Ladder Map Changes

Can't believe they called slag pits more macro heavy than metalopolis. And it replaces shakuras. Each player taking half the map. On slags that's 4 blue and 1 gold base. On metal 5 blue 1 gold. On shakuras 7 blue bases. (sarcasm) Sure sounds more macro heavy in terms of bases. And the bases so far away need really fast units like mutaling/phoenixes/bio/banshees to protect far off bases. (/sarcasm)

And they removed shakuras cos the natural was too easy to take and defend....so to improve on this they introduce macro maps with wide open naturals like xel naga so it's harder for terran and protoss to take bases.

Then backwater gulch description by blizzard almost admits it's really easy to pressure the third expo.

And they basically call typhon peaks the hybrid child of xel naga, scrap and shakuras. Low ground third of xel naga. wide open natural like xel naga. Rocks in vertical positions for a fast rush distance towards natural like scrap. An attack path through the center with two watch towers.

Shattered temple: hard to block off choke at natural. Guess they don't like terrans and protoss walling off early game.

I guess I'll do forge fast expands if i want a safe fast expo against zerg. Against terran....just 1 gate expo if not close positions to get nexus up before a lot of units come out. I'll definitely try to go into macro games on these maps to see how they feel as toss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hav0x

So people have had these maps for a few hours and they already somehow know everything there is to know about them?

---

I believe they were on the PTR before this patch.

@programer
That point still cracks me up. It went up on the PTR then a bunch of people found positional imbalances due to maps not being symmetric and suggested changes to remove the positional imbalances.....then blizzard just puts in the maps unedited.

The imbalances included: Some positions being easier to wall off. Some spots allowing tanks to reach a geyser/minerals that they can't in the other locations. Some mains being larger than others. Some naturals being farther from the ramp than others.

Still few people play on the PTR. Can't get much data off that.

So, basically, they took out shakuras because it was too good of a map, and they wanted a map with more chokes and rocks and golds and highly abuse-able racial imbalances and blatant positional imbalances like Delta Quadrant.

This statement literally tells you everything that is wrong with Blizzard's mapmaking. Everything. This frame of mind is the reason we don't have large, balanced maps in the pool: because they aren't "interesting" enough. Basically, their definition of interesting is everything that every professional player really really hates in a map. As long as the map determines the way the game is played, it will be impossible to balance SCII, because the maps will ruin it with their backdoors and cliffs and chokes that make maps terrible.

Honestly, uninteresting!? WTF! That map had some of THE best games in SCII! They didn't even take it out because they thought it might be zerg favored; they took it out because it had a small number of attack paths and naturals were easy to take, ensuring that players would have to think outside the box and use drops and air units to harass the opponent while slowly building up an economy and trying to just edge out your opponent so you have a better force when the conflict comes.

They took out Shakuras because it had the best games on it. They widened the natural to LT, and took out a watchtower because it led to longer games. They wanted to put in a map like metalopolis, but more macro-oriented, so they took off 2 expansions, shortened the rush distances in every direction, and added some rocks to make the hard-to-hold natural even more incredibly hard to hold. It is rather clear that Blizzard does not actually take into account the considerations of the players, and just goes with what it thinks looks coolest.

You want interesting gameplay? Fine. Put Desert Oasis back in.

Just played a few games on the new maps. Blizzard really doesn't want people taking thirds. Even a second base in some cases. And the centre ground for the new lost temple is way way too big and open. Slag might be the worst with the map basically telling you "No third for you." Typhon is the least bad simply because it's the biggest. Still hard to take natural or third though. So I shall use my 3 votes to vote off 4 of the new maps: shattered temple, slag pits and backwater gulch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackhammerIV

Just played a few games on the new maps. Blizzard really doesn't want people taking thirds. Even a second base in some cases. And the centre ground for the new lost temple is way way too big and open. Slag might be the worst with the map basically telling you "No third for you." Typhon is the least bad simply because it's the biggest. Still hard to take natural or third though. So I shall use my 3 votes to vote off 4 of the new maps: shattered temple, slag pits and backwater gulch.

---

The center for the new Lost Temple is the first map that actually gives Zerg a chance, despite the fact that Toss still has force fields and Terran can still mass off of 2 base. In fact, open centers is what defined most balanced maps in SC1, as it gave way for more strategic movement instead of the pathways determining where your army went.

It sounds like all of your posts are QQing cuz you play Terran and Toss and might have to actually work for a win now. Yes, it was pleasant having a boatload of maps where as a Terran and Toss player one could simply turtle on two bases against zerg and mass an unstoppable army without having to exercise the slightest micro or independent thought if they chose to do so

These new maps aren't amazing, but they're better than the old ones imo and anything new is welcome for me. I'd rather see some GomTV maps added instead though, as those are really well balanced and fun to play.

And good riddance to Shakuras. I liked that map if the spawning points weren't directly next to each other. Because if they were, as a zerg player, you literally had to build your tech at your natural under the assumption that your main base would be destroyed. That's not very well balanced.

Well jabber the wide open area favours highly mobile armies like speedlings and stimmed bio. Terran can deal with the wide open area better than toss through the use of tanks.

The wide size of the center does not favour a concave defense by toss. Speedlings can run along the side and flank from behind. That's the problem I have with them. Sure you can call it QQ but I don't like a center where it takes like 10-20 forcefields to make a choke to force attacking units where you want them.

Looking at the GSL maps I prefer them because even if they have a wide center they put ramps and structures here and there to allow defenders to force attackers into narrower pathways.

Looking at these new ladder maps I find there is no reason as protoss to try to attempt to take the center of the map. Defending there is a nightmare as protoss.

And plus would you call my comment about how hard it is as terran/protoss to take a second or third more QQ?? You probably would saying how it favours zerg play. But all it does is push terran/toss to be more likely to go for 1/2 base plays and never take a third.

Well, of course you prefer GSL maps, because they are big and more macro oriented maps, which already have great games played on them... Slag Pits is seriously the worst map on ladder I've witnessed. It looks so pointless...

Quote:

---

two high yield expansions that will be difficult to maintain, and the key to victory in some games could come down to how long you hold one or both of these center expansions.

---

My ass. They specifically made the natural easier to harass, then said that taking a gold third/fourth int the middle of the map where it can be killed by almost anything (unless you're terran, then you can just repair your turrets/siege tanks/PF until your opponent starves) would be the key to winning.
More like: abusing the short rush distances, backdoors, and open naturals will determine who wins in this positionally imbalanced rush-fest.

On the flipside, I started rushing after a really long losing streak, and these new maps are pretty good for that.

Why doesn't Blizz just put small chokes by the naturals with unpathable cliffs like all the pro maps had in Blizzard. Then, you can have crazy macro games where there is harassment all game long, while 1 and 2-base timing pushes won't end up being insta-win.

There were lots of problems with shakuras because of how far away 2 players could be.