[M] (2) The Dark moon - Page 2

On August 24 2014 04:47 The_Templar wrote:
Sitting in front of your fourth still protects every attack path except the one behind the natural (which is really annoying).

On August 29 2014 08:57 zergJared wrote:
hey man played a bunch on games on this map. its super fun. and i dont know what people are talking about this map being super split.

Very few games ive played go into the late game and going beyond 2 base is really interesting for gameplay the way the map is set up. Id like to see this map on ladder actually.

On August 31 2014 02:44 Timetwister22 wrote:
Unless you have 250+ games on this map with at least 10 different top8 masters players of each race, then whatever games you have on this map are statistically worthless. It's good to get games on a map to get a feel for how they play, yet that never gives the whole picture. This is why bad maps can make it to ladder, as initial games show promise, but then massive amounts of games show problems. Thus, I suggest you stop pointing to the few amount of games you have on this map to back up your arguments here. Those games are statistically worthless, even if they were played on by pros.

As far as the map itself, I'm going to have to say it's not that good. It's alright for a beginner's map, but to argue this map doesn't have the issues, that several others in this thread have pointed out, is silly. Everything from the proportions, natural design, third design, and the overall super split map shows a great amount of inexperience with the editor, and overall will lead to poor quality games. That doesn't mean this map can't host good games, just means the vast majority will be 4base split map turtle fests. Your map is not the first map to have very similar features. In fact, these features that you are messing with are very standard features, in that they have been true and tried since 2011. Thus, any experienced mapmaker should be able to determine that this map will not work out well, and that is exactly what has been going on in this thread.

Please understand, that I'm not saying this to be an asshole. Tough criticism is extremely important for maps, and if the mapmaker cannot handle it, then that mapmaker simply is not meant to be a mapmaker. The people here are trying to be honest and helpful, so please do not just disregard them by saying "No you're wrong, I've seen some games on this map before." Especially don't use said excuse if you don't even provide the replays of said games. This community is trying to help you improve, but if you can't handle the criticism, then this place is probably not for you.

On August 31 2014 08:12 lefix wrote:
As much as you may like your own map, you cannot force other people to like it. It sucks when you put work into a map and noone seems to appreciate it. But everyone around here has been through that often enough. There is no need to be an ass about it.

Move on, make another map. As good as you may think this map is, the next one is always going to be even better.

On August 31 2014 08:23 NewSunshine wrote:

You keep citing these games people played on your map. Replays are easy enough to provide, so doing so will actually support your claims. Until then, I'm going to say the same thing he is. Your map is unrefined. It shows inexperience, something that gets better as you make more maps. Also, on the subject of games, you must not be paying very good attention. His 2v2 map Preservation just got on ladder. My 4v4 map Retribution has been on ladder for several seasons now. Yes, people know better than you, that's why you work on it. Learn to take a comment or just go away.

On August 31 2014 08:40 lefix wrote:
The fact that you're getting very defensive to the point that you're attacking people who are just giving you honest feedback shows that you're not taking criticism well. The sad truth is, it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong. It's not going to change how people feel about your map.

And yes, you are right about one thing. There will always be haters. No matter how good a map might be, someone is always going to hate it, even maps that make it on ladder, especially those. Better get used to it

This map, however, is just not going to be the next big thing. Best advice I can give you is to just start working on the next one.

On August 31 2014 09:19 The_Templar wrote:

proportions are wrong, there are a lot of badly placed things (the center bases, some of the ramps).


Timetwister isn't attacking you, more on this when I finish my main post in response to the response to timetwister's post.

On August 31 2014 09:32 The_Templar wrote:

Proportions = Size of everything relative to everything else. Main problems there are:
-Main is too small
-Path between natural and fourth is very small
-Center bases clog up a lot of the center
I do agree with lefix that you should give this map up and try again on a blank slate.

Oh, and this is about as standard as you can get by the way >.>

On August 31 2014 09:10 GeneralSezme wrote:

So you want replays that's what your asking? Well games i observed are unsaved and gone now, I only observe games to see how each play out and update the map if something is broken or unbalanced the only recent replays i have is me beating a low level player and a TvT. I haven't been spectating games since I started my new map and going to school.

On August 31 2014 09:10 GeneralSezme wrote:
How does a map show inexperience, explain from this image, inexperience I have, please do so.

On August 31 2014 09:37 The_Templar wrote:
MAIN THE_TEMPLAR RESPONSE



Oh geez, I was afraid of this reaction. That post was basically a summary of nearly all of the opinions of the expert mapmakers on this site and The_Templar (me). Here's where all of the problems that have to do with bad maps and good maps being nearly indistinguishable from each other come to light.

Here's how I see it. The problem with most (read: beginning or not serious) mapmakers is that they visualize what will actually happen when their map is played and they will probably share these ideas with others. This sort of process leads to one of:

a. The mapmaker playtests ideas with friends, peers, clan mates, etc. This leads to one of:
      1. There might be something wrong with the map but it's unclear.
            A. Their peers accept the ideas and don't bother experimenting with other ideas, giving the illusion the map is perfect.
                  Go to step b, or just stop
            B. Their peers reject the idea and the mapmaker makes revisions. Go back to step a. This becomes a closed loop
                  which eventually leads to a(1(A)), where no further changes are made.
      2. There's clearly something wrong with the map.
            A. There is a quick fix that is done to improve the execution.
            B. There's a large problem with the map that could be fixed with some work. Generally this is ignored or patched in the
                  least time-consuming way possible.
            C. There is a huge flaw that makes the map worthless or unplayable. This might mean:
                  I. Map is scrapped and redone: Good job, you have improved.
                  II. See a(2(B)). This is not a good way to improve because you're not really fixing a map, you're just making the
                        same map more playable.
      3. There's something wrong with the mapmaker's basic ideas.
            A. Ask an expert for help (b(1)). This is the best way to improve if you find the right experts, but prepare to be wrong.
            B. Ignore the problems and insist everything you're doing is fine. (Seriously, don't do this)
            C. Post on forums and take the advice of anyone that posts.

b. The mapmaker asks expert players or mapmakers (since the mapmakers referenced here aren't professionals, they often won't know these people very well) for help.
      1. The expert will offer possible solutions for problems you didn't know existed. This will always happen.
            A. These problems are usually important unless specified as not being so. Fix all of the problems. Not one problem at a
                  time, ALL of them.
            B. If you don't understand the problem, you will only improve if you ask about it.
      2. You will fix the problems, creating new ones that you didn't know existed. Go back to b(1) until this doesn't happen.
      3. Alternatively, try working on your own to fix the problems if you think you have a better idea. This could take two paths:
            A. Do this without listening to the expert. Why did you bother asking? Go back to b(1) if you want to improve the map.
            B. Implement the idea, while keeping in mind what the expert has said. You can do something else, but try to
                  understand why the expert advised you to take a certain path.

The problem with path a is that you always view your map as something good or bad, and always by yourself. There are individual, unrelated problems that can be patched up fairly easily. Other people give input on whether something is good or bad. Maps can not be quantified like this! While it is less likely that the majority opinion is wrong (as opposed to asking one expert), you will never actually learn anything because most people have little or no knowledge of mapmaking. Additionally, this is always a bad approach because ignoring everything except for one issue will often create other issues.

Taking path b will educate you on how these issues relate to each other (so your map features don't ruin themselves) and will actually teach you how to make maps instead of bashing your head against the same wall for eternity.
The point I am making here is listen to the damn experts!

---

Now, it seems you made the map similar to process a(1(A)), meaning you made a map, and even though it was wrong, you were convinced that it was a great map, with lots of interesting play, because your peers confirmed your opinions for you. Once your peers were convinced your strategical ideals were the best (after all, you are the mapmaker), it wasn't hard for them to constantly attempt to play those interesting games instead of playing the map to its strength. In fact, the play on the map probably seemed a lot like how you envisioned it in the first place.

If this is not clear, I mean to say that how you plan a map is often different than how it turns out, especially when considering how it plays out.

Intended design behind the map: Interesting, somewhat macro map with lots of options available (backdoors, alternate paths etc).
Here is a diagram labeling all the viable-looking attack paths from the bottom right to the top left in a four base vs four base scenario. These definitely look different and interesting, don't they?
+ Show Spoiler +
Additionally, the backdoor in the natural theoretically might allow you to easily attack an opponent's base later on in the game, a move which might in turn leave you vulnerable.

Eventual design behind this map: Large macro map designed to go to late game with nothing else really viable. Easy four bases. Backdoors that are tedious but not particularly difficult to defend. Split map mechanics in the late game.
+ Show Spoiler +
That large red oval depicts the normal positioning of a 4-base army. The arrows show that it is easy to defend any of your four bases with relative ease whereas your opponent has to go quite a lot around to attack. More importantly, you can do it all from one spot, barely moving at all = Boring gameplay. You can guard the backdoor rocks very easily.

Yeah, both sides of the argument are both there. Doesn't mean that the one you want to be there is more prominent though. In fact, it's the opposite. Your games are back and forth because the players want your map to be good and they want to play the map in the way they think they're supposed to (Same reasoning behind everyone copying professional builds), but a player defending their four bases and taking the map to a long macro game has the upper hand here as it is quite difficult to crack them.

An expert player will, nearly 100% of the time, play in this way, as it is just much better than trying to go for the back-and-forth game due to the ease of defending.

---

Now, I'd like to discuss your attitude in the post directly following Timetwister's post, as you seem to have not actually read the post in question.


He wants you to provide sufficient data to show that high-level players also play in the way that you think they should, and that the map is, additionally, balanced when they play in this way. However, you (what league are you anyway?) don't specify any leagues and you don't provide any replay evidence that any of this is true. Why should we think that, in practice, the map runs counter-intuitive to the theory that clearly shows that it's a turtle map, when we don't have any high-level replays on it?



*sigh* This paragraph makes me think you are trolling. If you aren't, which isn't incredibly unlikely, I will break this paragraph up and explain the problem with each of your points a bit.


Nope.


See the theory part of this post. Always consult an expert. Always always do so, and then listen to him/her.


Actually, this is why we have map overviews and screenshots of various areas, so we can judge a map by its looks. When you have a large amount of experience making melee maps, you will be able to tell how big various areas of the map are and how they all work together, for example.


A valid point, but it isn't necessary immediately. Gameplay comes when the map has developed to the point that it can be played on.


An expert (the only expert to show up in the thread to give feedback on the map) + The_Templar (me) + one other person say it's a turtle map.


Already addressed.


So, these play tests involve one player doing a generic, non-map-specific 2 base or so timing and killing the other player (probably due to a lack of scouting/proper macro/micro/unit composition)? What skill level did you say these guys are?


It sounds like you are playing mech wrong if you are dying to early mutalisks nearly every game.


Avilo excels at late game mech AFAIK, not early game mech. I would go more into why I wouldn't take all of my mech advice from avilo but I'm not starting that conversation here.


1. In reference to the bolded part, what exactly happened in this ZvZ, and how did the map affect it at all?
2. What statistics? You haven't given us any yet.
3. I'm not playing 200 games on your map because it's not a good enough map to be played on yet.


What is he jealous of exactly? He was a finalist in TLMC 1 and at least one MotM. Why would he want to insult you anyway? As I think I said somewhere else in this post, his post was extremely similar to quite a lot of expert opinions on the map (and as you've seen, a few of them have started posting here since then). We are definitely not all insulting you. Man (or woman) up and admit you might have been wrong.


Why do you care how good a single map of his is? He makes a lot of maps (or at least, more than 1). And you imply that his maps are obviously bad based on his comment and that blizzard must have made a mistake, which is really silly to do. Blizzard is not full of idiots.


Believe me, I didn't enjoy it.

On August 31 2014 09:55 GeneralSezme wrote:

Thank you templar, this was the most helpful post i have gotten on this thread which was the original intent instead just arguing with everyone who don't offer any help at all just says the same thing without any facts behind it, By the way I'm a Diamond protoss, in a clan with 85 members who are diamond +