EPT2018 Season 4 Maps Announced - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
dr3am_b3ing
Canada188 Posts
| ||
|
vyzion
308 Posts
| ||
|
Tempest
United States147 Posts
On November 09 2018 02:41 vyzion wrote: too much whining and assumptions. let's give them a shot first and see what happens. you can whine after. Negative sir, I will whine now! D:< | ||
|
Togekiss
Canada154 Posts
| ||
|
DSK
England1110 Posts
| ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
On November 09 2018 03:49 Togekiss wrote: So all but one new 1v1 map are basically small to medium sized? I wonder if this is to specifically shift the balance of power, so to speak? Will be interesting to see how the meta changes as a result of this map pool, and specifically if Terran will go back to more standard, no-proxy play vs Toss. I think terran will go back to more standard play now that the cyclone is a different unit on new balance patch. Cyclone was kind of the enabler of the proxy meta because it was super threatening on offense so it forced protoss to guard the front which made it hard to also guard the main vs hellion drops and the like. It also was very strong defensively so it was difficult to counter attack a proxying terran due to the strength of mass repaired cyclones. new cyclone is much more suited to a purely defensive play style and lacks the offensive threat of the old cylone. | ||
|
KR_4EVR
316 Posts
Maps with an S-shape from the main to the 4th bases make for much more interesting games than maps with a J-shape from the main to the 4th. The fact that most LOTV maps have had a J-shape really just means you can't be out-positioned if your units are faster. Also an attack in the main means little since it's not far away. In contrast, on maps with an S- shape the positioning is much more tactical. There are actual choices to make in terms of the question, "what is the right response to this enemy position?" If you look back to HOTS era maps, the base layout includes a good mixture of all sorts of arrangements of 1st through 4th bases. I personally can't stand how in modern maps 4 bases can be easily defended just by setting troops on a horizontal patrol, whereas the 3rd base alone is hardly less secure. To be designed well, maps need to have a 1 1/2 -point defence for the 3 bases (plus droppability in main) and 3-point defence for 4 bases. With the current design, the ground pathing between 4th and main (compared to air path) is too short for drops to be advantageous, and 4 bases only requires 2 points of defence. This is not right. That's my twopence. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On November 09 2018 03:49 Togekiss wrote: So all but one new 1v1 map are basically small to medium sized? I wonder if this is to specifically shift the balance of power, so to speak? Will be interesting to see how the meta changes as a result of this map pool, and specifically if Terran will go back to more standard, no-proxy play vs Toss. automaton and port aleksander are both larger than any map currently in the ladder pool. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
It's a TL tradition to complain about maps, veto said maps without trying them, then continuing to complain about them. Can't stop it now. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 09 2018 05:32 KR_4EVR wrote: I've had a complaint all LOTV long. Maps with an S-shape from the main to the 4th bases make for much more interesting games than maps with a J-shape from the main to the 4th. The fact that most LOTV maps have had a J-shape really just means you can't be out-positioned if your units are faster. Also an attack in the main means little since it's not far away. In contrast, on maps with an S- shape the positioning is much more tactical. There are actual choices to make in terms of the question, "what is the right response to this enemy position?" If you look back to HOTS era maps, the base layout includes a good mixture of all sorts of arrangements of 1st through 4th bases. I personally can't stand how in modern maps 4 bases can be easily defended just by setting troops on a horizontal patrol, whereas the 3rd base alone is hardly less secure. To be designed well, maps need to have a 1 1/2 -point defence for the 3 bases (plus droppability in main) and 3-point defence for 4 bases. With the current design, the ground pathing between 4th and main (compared to air path) is too short for drops to be advantageous, and 4 bases only requires 2 points of defence. This is not right. That's my twopence. Could you give examples of S-shaped and J-shaped maps? In general though, main/nat/third/fourth setups have trended this way in LotV due to the fact that having different possible thirds means that match-ups shake out to be more balanced (since having all three bases in a line can be difficult for terran, and having the third below the main can be difficult for zerg, and so on). The homogeneity isn't great of course. | ||
|
jmui
Canada3 Posts
https://imgur.com/a/xcysLN3 | ||
|
_fool
Netherlands681 Posts
On November 08 2018 21:10 _Epi_ wrote: Stasis looks awesome. Reminds me of a similar map we had in hots, where we had the legandary Scarlett vs Bomber. Can't wait to see epic games on this map <3 Was that where T floated his main over to the gold? | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
On November 09 2018 19:54 _fool wrote: Was that where T floated his main over to the gold? Terran did the gold float on more than one map, but yes habitation station is the one where it became standard (at least until pro zergs perfected the ridiculous drone rush response) man, what a great time. i miss proleague more than i miss anything in sc2. | ||
|
Avexyli
United States703 Posts
On November 08 2018 14:40 yubo56 wrote: Exact opposite, split teams makes map control way more potent and promotes early aggression. Hunters in KESPA usually ended with zealots and lings alone That's becasue there were no ramps and walls were pretty stupid and asymmetrical. | ||
|
Sound1
France93 Posts
Is it only playable vs Zerg or it is an automatic veto ? | ||
|
Quantran
United States44 Posts
| ||
|
Quantran
United States44 Posts
| ||
| ||
