit bigger (hard to make production buildings), add some air space behind main/natural and you'll have really solid map in my opinion because it's different and interesting. If you do those things it's 4.5/5, if it stays the same it's just bad.
Moonlight Madness - this map not only it has back rocks, but it has rocks to your back rocks, please no.
Mutiny - remove the back rocks and I can see this map becoming the new overgrowth, although some air space would be needed behind main and natural (it would be hard to break Terran as Zerg with no mutas because of lack of air space and hard to break Protoss as Z/T) I'd give it a 4/5. Otherwise, if you leave the rocks where they are, then it's just bad map.
Please for the love of god to all the map makers: do not add back rocks, they are just really bad.
|
i think you got that a little wrong, its not the fault of the mapmakers that almost every finalists here has backdoors or alot of rocks in general.
im sure the ratio of submitted maps without rocks to maps with rocks is propably 95% to 5%, so its more the people who judge (in this case for the first time blizzard aswell) are to blame.
for me there is a clear agenda or rather direction blizzard wants maps to be and thats what we got here.
|
we need more rocks. moore rocks.
|
Yeah, not sure why they like back rocks so much :/. Expedition Lost already showed us why they aren't good.
|
my guess is that blizz is looking for a direct replacement for expedition lost. sometimes they can be kind of literal in map replacements, looking to preserve a specific style or feature.
|
On May 11 2015 05:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Yeah, not sure why they like back rocks so much :/. Expedition Lost already showed us why they aren't good.
Expedition Lost just seems zerg favored against Terran in general, not sure how big the effect of the backdoor is for that, but I'd say it's somewhat small.
Otherwise the backdoor isn't bad on that map. ZvP and TvP the map seems to be balanced in general, though the gold base rushes are a bit obnoxious - however, that seems to be the flair of the month on any map with gold bases and zerg these days.
|
Italy12248 Posts
LOL somehow the lightning fix on dash and terminal was removed
|
your Country52798 Posts
On May 11 2015 06:18 Teoita wrote:
LOL somehow the lightning fix on dash and terminal was removed
Which puzzles me, as it seems as if the correct changes were otherwise made.
|
|
|
On May 11 2015 05:21 Beastyqt wrote:
Please for the love of god to all the map makers: do not add back rocks, they are just really bad.
I second that.
|
On May 11 2015 05:21 Beastyqt wrote:
Please for the love of god to all the map makers: do not add back rocks, they are just really bad.
Funny, I said the same thing about Expedition Lost some months ago. No idea why this is fashionable nowadays. /:
|
On May 11 2015 06:35 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 05:21 Beastyqt wrote:
Please for the love of god to all the map makers: do not add back rocks, they are just really bad. Funny, I said the same thing about Expedition Lost some months ago. No idea why this is fashionable nowadays. /:
Well, wasn't that something about unstoppable proxy immortal and voidray rushes and the map being unplayable PvT?
|
On May 11 2015 07:12 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 06:35 TheDwf wrote:On May 11 2015 05:21 Beastyqt wrote:
Please for the love of god to all the map makers: do not add back rocks, they are just really bad. Funny, I said the same thing about Expedition Lost some months ago. No idea why this is fashionable nowadays. /: Well, wasn't that something about unstoppable proxy immortal and voidray rushes and the map being unplayable PvT?
Yep, and you can add all the pressure variants à la Stats vs Bogus in their NSSL match
|
On May 11 2015 07:18 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 07:12 Big J wrote:On May 11 2015 06:35 TheDwf wrote:On May 11 2015 05:21 Beastyqt wrote:
Please for the love of god to all the map makers: do not add back rocks, they are just really bad. Funny, I said the same thing about Expedition Lost some months ago. No idea why this is fashionable nowadays. /: Well, wasn't that something about unstoppable proxy immortal and voidray rushes and the map being unplayable PvT? Yep, and you can add all the pressure variants à la Stats vs Bogus in their NSSL match
But that's mainly just Protoss having some more variations of bullshit on top of already having too much bullshit, no? It doesn't really break the map.
I think the way the 3rd base is designed and its distance to the natural, as well as the blockage of all reaper jumping spots is much a bigger deal than the backdoor rushes. They all seem kind of the usual bullshit strategies that are in the game regardless.
Not that backdoors aren't improblematic, but I think this particular one is very well done. I guess it turns every matchup against Zerg into the same crap that is Protoss matchups early game. But sincerely, when I see high players complain about the backdoor when they aren't spotting for it and then a huge army waltzes in I just question why they aren't spotting for it. That isn't different at all from a bunch of high speed medivacs, or a mutaball or a warpprism suddenly appearing somewhere and fucking you over. If anything, with the backdoor at least you know where it can come from.
But regardless, given that Expedition Lost is quite zerg-favored in ZvT and backdoors are problematic in general, I agree that it is a mapfeature that might not be worth looking into too much. If someone comes up with a great concept for one, cool, let's try it. If not it's no loss to not have such maps around.
|
On May 11 2015 07:34 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 07:18 TheDwf wrote:On May 11 2015 07:12 Big J wrote:On May 11 2015 06:35 TheDwf wrote:On May 11 2015 05:21 Beastyqt wrote:
Please for the love of god to all the map makers: do not add back rocks, they are just really bad. Funny, I said the same thing about Expedition Lost some months ago. No idea why this is fashionable nowadays. /: Well, wasn't that something about unstoppable proxy immortal and voidray rushes and the map being unplayable PvT? Yep, and you can add all the pressure variants à la Stats vs Bogus in their NSSL match But that's mainly just Protoss having some more variations of bullshit on top of already having too much bullshit, no? It doesn't really break the map. I think the way the 3rd base is designed and its distance to the natural, as well as the blockage of all reaper jumping spots is much a bigger deal than the backdoor rushes. They all seem kind of the usual bullshit strategies that are in the game regardless. Not that backdoors aren't improblematic, but I think this particular one is very well done. I guess it turns every matchup against Zerg into the same crap that is Protoss matchups early game. But sincerely, when I see high players complain about the backdoor when they aren't spotting for it and then a huge army waltzes in I just question why they aren't spotting for it. That isn't different at all from a bunch of high speed medivacs, or a mutaball or a warpprism suddenly appearing somewhere and fucking you over. If anything, with the backdoor at least you know where it can come from. But regardless, given that Expedition Lost is quite zerg-favored in ZvT and backdoors are problematic in general, I agree that it is a mapfeature that might not be worth looking into too much. If someone comes up with a great concept for one, cool, let's try it. If not it's no loss to not have such maps around.
Expedition lost is a good map because its back door is mixed with plenty of other features that makes the maps playable and enjoyable for very different styles and strategies, it's a kind of mysterious alchemy, but it works.
On the other hand, it should be just an exception, seeing backdoor with rocks on every maps is kind of wierd, lol.
More generally speaking I think map makers should refrain from using rocks at all, as it's mainly a cheap fix for issues that should be fixed by imagination and overall better though designs. If a map needs 16+ desctrutible rocks to be fun and balanced, maybe something is wrong with the initial layout?
On rare occasions, like KSS natural backdoor rocks, it's a cool feature, but most of the time it's crap.
|
Imagination? Better thought design? Maps are bound to respect the game design. There are so many elements that prevent imagination and diversity when doing a map, from forcefields to overly powerful air units... Rocks are maybe the only thing that, while not being elegant at all and being symptomatic of poorly thought-out game design, mapmakers can use to truly differenciate a map from the standard, rather than doing the same thing with small variations.
|
On May 11 2015 18:36 OtherWorld wrote:
Imagination? Better thought design? Maps are bound to respect the game design. There are so many elements that prevent imagination and diversity when doing a map, from forcefields to overly powerful air units... Rocks are maybe the only thing that, while not being elegant at all and being symptomatic of poorly thought-out game design, mapmakers can use to truly differenciate a map from the standard, rather than doing the same thing with small variations.
Constraints are actually the fuel for imagination. Some map makers can face the challenge, some can't.
|
On May 11 2015 18:46 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 18:36 OtherWorld wrote:
Imagination? Better thought design? Maps are bound to respect the game design. There are so many elements that prevent imagination and diversity when doing a map, from forcefields to overly powerful air units... Rocks are maybe the only thing that, while not being elegant at all and being symptomatic of poorly thought-out game design, mapmakers can use to truly differenciate a map from the standard, rather than doing the same thing with small variations. Constraints are actually the fuel for imagination. Some map makers can face the challenge, some can't.
This can be argued, but I don't want to enter this debate. However, I'd like to point out that while constraints may be, in certain cases, fuel for imagination, it is only when they are reasonably limited. Too many constraints leave no room for imagination.
|
On May 11 2015 18:46 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 18:36 OtherWorld wrote:
Imagination? Better thought design? Maps are bound to respect the game design. There are so many elements that prevent imagination and diversity when doing a map, from forcefields to overly powerful air units... Rocks are maybe the only thing that, while not being elegant at all and being symptomatic of poorly thought-out game design, mapmakers can use to truly differenciate a map from the standard, rather than doing the same thing with small variations. Constraints are actually the fuel for imagination. Some map makers can face the challenge, some can't.
Constraints just force imagination. Placing a rock can help you fix a potential problem with one click that might be extremely complicated if rocks were not an option.
Theoretically adding more mapping tools would allow to do more different things with map increasing creative potential. But if there is always that easy solution to what do with a certain part of the map, people will do that, if there is not an easy solution people can come up with a really amazing solution with the weaker mapping tools. And if there were other tools to do it, the same thing might not even seem amazing at all, people would just think "why didnt he just simply add X instead".
There must be a balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
