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

June 05 2016 16:55 GMT

#66

Hmm good point, I always forget that there are matchups other than TvP when analyzing new maps.

Freakling

Germany1534 Posts

June 05 2016 17:15 GMT

#67

Guess I should post my analysis of OVERWATCH here, as well. Yes, it's pretty harsh and damning, but that's the map's fault alone (or much rather the fault of its maker...). So here we go.

Okay, here's my rundown of this map's "features":

Ordered roughly from the more nitpicky to the outright condamningly bad:

map name: There's one good thing at least: Since no way in its current desolate state this is going to be added to iCCup, the obvious clash in map name will not happen, until further notice... Even then, since this seems to be officially named (4)OVERWATCH, it'll probably be easy to tell apart from the mere (2)Overwatch any time...
decoration: I mean, there's hardly any. But it's just deco right?! Why would you care? As long as it play well... Only that it does not and yet another time the two minute job on deco tells you all you need to know about precisely how not at all this map maker actually gave a damn about the map he made...
When in the middle of the map there are whole screenfuls of bland, homogenous terrain, so you have no orientation about your whereabouts at all, the threshold to too little deco is definitely crossed... And why does a Broodwar map need to cross-promote another game in the first place? Do they get money for the advertising or something?
But if you really want to know how bad this map was decorared: just look at the ramps! Fastmaps are not any more blocky...
Speaking of the centre: Not only deco-wise it's just a giant wasteland. In close position there is no incentive at all to even go there and in cross-position all incentive is basically to leave there again as soon as possible. At least cheesers will have an easy time finding a place to proxy, I guess.
The mineral only being cliffable from the high ground, and conversely the geysers and some of the mineral patches of the neutral gas expnasions being tankable from the low ground (but only in some places, not in others O_o?!) induces a lot of unnecessary rotational imbalance. This could have been solved so much better.
Not knowing where to exactly place a town hall for optimal mining at the natural is already bad (makes it impossible to guarantee bug-free worker behaviour, to begin with, but Ragnarok probably did not care or even know about that, see next point)
I only tested mining for Protoss, and found mineral mining bugs at: bottom left main, top and right natural (for the Nexus position I happened to be testing, see point above...), top 3rd and right mineral only. The relative lack of bugs in the mains seems to suggest that Ragnarok actually did some testing beforehand, for a change, but it might also be just dumb luck, given that Korean map makers in general seem to not have got the hang of this yet...
The random spot of sand dunes on the ridge at 12 o'clock does not only look so ugly I wish it would have been just left out (but I guess it's part of the Overwatch logo as well) but also introduces quite a lot of positional imbalance, because along the edges there is enough building space for a whole lot of Supply Depots and Turrets, whereas all other ridges are completely unbuildable. I guess Terran needs extra help slow-pushing at top horizontal matchups O_o.
Even worse, for about half (estimate, could not check in the editor yet due to map protection...) of that sand area, he used cover providing tiles to make the sand unbuildable (i.e. units will "randomly" have a 50% dodge chance against ranged attacks while on those tiles). So this is basically DeserTec II now, only just for the northern quadrant of the map O_o.

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

June 05 2016 17:19 GMT

#68

I don' t agree with the ramp outside the main chokes;
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 BLUES51083 Posts

June 06 2016 04:54 GMT

#69

in case the download for Taebaek Sanmaek gets taken down.

https://mega.nz/#!8U4y0Q7J!hbMfisN68yAY3RZxurMOpaGzHdjDAAWdDe6jNcFKt94

Gamlet

Ukraine336 Posts

June 06 2016 08:23 GMT

#70

No new vods on this map?

BLinD-RawR

ALLEYCAT BLUES51083 Posts

June 06 2016 08:27 GMT

#71

On June 06 2016 17:23 Gamlet wrote:
No new vods on this map?

probably being worked on after feedback for V1.0

Freakling

Germany1534 Posts

June 06 2016 21:23 GMT

#72

Being worked on? this map is so embarrassing for any one involved it should just be ditched quickly and quietly!

Qikz

United Kingdom12042 Posts

June 06 2016 21:45 GMT

#73

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

Germany1534 Posts

June 06 2016 22:03 GMT

#74

Well, it seems its you who wants to make this a personal matter, for some reason.

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

51629 Posts

June 06 2016 23:57 GMT

#75

well just to let you know your whining is falling on deaf ears.

Freakling

Germany1534 Posts

June 07 2016 07:03 GMT

#76

If you do not have anything substantial to add to the discussion, the map is right there for you to check it out yourself. I even told you exactly what to look for and where.

RoomOfMush

1296 Posts

June 07 2016 19:26 GMT

#77

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

June 07 2016 19:32 GMT

#78

On June 08 2016 04:26 RoomOfMush wrote:

Show nested quote +

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

June 07 2016 19:39 GMT

#79

I am not saying he is wrong with his analysis. I am saying he is wrong in saying his analysis is objective and measurable. Being objective and measurable does not make an analysis correct. And being correct in your analysis does not mean you have to be objective and measurable.

Just tossing these words around without thinking is still wrong though.

Freakling

Germany1534 Posts

June 07 2016 20:24 GMT

#80

That the quality of a map or the even just the exact impact of a certain severe bug are not quantifiable does not mean they are not measurable (or testable, if you prefer that term) or objective. In fact, they are testifiably there. That is a very objective fact, i.e any one can have a quick look and confirm for themselves. They are reproducible and not dependant on any one's personal point of view. That is the very definition of objective.
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.