Map discussion for starcraft.ie league I

seraphimvc

thanks for work Columc!!

may i suggest we use MLG Meta and Shattered temple? and would love see Testbug add into the map pool too

IRL_Sinister

While I'm not playing in the Tournament, using the MLG/TSL/ESL equivalent of the maps would ruin a lot of the fun the tournament will generate, imo. BUT I do agree with Testbug that's a f*cking sweet map.

UnholyGregor

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

While I'm not playing in the Tournament, using the MLG/TSL/ESL equivalent of the maps would ruin a lot of the fun the tournament will generate, imo. BUT I do agree with Testbug that's a f*cking sweet map.

Take alot of fun out of the tournament? if you consider cheesey 1 base all ins fun, then yeah, it would. But theres a good reason the mlg version of the maps are being used. They encourage macro play. macro=longer games. longer games=more decisions for the player to make--> greater chance of the better player winning. Also, zerg are terribly underpowered in close positions, and its not fair to place a player at a disadvantage just because of the map pool.
+ for using the mlg version of the maps, as i dont want to have to rely on luck to have a good game.

IRL_Sinister

UnholyGregor wrote: »

Take alot of fun out of the tournament? if you consider cheesey 1 base all ins fun, then yeah, it would. But theres a good reason the mlg version of the maps are being used. They encourage macro play. macro=longer games. longer games=more decisions for the player to make--> greater chance of the better player winning. Also, zerg are terribly underpowered in close positions, and its not fair to place a player at a disadvantage just because of the map pool.
+ for using the mlg version of the maps, as i dont want to have to rely on luck to have a good game.

That's why it's BO3. As already discussed in another (lol) thread if you lose to cheese, all-in or lack of scouting it's your own fault. Playing 1 game on Meta (as an example) and losing and then blaming it on close spawn or whatever is just retarded. I LOVE close spawn games because they're micro, rather than macro, intensive. They generally involve MUCH more interesting builds rather than the standard FE crap we see on every other map. I know Zerg is underpowered on those maps but who cares? It's a bit of a laugh and they decide the next map anyway. Chances are if you're a better player you'll win anyway.

And, just so you know, Zergs are underpowered from those positions at the top level. >50% of the actual players signed for the Tournament won't even understand why they're underpowered or be capable of exploiting it. When it gets out of the brackets, however, it might be a different story but I'm also assuming the map pool, veto system, etc will all be reformed for those stages anyway.

UnholyGregor

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

That's why it's BO3. As already discussed in another (lol) thread if you lose to cheese, all-in or lack of scouting it's your own fault. Playing 1 game on Meta (as an example) and losing and then blaming it on close spawn or whatever is just retarded. I LOVE close spawn games because they're micro, rather than macro, intensive. They generally involve MUCH more interesting builds rather than the standard FE crap we see on every other map. I know Zerg is underpowered on those maps but who cares? It's a bit of a laugh and they decide the next map anyway. Chances are if you're a better player you'll win anyway.

And, just so you know, Zergs are underpowered from those positions at the top level. >50% of the actual players signed for the Tournament won't even understand why they're underpowered or be capable of exploiting it. When it gets out of the brackets, however, it might be a different story but I'm also assuming the map pool, veto system, etc will all be reformed for those stages anyway.

I agree that most players in the tournament wont understand the implications of close position, but this doesn't change the fact that it places certain players at an unfair disadvantage. Also, I think macro games are far more enjoyable than ling bane all ins; scv all ins and 4gates. As you have stated, the majority of players play at a lower level and as such wont even know how to micro effectively, so the whole 'intensity' really just becomes 5 minute games of build army and a move. It takes a great deal more skill and mental finesse to macro on 5 bases, than to build 4 warp gates and attack, or build 3 barracks and pull all your builders.

I just feel that there is no need to play these cheese biased maps as it reduces the overall quality of the games massively, and completely destroys any hope of a game lasting longer than 10 minutes.

If a player wishes to cheese, the can cheese anyway. But playing mlg maps allows for the option to cheese, whilst retaining the macro potential of the map.

Basically, what i'm trying to say is, if you spawn close positions, theres no way the game will last longer than 10 minutes. But if its not close positions, players can still cheese if they wish, but if opens more possibilities for the gameplay, and improves the overall quality of games and allows the better players to shine.

And thats just a general overview of close pos vs mlg maps, I'm not even going to start on the hardships of playing zerg in close positions........

NeoSlicerZ

4gate works vs zerg? I would actually say that the MLG/TSL versions are more cheese prone. /proxy 2 gate time

Khazidhea

50% of zergs? Lol I dont think any player in out tournament can abuse close spawn to the point of unfair advantage -_- Or let me changing the wording to make it not offensive to our players. Any grandmaster zerg would be able to win over any of our players despite spawning close positions on meta\LT.

And I love the fact that you probably need some other build for close spawn. Moreover, just pulling all your units and watch them fight is not the micro Sinister was talking about. It is 2 marines 1 scv vs 5 drones while you macro up. If zerg pulls 10 and loses 2 while not killing marines he is bad and deserves to die. If terran loses all his stuff and not killing any drones (because injured drones were pulled back and terran was greedy and stupid chasing them) - terran is bad. It either forgets to build more workers\units\expo behind this\tech up, he's bad. And bad players lose. Protoss idk, I hate dealing with 1 base toss, but that's just my personal weakness. Or should I say used to be

I'm not even going to start on the hardships of playing terran in the late game cross spawn

IRL_Sinister

UnholyGregor wrote: »

I agree that most players in the tournament wont understand the implications of close position, but this doesn't change the fact that it places certain players at an unfair disadvantage. Also, I think macro games are far more enjoyable than ling bane all ins; scv all ins and 4gates. As you have stated, the majority of players play at a lower level and as such wont even know how to micro effectively, so the whole 'intensity' really just becomes 5 minute games of build army and a move. It takes a great deal more skill and mental finesse to macro on 5 bases, than to build 4 warp gates and attack, or build 3 barracks and pull all your builders.

I just feel that there is no need to play these cheese biased maps as it reduces the overall quality of the games massively, and completely destroys any hope of a game lasting longer than 10 minutes.

If a player wishes to cheese, the can cheese anyway. But playing mlg maps allows for the option to cheese, whilst retaining the macro potential of the map.

Basically, what i'm trying to say is, if you spawn close positions, theres no way the game will last longer than 10 minutes. But if its not close positions, players can still cheese if they wish, but if opens more possibilities for the gameplay, and improves the overall quality of games and allows the better players to shine.

And thats just a general overview of close pos vs mlg maps, I'm not even going to start on the hardships of playing zerg in close positions........

Most close spawn games last longer than x-spawn because of this exact mindset. People get into the mindset that x-spawn = macro and then just lose to the BF Helion drop in their main O_O. Most close-spawn last far longer than 10 mins.

seraphimvc

i agree strongly with many posts above.

GSL, NASL,IPL, TSL the likes big tourneys all use modified meta/scattered with no close pos because they wanna make sure we viewers can enjoy less fun i hate them!!!
about nasl:

ya, NASL get bashed so hard because they used the old/ladder map but they finally updated to newer maps since last week

and 7RR/lingroachall in is defo too imba at close pos meta. and obv too you wont find any 4gate in GM PvZ.

NeoSlicerZ wrote: »

4gate works vs zerg? I would actually say that the MLG/TSL versions are more cheese prone. /proxy 2 gate time

i strongly agree with neo. MLG/TSL versions are more cheese prone.

Noobsc2player wrote: »

may i suggest we use MLG Meta and Shattered temple?

wtf are you on about.

UnholyGregor

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

Most close spawn games last longer than x-spawn because of this exact mindset. People get into the mindset that x-spawn = macro and then just lose to the BF Helion drop in their main O_O. Most close-spawn last far longer than 10 mins.

No, wrong im afraid. the most possible bases that can be taken on close position is 2 by each player, if they are matched well and theyre both competent.
2 bases mine out faster than 4/5 bases => the games are shorter.

also to all the people who believe that non close pos is cheesier, that makes no sense at all. as the player would have to guess where the other guys base is to proxy. if its close pos, he can proxy anyway. That doesnt really make much sense, but basically, everything that can happen in close pos can still happen in x position, but x position has alot more possibilities that close pos.

Theres a reason why every major tournament uses mlg versions, as it generates much better games in general. unless you consider 5 drones vs 2 marines exciting...

and if you lose to hellion drops you suck, and if you cant beat roach ling all ins, you suck

IRL_Sinister

UnholyGregor wrote: »

No, wrong im afraid. the most possible bases that can be taken on close position is 2 by each player, if they are matched well and theyre both competent.
2 bases mine out faster than 4/5 bases => the games are shorter.

also to all the people who believe that non close pos is cheesier, that makes no sense at all. as the player would have to guess where the other guys base is to proxy. if its close pos, he can proxy anyway. That doesnt really make much sense, but basically, everything that can happen in close pos can still happen in x position, but x position has alot more possibilities that close pos.

Theres a reason why every major tournament uses mlg versions, as it generates much better games in general. unless you consider 5 drones vs 2 marines exciting...

As a result of this I realised I have been troll'd and refuse to comment on this guys comments anymore

UnholyGregor

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

As a result of this I realised I have been troll'd and refuse to comment on this guys comments anymore

I really dont see what you mean, in fact, i think your the one trolling, as your not even playing in the tournament, yes still (wrongly) try to convince us that playing close postions is a good idea.. :?

Columc

Guys, I have made the map pool, I am sticking with it. If I wanted to put in MLG/TSL meta/shattered I would have, But I find that at this level of play it is not needed. Just like Blizzard still have them in the Map Pool.

This is the final decision for the map pool for the league. If you want to discuss close positions of maps and the benefits of it, please start a new thread.

I have taken into account of your opinions and will put them to thought for the next leagues.

Columc

RoyalMarine

Moved all posts regarding maps to a seperate thread as requested by OP.

seraphimvc

meanwhile, i just saw this thread on tl regarding blizz should eliminate close pos maps on ladder o.o 80% of votes on Blizzard should Eliminate Close Positions on meta and shattered
IMHO most of these TL-er are just zerg noobs who doesnt appreciate the beauty of early all-in and balanced in close pos.

Columc

seraphimvc wrote: »

meanwhile, i just saw this thread on tl regarding blizz should eliminate close pos maps on ladder o.o 80% of votes on Blizzard should Eliminate Close Positions on meta and shattered
IMHO most of these TL-er are just zerg noobs who doesnt appreciate the beauty of early all-in and balanced in close pos.

I find that with discussion from high level play and also with most major tournamnets going for removing close positions players that dont understand it fully, shout out the fantastic IMBA card and saying that it ruins the game.

What you need to remember is, if spawned on close positions the game changes, it wont be a macro type game but a short game, micro intensive. Were you have a lot of 2 base plays. Zerg players need to relise this by instead of using the great spanishwa build and droning up to 40, they need to start producing an army. and then try and sneak a 3rd base in one of the further away positions.

The game is not just macro heavy, major tournamnets want to favour this for the viewing of players and enjoyment of suspectators.

This game is a startegy game and needs on the fly decisions, its not like prior to the game, Im gonna get 4 bases turtle up and tech to BC/thors/broodlords/mothership ect ect.

With close positions it just elimintates a lot of your pre game options but adds in more.

ZvT, baneling must zergling harass, ZvP 3 roach zerglings rush, ZvZ baneling/zergling/roaches. TvT marines/tanks push contain, TvP early harass while T turtles with bunkers and get a force.


These are jsut small options you can take, decided your own startegy, but the only thing close positions elimintates is the fact that you can turtle and tech up.

Starcraft is a Macro and Micro game, it requires both skills, yes you might be a great macro player haveing 5+ bases with a **** ton production buildings, but thats not good if you just rally them into your enemy.

these are just my opions and people may disagree with them. But I find removing close positions just remove a dynamic part to the game. next you might see tournamnets giving players 2 CC/hatch/nexus and 12 scvs/drones/probs at their expansion

IRL_Sinister

What he said ^

(I want his babies).

/thread.

Khazidhea

That's what I was trying to say.

VikingErik

I've only been laddering so I've not gotten any play on the Terminus and Crevasse maps. Could someone give me the cliff-notes on what to keep in mind on these maps and what to look out for?

Also, if anyone in my skill range (bronze) wants to practise on these maps please get in touch with me. I'm always onthe in-game starcraft.ie channel when I play.

Thanks

Columc

VikingErik wrote: »

I've only been laddering so I've not gotten any play on the Terminus and Crevasse maps. Could someone give me the cliff-notes on what to keep in mind on these maps and what to look out for?

Also, if anyone in my skill range (bronze) wants to practise on these maps please get in touch with me. I'm always onthe in-game starcraft.ie channel when I play.

Thanks

They are very macro orientated maps. I would suggest messing around on them by yourself first, and have a look at the spawn locations and the expansions. mess around at looking if seige tanks can harahass certain areas, look were to hide pylons(put them on high position to be able to warp in on low)look at how to hide expansions loot how to wall in/choke points ect ect.

edit: also if you have time come onto #starcraft.ie on quakenet(IRC link at top of the page) a lot of us are here and can discuss starts with you and explain advantages of maps

VikingErik

Columc wrote: »

They are very macro orientated maps. I would suggest messing around on them by yourself first, and have a look at the spawn locations and the expansions. mess around at looking if seige tanks can harahass certain areas, look were to hide pylons(put them on high position to be able to warp in on low)look at how to hide expansions loot how to wall in/choke points ect ect.

Thanks for the tips. I've so little free time to play that I end up just laddering in order to improve my macro and learn the ladder pool maps.

I was mostly just looking for some quick knowledge on these maps. I really fear that I'll just get "dropped" by terrans on terminus.

Crevasse is so massive that I'll struggle to contain any zerg from mass expanding and just going mass mutas.

Are there any "neat" spots to hide your probes in opponents base on either of these maps? I've had great success doing that on Taldarim.

IRL_Sinister

BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG note about Crevasse:

It has a rich Vespene gas at your natural. Words can't describe my love for it.

VikingErik

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG note about Crevasse:

It has a rich Vespene gas at your natural. Words can't describe my love for it.

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. Fast expand, tech to templars and bye bye to MMM balls :P

UnholyGregor

seraphimvc wrote: »

meanwhile, i just saw this thread on tl regarding blizz should eliminate close pos maps on ladder o.o 80% of votes on Blizzard should Eliminate Close Positions on meta and shattered
IMHO most of these TL-er are just zerg noobs who doesnt appreciate the beauty of early all-in and balanced in close pos.

you must be trolling, seriously, either that, or you have no idea how to play the game.
the only people who dont like macro games are those who have no understanding of the game, and its mechanics. a 5 year old child could 4gate or build 4 barracks and pull scv's or roach rush. the longer a gome lasts, the more skill it takes to play. if you have ever played an hour long 1v1, youl see what i mean.

UnholyGregor

Columc wrote: »

ZvT, baneling must zergling harass, ZvP 3 roach zerglings rush, ZvZ baneling/zergling/roaches. TvT marines/tanks push contain, TvP early harass while T turtles with bunkers and get a force.

you seriously think this requires skill?
''im gonna run my baneling into your mineral line and end the game 5 mins in''
herp derp

NeoSlicerZ

VikingErik wrote: »

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. Fast expand, tech to templars and bye bye to MMM balls :P

You intend to go HTs on 3.5 gasses.

As for UnholyGregor, herp derp, micro is part of the game too and strategy.

Columc

UnholyGregor wrote: »

you seriously think this requires skill?
''im gonna run my baneling into your mineral line and end the game 5 mins in''
herp derp

no but well excectued zergling micro to surrond marines, know how much banelings to use and good micro to trap marines and use banelings do require skill. I'll use RootDestiny analysis of zerg/bane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcQedw7R1zk

VikingErik

NeoSlicerZ wrote: »

You intend to go HTs on 3.5 gasses.

Judging by your comment I guess not. But I might just try :P

Khazidhea

Oh I am gonna get some hate for that ...

But on 5 bases with 5k\5k piled up zerg macro is s->rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

Of course I am exaggerating, but you know what I am talking about. Yeah, not only roaches. Yeah you have to survive all the "cheese", "allin", "timing atacks" noob stuff before that. Yeah you have to spread creep, inject larva, balance between drones and army. But when you talk 5 bases with all the map taken the zerg would be the easiest. As it is supposed to shine in the late game by the nature of design. Terran will start turtling hard and eventually lose if it gets to this stage. Against Protoss the current problem is that their army is too strong for zerg and after 200/200 clash the huge remainder of Protoss army has no problem killing zerg reinforcments that come in small packs and Protoss does not lose anything. But macro is s -> rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


SKILL.



''im gonna run my baneling into your mineral line and end the game 5 mins in''
and you did not snipe it with queen (or even a hero ling) \ did not move your drones\ did not block the ramp \ build 5 hatches all around the map before spawning pool. herp derp? come on.

DIMAGA vs Nestea in GSL World Championship was amazing to watch!

And coming back to marine scv vs drone ling. Any Boxer game. Probably the only player who doesnt get hate for bunker rushes. Even in broodwar! In OSL semifinals in 2006 (I think) boxer bunker rushed yellow 3 times in a row and people loved to see it. Yeah here is the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYLhOXn5rTw

UnholyGregor

Khazidhea wrote: »

Oh I am gonna get some hate for that ...


Of course I am exaggerating, but you know what I am talking about. Yeah, not only roaches. Yeah you have to survive all the "cheese", "allin", "timing atacks" noob stuff before that. Yeah you have to spread creep, inject larva, balance between drones and army. But when you talk 5 bases with all the map taken the zerg would be the easiest. As it is supposed to shine in the late game by the nature of design. Terran will start turtling hard and eventually lose if it gets to this stage. Against Protoss the current problem is that their army is too strong for zerg and after 200/200 clash the huge remainder of Protoss army has no problem killing zerg reinforcments that come in small packs and Protoss does not lose anything. But macro is s -> rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


SKILL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYLhOXn5rTw

well, thats kind of all there is to training units tbh, example, for protoss; W + SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Terran:1AAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 2EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

the thing is, zerg unit building actually requires the player to manually spit larva every 30 seconds. imagine you were protoss, and unless you chronoboosted every nexus every 30 seconds, you have 0 production.... easy?

IRL_Sinister

Each race has a 30 second macro function. Same logic stands. A good Zerg will purposely spawn extra larva prior to an engagement to cover for slippage in macro. Protoss' late-game, imo, actually benefits from slack CB to pump out those high-tech units and upgrades.

seraphimvc

UnholyGregor wrote: »

you must be trolling, seriously, either that, or you have no idea how to play the game.
the only people who dont like macro games are those who have no understanding of the game, and its mechanics. a 5 year old child could 4gate or build 4 barracks and pull scv's or roach rush. the longer a gome lasts, the more skill it takes to play. if you have ever played an hour long 1v1, youl see what i mean.

bro, did u see my tag? i m a hardcore zergie :pac: (did you turn on your sarcastic alarm?) i stop trying when i see all the overwhelming zerg-ignorance posts so i decided to troll abit.

okay. trollface off. this thing is simple. whoever says 'yes' to close pos, i am willing to bet on him that he NEVER plays more than 10games as zerg on ladder.

Columc wrote: »

I find that with discussion from high level play and also with most major tournamnets going for removing close positions players that dont understand it fully, shout out the fantastic IMBA card and saying that it ruins the game.

....

i agree what you said, seriously, you spoke out about how should a dinamic RTS really work out. but mind you, what IF this game is imbalance to begin with?

i am not going to go into how abusive different kind of T/P all-ins you can do on close pos(all zerg cheese is all-in and very high chances of failure, i repeat,if you get bane bust/lingroach/6pooled, you either have no idea about the counter or caused by your scouting problem) and how TOUGH as zerg you need to do to fend these all-ins off (while T/P can fend off all kinds of zerg cheese easily). it doesnt matter how i scouted the all-in coming or not, is either i over-make many units in early( i hurt my own econ), or i am dead by the all-in.

add in all the fake expo/weird pushing timings etc, i am 100% sure that you will get a stroke very soon if you play 50games of close pos in a row as zerg.

the reason they remove close pos in big tourney is simple - because we dont want to see EVERY ZvT/ZvP close pos once the zerg gets bunker/pylon blocked at the choke = gg. kinda populated by gsl2 foxer and all the terrans did this 2 rax bunker rush on meta close pos in every zvt.

i dont like when people say,'well, if you are diamond then if the bronze terran did the all-in you can still win!', you need to relying on the oppo to make mistake to get a win? this is the definition of unfair/imba.

and i think...spanishwa build is suicidal on close pos, 1 around of mis-drone is gg since the build emphasizes on mass drones o.o stop referencing that build anyway. that build is so vulnerable to alot of different timing attacks.

and i believe zerg players will quite familiar with micro because of ZvZ (lingbanes war of roach/infest war).

honestly i dont rly care whatever position of a map. blizz needs to come out with some real '4players map'. meta and scattered close pos are just too short distance.

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

Each race has a 30 second macro function. Same logic stands. A good Zerg will purposely spawn extra larva prior to an engagement to cover for slippage in macro. Protoss' late-game, imo, actually benefits from slack CB to pump out those high-tech units and upgrades.

tehehehehe. sin, i am nearly willing to pay you to play 10games as zerg on ladder.

just for curiousity, i wonder how often do you 1 base all in zerg on close pos? :)i would do that if i were terran too lol