EPTOn June 05 2016 20:51 Freakling wrote:
No DL?!
No DL?!
I put the link in my post.
New Official map 'Taebaek Sanmaek' - Page 4
| Forum Index > BW General |
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50752 Posts
I put the link in my post. | ||
|
Freakling
Germany1533 Posts
This should work! | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50752 Posts
On June 05 2016 23:00 BLinD-RawR wrote: download link is broken try this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jth6tks1t06riqm/Overwatch0.90.zip?dl=0 | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
| ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On June 06 2016 01:49 puppykiller wrote: Overwatch seems allright, kinda like fs if they nerfed the main-third area and gave you a mineral only to troll. What a way to fuck Protoss in PvZ | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
| ||
|
Freakling
Germany1533 Posts
Okay, here's my rundown of this map's "features": Ordered roughly from the more nitpicky to the outright condamningly bad:
So yeah, another example of Korean tournament hosts picking a map that is not just subpar but has so many rookie errors that I would not even dare to suggest it as a first draft. At this rate introduction of new "official" maps will probably cease very soon again due to pure fed-uppedness of players who are obviously expected to waste their training time testing even the most elemental things on a new map just because the map maker was too incompetent or did not even care enough (or both) to provide something actually playable for them... | ||
|
pebble444
Italy2503 Posts
Its non stadard allright, but would not have been enough without that ramp? its so open allready; The rest of it i like | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50752 Posts
https://mega.nz/#!8U4y0Q7J!hbMfisN68yAY3RZxurMOpaGzHdjDAAWdDe6jNcFKt94 | ||
|
Gamlet
Ukraine336 Posts
| ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50752 Posts
On June 06 2016 17:23 Gamlet wrote: No new vods on this map? probably being worked on after feedback for V1.0 | ||
|
Freakling
Germany1533 Posts
| ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12027 Posts
On June 07 2016 06:23 Freakling wrote: Being worked on? this map is so embarrassing for any one involved it should just be ditched quickly and quietly! You seem to have a lot of problems with any map makers who don't make exactly what you'd make :s I personally think it looks fun to play on o_O | ||
|
Freakling
Germany1533 Posts
I don't have any problems with anything. If any one wants to play this map, that's their own problem, but I think players looking for a good game deserve some quality and a fair warning that this is absolutely not it. Korean tournament hosts, and consequently also players, on the other hand have a massive problem with incompetently made maps. That's not a judgement of taste, as you seem to think, but a judgement of objective, measurable quality. But you probably have not even read my analysis, or you could not have possibly reached that conclusion. I happen to know a thing or two about making maps, and about spotting and avoiding bugs in maps. So you might need to come up with some better argument than "looks fun to play on" which mostly seems to imply that you actually haven't even played on it and that you probably don't know what you have to look out for. | ||
GTR
51574 Posts
| ||
|
Freakling
Germany1533 Posts
| ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On June 07 2016 07:03 Freakling wrote: That's not a judgement of taste, as you seem to think, but a judgement of objective, measurable quality. Objective measurable quality? Where? Which parts of your analysis were measurable? Which values did you measure? How do other maps measure and how big must the discrepancy be to qualify as "horrible"? If you dont give us mathematically sound definitions of your "objective, measurable qualit[ies]" then you are just talking opinions like everyone else. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On June 08 2016 04:26 RoomOfMush wrote: Objective measurable quality? Where? Which parts of your analysis were measurable? Which values did you measure? How do other maps measure and how big must the discrepancy be to qualify as "horrible"? If you dont give us mathematically sound definitions of your "objective, measurable qualit[ies]" then you are just talking opinions like everyone else. it's literally, objectively, imbalanced. the center has buildable terrain on one side and not the other, and cover tiles (which were probably a mistake and not a feature) on one side and not the other. the other criticisms are more subjective, but they are still completely valid, reasonable issues. i've spent a lot of time at broodwarmaps.net and i've seen what top level mapmakers are capable of, and this doesn't come close. and freakling is one of those top level mapmakers, you should trust him. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
Just tossing these words around without thinking is still wrong though. | ||
|
Freakling
Germany1533 Posts
You also rightly observer that this makes my analysis correct, which it can only be if it is objective in the first place. I have explained for every of my points how it is actually objectively bad (yes, I also say it simply looks kind of ugly and, well, loveless, which is subjective, though most people will probably agree, but reducing my whole post to that minor point is exemplary strawmaning and should have no place in a serious discussion) Can we please abstain from semantics debates now. | ||
| ||
