| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Clarifications/Changes: Rush distance for Rush maps has been changed from "about 35-50 seconds" to "about 35 seconds". The definition of Macro map has been changed to: "A map that favors defensive play and encourages players to reach end game unit compositions." New Rule: You may use permanent neutral abilities onto all maps such as Force Field or Blinding Cloud. However, note that if these features cause performance issues on lower end computers, these maps may be edited or not considered for ladder. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Of course if Blizzard just isn't interested in normal maps (perhaps they plan to keep stuff like whirlwind around forever and don't feel the need for any more to be made) then that's cool, and totally their choice. We have plenty to give them that isn't normal  | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
It's also doubly gimped because that category is less likely to win a prize compare to the macro category, which in turn reduces the quality of experimental submissions further. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
1. Macro Map Player have a choice to expand to two different expansion locations from the main. Expansion locations could be defended easily. This is a ridiculous definition of a macro map. So Frost is not a macro map then (it has only one expansion location from the main)? A better definition would be "characterized by medium to long rush distances, players generally being able to take expansions safely in the early game, a large number of expansion locations." | ||
Jer99
Canada8159 Posts
| ||
|
Adept
United States472 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On February 06 2017 23:12 paralleluniverse wrote: I highly doubt anything good will come out of the experimental category. I mean seriously, how interesting can adjusting the number of minerals be? It's also doubly gimped because that category is less likely to win a prize compare to the macro category, which in turn reduces the quality of experimental submissions further. I think it could have some subtle effects on game flow that could be helpful. Two old examples that come to mind were the initial GSL versions of Tal'Darim Altar and Daybreak, where a third base that had its positional advantages offset by being a reduced 6m1g base. On Tal'Darim Altar, that third base was the safer of the two choices. On Daybreak, the forward third base offered offensive positional advantages. Both maps were altered in the ladder versions to switch those 6m1g bases to become standard 8m2g bases blocked by rocks. | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
The reason this game has declined is that aggressiveness, worker killing and speed is rewarded more then though and positional play. I have never heard of anyone quitting the game because there are too many defensive macro maps in the map pool. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On February 06 2017 23:12 paralleluniverse wrote: I highly doubt anything good will come out of the experimental category. I mean seriously, how interesting can adjusting the number of minerals be? It's also doubly gimped because that category is less likely to win a prize compare to the macro category, which in turn reduces the quality of experimental submissions further. I can see why you'd think that, given that Blizzard hasn't allowed it all these years, but think back to Jacky's Crevasse. That's an excellent example of how you can make something interesting by virtue of altered resource counts. By having a partial in-base expansion, you discourage players from sitting still as long, pushing them to take the third base in the middle of the map, encouraging more action. However, if that partial base wasn't there, the third would be your natural, and of course way too hard to take. It won't be flashy, but it can have a solid impact. It was a silly restriction to have, that eliminated the possibility of certain types of maps. In short, partial bases can allow for entirely new designs to emerge, and I would say you can look forward to that. | ||
Ziggy
South Korea2105 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Bring back TL Attack! | ||
|
tili
United States1332 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
| ||
|
Mightygear
81 Posts
| ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On February 07 2017 04:24 MockHamill wrote: I hope they will have 4 defensive macro maps in the map pool. That way people that want to play Starcraft can do so and people who want to play gimmicky aggressive maps can do so as well. The reason this game has declined is that aggressiveness, worker killing and speed is rewarded more then though and positional play. I have never heard of anyone quitting the game because there are too many defensive macro maps in the map pool. "Positional play" makes me want to kill myself. I started starcraft with WoL, which was one base all day every day. Starcraft 2 is an aggressive, action game. I'd be pretty fucking pissed if they made the entire map pool agression proof. | ||
|
Comedy
461 Posts
On February 06 2017 21:16 Plexa wrote: In base naturals are the easiest way to meet the objective of two easily defendable close by bases, but I'd imagine something like Deadwing would also fit into that category. daybreak/overgrowth? standard macro maps, no inbase expansion stuff inbase expansion maps are generally worse, might just be a coincidence though | ||
|
Comedy
461 Posts
On February 07 2017 04:24 MockHamill wrote: I hope they will have 4 defensive macro maps in the map pool. That way people that want to play Starcraft can do so and people who want to play gimmicky aggressive maps can do so as well. The reason this game has declined is that aggressiveness, worker killing and speed is rewarded more then though and positional play. I have never heard of anyone quitting the game because there are too many defensive macro maps in the map pool. ur basically advocating turtling. i guess ur a mech player that wants to build siege tanks, turrets, pf's and tech to ravens or bc's. nice | ||
|
Comedy
461 Posts
On February 06 2017 08:22 SidianTheBard wrote: You weren't kidding about the fast turn around this TLMC. Plus being able to have 4 submissions. Oh lordy I'm excited! Best of luck to everybody! please never rape everyone playing on medium settings and above ever again like you did with abyssal reef | ||
|
Comedy
461 Posts
What we need is quality maps. Maps that are solid. Smooth and easy to play on for the people that are left on the ladder. None of this gimmicky shit like we've had in the map pool for the last couple of years. OverGrowth/DayBreak/Coda Etc .... more of this..... less of lurilek, ulrena, dasan station, this kind of garbage which is not fun to play on at all and for 95% of the time creates garbage games | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On February 08 2017 07:13 Comedy wrote: overall it's sad that a website like TL.net, whos got years of experience in Sc2/bw, is encouraging of the blizzard school of thought that we need all these maps w/ weird concepts and experimental stuff. What we need is quality maps. Maps that are solid. Smooth and easy to play on for the people that are left on the ladder. None of this gimmicky shit like we've had in the map pool for the last couple of years. OverGrowth/DayBreak/Coda Etc .... more of this..... less of lurilek, ulrena, dasan station, this kind of garbage which is not fun to play on at all and for 95% of the time creates garbage games Nah experimentation is good. I agree that most maps should be solid ones, but if that's all people ever care for we will never see new concepts which work as well. That's pretty boring tbh. | ||
| ||
|
|
IPSL
dxtr13 vs OldBoy
Napoleon vs Doodle
LAN Event
Lambo vs Clem
Scarlett vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs TBD
Zoun vs TBD
BSL 21
Gosudark vs Kyrie
Gypsy vs OyAji
UltrA vs Radley
Dandy vs Ptak
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
IPSL
JDConan vs WIZARD
WolFix vs Cross
BSL 21
spx vs rasowy
HBO vs KameZerg
Cross vs Razz
dxtr13 vs ZZZero
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
