|
Why do they insist on making more blood bath maps?
Why do the think destructible rocks is such a baller feature to cover 50% of the maps with them?
Why do they make the maps asymmetrically imbalanced?
Sad to see that Blizzards map makers are so obviously clueless and incompetent...
If Blizzard/GSL have any respect for the game they would hire some KESPA and/or iCCup map makers.
|
lol im glad i quit playing before having a rage induced aneurysm from playing that ridiculous map jungle basin never played that other map though but i can definitely confirm that the jungle basin map is absolutely ridiculous in so many ways wtf type of 3rd/4th base placement is that seriously. blizz continues to encourage 10 minute games with terribad maps
|
Ugh. Blizz just can't seem to understand maps. You'd think people who are literally PAID to make maps would at least attempt to churn out something half-way decent...
|
On October 07 2010 10:24 Too_MuchZerg wrote:I just don't get what Blizzard is thinking. Let me explain how ladder map changes has to be done. Ladder has 9 maps with 3 veto. So how should new maps to be added to ladder? By changing/replacing 4-5 maps (always more than veto option) to force players to play those maps. Now players can easily veto new maps because they don't know/like maps. Yet again I am referring WC3 ladder map pool changes, same thing happened. 1-2 maps was changed, everyone/most vetoed those maps because those were new maps. Same old maps were still played... Of course I have faith that Blizzard won't make same mistakes again edit: of course some high level players used to thumb down common maps they didn't like with adding new maps to their list. Trick was that other high level players didn't do that so you could play maps you like. edit2: Still this way there will be some bad maps but more likely good maps too. Blizzard just looks data how many times certain maps are been vetoed and replaces those next time with new maps.
They should do what iCCup did and give bonus points for maps of the week. This gave people an incentive to learn the new maps.
|
On October 07 2010 10:54 DTrain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:24 Too_MuchZerg wrote:I just don't get what Blizzard is thinking. Let me explain how ladder map changes has to be done. Ladder has 9 maps with 3 veto. So how should new maps to be added to ladder? By changing/replacing 4-5 maps (always more than veto option) to force players to play those maps. Now players can easily veto new maps because they don't know/like maps. Yet again I am referring WC3 ladder map pool changes, same thing happened. 1-2 maps was changed, everyone/most vetoed those maps because those were new maps. Same old maps were still played... Of course I have faith that Blizzard won't make same mistakes again edit: of course some high level players used to thumb down common maps they didn't like with adding new maps to their list. Trick was that other high level players didn't do that so you could play maps you like. edit2: Still this way there will be some bad maps but more likely good maps too. Blizzard just looks data how many times certain maps are been vetoed and replaces those next time with new maps. They should do what iCCup did and give bonus points for maps of the week. This gave people an incentive to learn the new maps. This would make sense if you could ladder on only 1 map, but since it is random I dont think it can work.
|
On October 07 2010 10:51 faction123 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:38 fabiano wrote: I have to questions to Blizzard:
1. WHY THERE ALWAYS MUST BE DESTRUCTIBLE ROCKS?!?!?!11?!!?!
and
2. Why they don't listen to the community and add Crossfire to the map pool?
Thanks Crossfire is a map where the entire middle is 10 different chokepoints. Amazing if the community consensus is that it's actually a good map. People really like beating zerg don't they? As a T switching to Z, I actually like that map better as Z than I do as T.....
In tight areas you can FG, and because of the size, you can abuse muta/ling mobility pretty easily, at least long enough to get hive and 4 or 5 bases going (while he's stuck in his main and nat).....
TBH, I don't think I like either of the new maps.....
|
trolling
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 07 2010 10:46 kontrol wrote: I don't understand why everyone wants the map to be all the same? Must not be too small, easy natual, not too many cliff so terran cannot use tank too much, lots of place to fight so your never put in a corner... and list could go on. Each race we're given specific advantage and disadvantage (balance of this goes in another thread), but if a map expose more one of your race disadvantage or one of your opponent race advantage too far it's immediatly a nerf cry.
What I'd like to say is that I like that not every map are the same. Different build order (6 pool might be very popular on Shakuras so you can attack before wall in) different strategy in unit composition to get an advantage, different unit positioning...
You know the map, you know the flaws for your race and the advantage of your oponent, why not use this knowledge to your advantage and work on something that will get you a win? The map is the same for your opponent also. Of course imbalance where your start base side cliff is longer than your opponent one so your colossi/reaper have harder time to come up than your opponent shouldn't exist.
I really like the iCCup maps, even if I'm not able to play them enough cause they arent popular, but I feel some of them just look the same with different position and different graphics and thus doesn't promote very different gameplay.
Who said they want the maps to be the same?
All we ask for is one good macro map that is free from gimmicky rocks and has expansions that you can actually just take. There are no maps like this currently. How can you say that the people that dislike blizzard's maps are the ones that are anti-diversity when they want a different map than what we have today?
|
On October 07 2010 10:52 parkin wrote: Why do they insist on making more blood bath maps?
Why do the think destructible rocks is such a baller feature to cover 50% of the maps with them?
Why do they make the maps asymmetrically imbalanced?
Sad to see that Blizzards map makers are so obviously clueless and incompetent...
If Blizzard/GSL have any respect for the game they would hire some KESPA and/or iCCup map makers.
Honestly sir, i agree 100%.
|
Would a map like luna make sense in sc2? I remember it being the most vanilla of vanilla maps with the exception that I guess you couldn't tank push.
|
Does Shakuras remind anyone of another map? Horizontal positions remind me of Incineration Zone's back door 'feature' and vertical positions remind me of Incineration Zone's rush distance, actually shorter. Um... actually much shorter. I hope the Terrans enjoy setting up a siege tank on their natural which can deny their opponent gas at their natural.
Why is Blizzard so scared of open ground? Alot of the ICCup maps have a largely unrestricted middle ground, but Blizzard just can't seem to think outside of the corridor.
EDIT: And what the hell was wrong with Desert Oasis? I loved that map, and it was much better after the edit. God forbid Blizzard gives us a nice big spacious map.
|
Well, anything's better than Kulas. It's odd that they got rid of Desert Oasis, though, after modifying the map in an attempt to make it more popular.
|
Just for the record, NA doesnt have these maps yet, as of W 11:00 Kst (7pm pacific).
|
LOL!! blizzard replace 2 bad maps with 2 even worse maps.
|
The thing that amazes me is that there is so many interesting things that mapmakers can do with the new destructible rocks, xel naga towers and grass it makes me wonder why all of the ladder maps are so bland and dull.
|
well no Kulas/Desert would make me happy tbh. Even with these 2 shitty maps I still prefer these to kulas/desert .
But I wish they would add more then 2 xD.
|
On October 07 2010 10:39 Archerofaiur wrote: Didnt just about everyone love the new version of DO? I preferred the old version.
|
Dunno if this has been mentioned yet but jungle basin might be better for Protoss than Desert Oasis was. Reason? You can warp in the safe expo from outside it without breaking the rocks, just like on DQ.
|
On October 07 2010 11:12 Chronicle wrote: Dunno if this has been mentioned yet but jungle basin might be better for Protoss than Desert Oasis was. Reason? You can warp in the safe expo from outside it without breaking the rocks, just like on DQ.
That's a problem.
Also I'm testing some things. On Jungle Basin the top base has one gas that needs 4 workers on it, the bottom does not....
|
Jungle Basin looks like Reaper Heaven..
|
|
|
|