|
On November 09 2010 18:01 neobowman wrote:
Same comment as in your previous thread.
...
This map, with its huge size, lack of a natural and wide open spaces, is shit to play.
...
and I don't want to shatter their hopes ...
.
[/QUOTE]
wow
first off, thank you for such insight... wow you really made my day
"lack of natural": so you can't play maps with no natural then? maybe that makes you... maybe other people don't have to stick to your narrow view of things...
"this map...is shit to play": so you've tried it then?
...
thought not, ... if u do, then i'll assume your opinion is useful, until then thanks again for reassuring me that i was well raised... and not everyone has had the same luck
"shatter their hopes ": boy do you sound ridiculous... possibly u are?
|
On November 09 2010 17:32 flowandebb wrote:
This map makes absolutely no sense and you clearly do not know how to use the editor or make a map.
well thank you very much
and to you too, you clearly have no conception of what a forum is for
i'll pass on asking u to elaborate as to what made u use the words "use" and "make"
glhf on other maps
|
On November 09 2010 17:44 prodiG wrote:
What the... I don't even...
Why are the minerals placed like bowling pins?
what you are feeling... that's a good thing no?
something new is always something scary
it's alright i understand
as to the placement of minerals, maybe the ones on Hades' Locker (a bit of self promo) will please you more
as to why the particular placement: i feel the maps are often copies of blizz's skewed view, so i'm branching out... hope everyone joins in the fun
on this particular map i hope to get the field back into mineral field (kinda miss worker micro i guess)
anyway
still no testers for me... i'm sooooooo sad... i thought so highly of u guys...
guess u gotta do a
"at first glance perfect balance 2 geyser in ze main with easy nat" map to rally anyone?
(lookout for my next map: "Too many bridges" (bridge 2 bridge remake with rocks, god i love those low hp rocks)
|
On November 09 2010 19:41 baskerville wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:44 prodiG wrote:
What the... I don't even...
Why are the minerals placed like bowling pins? what you are feeling... that's a good thing no? something new is always something scary it's alright i understand as to the placement of minerals, maybe the ones on Hades' Locker (a bit of self promo) will please you more as to why the particular placement: i feel the maps are often copies of blizz's skewed view, so i'm branching out... hope everyone joins in the fun on this particular map i hope to get the field back into mineral field (kinda miss worker micro i guess) anyway still no testers for me... i'm sooooooo sad... i thought so highly of u guys... guess u gotta do a "at first glance perfect balance 2 geyser in ze main with easy nat" map to rally anyone? (lookout for my next map: "Too many bridges" (bridge 2 bridge remake with rocks, god i love those low hp rocks)
There are standards that maps should meet if you want them to be accepted by the community. having mineral patches that are so far away from any ideal placement that they require eight workers to saturate alone does not meet this standard, nor does having three hundred destructible rocks or two minute rush times.
If you don't want to design maps that meet these accepted standards then that's fine, but don't expect many people to play them
|
On November 10 2010 04:34 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 19:41 baskerville wrote:On November 09 2010 17:44 prodiG wrote:
What the... I don't even...
Why are the minerals placed like bowling pins? what you are feeling... that's a good thing no? something new is always something scary it's alright i understand as to the placement of minerals, maybe the ones on Hades' Locker (a bit of self promo) will please you more as to why the particular placement: i feel the maps are often copies of blizz's skewed view, so i'm branching out... hope everyone joins in the fun on this particular map i hope to get the field back into mineral field (kinda miss worker micro i guess) anyway still no testers for me... i'm sooooooo sad... i thought so highly of u guys... guess u gotta do a "at first glance perfect balance 2 geyser in ze main with easy nat" map to rally anyone? (lookout for my next map: "Too many bridges" (bridge 2 bridge remake with rocks, god i love those low hp rocks) There are standards that maps should meet if you want them to be accepted by the community. having mineral patches that are so far away from any ideal placement that they require eight workers to saturate alone does not meet this standard, nor does having three hundred destructible rocks or two minute rush times. If you don't want to design maps that meet these accepted standards then that's fine, but don't expect many people to play them
well glhf on other maps
|
On November 10 2010 04:37 baskerville wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 04:34 prodiG wrote:On November 09 2010 19:41 baskerville wrote:On November 09 2010 17:44 prodiG wrote:
What the... I don't even...
Why are the minerals placed like bowling pins? what you are feeling... that's a good thing no? something new is always something scary it's alright i understand as to the placement of minerals, maybe the ones on Hades' Locker (a bit of self promo) will please you more as to why the particular placement: i feel the maps are often copies of blizz's skewed view, so i'm branching out... hope everyone joins in the fun on this particular map i hope to get the field back into mineral field (kinda miss worker micro i guess) anyway still no testers for me... i'm sooooooo sad... i thought so highly of u guys... guess u gotta do a "at first glance perfect balance 2 geyser in ze main with easy nat" map to rally anyone? (lookout for my next map: "Too many bridges" (bridge 2 bridge remake with rocks, god i love those low hp rocks) There are standards that maps should meet if you want them to be accepted by the community. having mineral patches that are so far away from any ideal placement that they require eight workers to saturate alone does not meet this standard, nor does having three hundred destructible rocks or two minute rush times. If you don't want to design maps that meet these accepted standards then that's fine, but don't expect many people to play them well glhf on other maps
You do realize you're talking to prodiG right? One of the most highly respected members of this forum? Just making sure.
|
On November 10 2010 10:10 flowandebb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 04:37 baskerville wrote:On November 10 2010 04:34 prodiG wrote:On November 09 2010 19:41 baskerville wrote:On November 09 2010 17:44 prodiG wrote:
What the... I don't even...
Why are the minerals placed like bowling pins? what you are feeling... that's a good thing no? something new is always something scary it's alright i understand as to the placement of minerals, maybe the ones on Hades' Locker (a bit of self promo) will please you more as to why the particular placement: i feel the maps are often copies of blizz's skewed view, so i'm branching out... hope everyone joins in the fun on this particular map i hope to get the field back into mineral field (kinda miss worker micro i guess) anyway still no testers for me... i'm sooooooo sad... i thought so highly of u guys... guess u gotta do a "at first glance perfect balance 2 geyser in ze main with easy nat" map to rally anyone? (lookout for my next map: "Too many bridges" (bridge 2 bridge remake with rocks, god i love those low hp rocks) There are standards that maps should meet if you want them to be accepted by the community. having mineral patches that are so far away from any ideal placement that they require eight workers to saturate alone does not meet this standard, nor does having three hundred destructible rocks or two minute rush times. If you don't want to design maps that meet these accepted standards then that's fine, but don't expect many people to play them well glhf on other maps You do realize you're talking to prodiG right? One of the most highly respected members of this forum? Just making sure.
ohhh
that he's real good should deter me from discussion?
i don't expect my first maps to get any fluf
it's always nice to know he cared enough to post
i'll be honest
like him, i suppose, i do the maps one at a time
it's circular logic not efficiency that drives the creation of each one
the efficiency comes gradually, long after the look or feel, after the concept and just after my taste
hope he keeps checking out the follow up
viewers only take a couple of seconds to get a read on a map anyhow
but he knows the time consuming habit of producing said maps comes from elsewhere
i'll try to announce when i feel one of my maps is fit for ladder
no promises on either count
|
On November 09 2010 18:20 baskerville wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 11:34 ForTeEscaPe wrote:
it looks like this map favors the terran seige tanks over the zerg seige tanks. why does it favor terran seige tanks tldr tldr tldr tldr.
because the zerg don't have seige tanks, silly!
|
op, when you say testers and critics welcome, you can't just dismiss every criticism you get.
let's just start with this point. your map isn't symmetrical, so it isn't positionally balanced.
|
On November 10 2010 17:17 LeoTheLion wrote:
op, when you say testers and critics welcome, you can't just dismiss every criticism you get.
let's just start with this point. your map isn't symmetrical, so it isn't positionally balanced.
who says the criticism falls on death ears?
however, i much rather do another map than merking on it, to please
" isn't symmetrical, so it isn't positionally balanced", so you've tested it then?
the symmetrical (via copy) tool is really good
that's why so many people use it
i'm however not of the opinion that it guarantees anything else than a set type of drawing, no "positional balance"
|
God it feels like I'm getting trolled.
|
On November 10 2010 13:51 ForTeEscaPe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 18:20 baskerville wrote:On November 09 2010 11:34 ForTeEscaPe wrote:
it looks like this map favors the terran seige tanks over the zerg seige tanks. why does it favor terran seige tanks tldr tldr tldr tldr. because the zerg don't have seige tanks, silly!
you guys with th tank
hopefully blizz will fvor zerg next in hos, so the siege rant will possibly die down
thanks for the "it looks like"..., very nice when people are civil
however stating that zerg should have tanks for my map to please is not very useful
why don't you people ever elaborate... "ze lings can't surround" "too many chokes" etc,
i don't pick up and answer on every thing, but i read and acknowledge
i'm eager for testers or tester comments and bug fixed
|
On November 10 2010 17:48 Cirno wrote:
God it feels like I'm getting trolled.
pardon me?
|
On November 10 2010 17:51 baskerville wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 13:51 ForTeEscaPe wrote:On November 09 2010 18:20 baskerville wrote:On November 09 2010 11:34 ForTeEscaPe wrote:
it looks like this map favors the terran seige tanks over the zerg seige tanks. why does it favor terran seige tanks tldr tldr tldr tldr. because the zerg don't have seige tanks, silly! you guys with th tank hopefully blizz will fvor zerg next in hos, so the siege rant will possibly die down thanks for the "it looks like"..., very nice when people are civil however stating that zerg should have tanks for my map to please is not very useful why don't you people ever elaborate... "ze lings can't surround" "too many chokes" etc, i don't pick up and answer on every thing, but i read and acknowledge i'm eager for testers or tester comments and bug fixed
I don't mean to derail the thread, but is English your main language? (No offense, I am legitimately curious)
Anyway, they're talking about how Zerg cannot get decent surrounds on an oncoming attack because the map does not have a lot of open real estate for them to work with. In spaces like this, tanks tend to shine since units funnel straight into them. Maps ridden with chokes cause tons of problems for Zerg. I can see this map being played like a money map: Players macro to 200/200 battlecruisers or void rays and then go and see who wins.
|
[QUOTE]On November 10 2010 17:56 prodiG wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 10 2010 17:51 baskerville wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 10 2010 13:51 ForTeEscaPe wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 09 2010 18:20 baskerville wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 09 2010 11:34 ForTeEscaPe wrote:
it looks like this map favors the terran seige tanks over the zerg seige tanks.[/QUOTE]
why does it favor terran seige tanks
tldr tldr tldr
tldr.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I don't mean to derail the thread, but is English your main language? (No offense, I am legitimately curious)
Anyway, they're talking about how Zerg cannot get decent surrounds on an oncoming attack because the map does not have a lot of open real estate for them to work with. In spaces like this, tanks tend to shine since units funnel straight into them. Maps ridden with chokes cause tons of problems for Zerg. I can see this map being played like a money map: Players macro to 200/200 battlecruisers or void rays and then go and see who wins. [/QUOTE]
well technically i learned english with an old englishwoman around 5
then it got ruined when i came to live in the uss of a
then brushed it up to get a degree
you should hear my accent, you guys can never place it
as for
"this map being played like a money map: Players macro to 200/200 battlecruisers or void rays and then go and see who wins"
am i to understand you disagree of said strategy (the 1 a attack move at 200) ???
cause i do too (usually drop nydus or warp before the 13 minute mark myself)
(putting aside my map)
i'm unsure on several facts:
1/zerg needs it's lings on every map (jump to roach to hydra, then coming back to lings)?
2/tanks need to be set up (timing for 3rd tank produced)
3/no one talks about reapers anymore...?
4/ how long did it to get sc2bw up?
of course, harass or other don't work as a sure win, but i'm sure if the opponent speeds to tech you can always punish him with early pressure, on my maps too
pressure being much more effective than any other production builds, on any map
i feel the best games have back and forth
4/5 tier1 units attack harass scout opposite base
15 tier1 units attack / 10 tier1 5 tier2 attack
30 tier1 units attack / 20 tier1 10 tier2 attack
15 tier1 15tier3 attack
...
200 vs 200 is not my cup of tee (even though they are commonly forced by siege tank photon cannon type turtling on ladder)
i feel that if the map is intricate enough, the players get lost in it (building and unit placement becomes capital, expos are vital even if they are naked open, and all that scbw jazz...)
the game evolves from there
i just wish i got testers, players that would revel at unknown maps
and here we get to my real question to the expert:
could we ever get an unscouted map in a tourney, for a final for instance
the map previously having been cleared by team coaches or something
the players having to develop general builds
this allowing for a first 5 minutes (rather than 3) and a thorough identification of the ins and outs of the map
??
when will the huge flow of mapmaking explode unto the scene to replace the antiquated idea that sc maps are a chessboard of some sort ...
the ghost is not Knight..
the rare superb of this game is that it's silly infinity of potential
(candidly admit i'm just getting started)
(candidly admit i'm just getting started)
|
On November 10 2010 17:44 baskerville wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 17:17 LeoTheLion wrote:
op, when you say testers and critics welcome, you can't just dismiss every criticism you get.
let's just start with this point. your map isn't symmetrical, so it isn't positionally balanced. who says the criticism falls on death ears? however, i much rather do another map than merking on it, to please " isn't symmetrical, so it isn't positionally balanced", so you've tested it then? the symmetrical (via copy) tool is really good that's why so many people use it i'm however not of the opinion that it guarantees anything else than a set type of drawing, no "positional balance"
but you've been rejecting criticism from pretty much every single poster.
i can tell that your map isn't symmetrical from the picture you posted:
![[image loading]](http://www.cacaouete.net/sc2/vc1.jpg)
that doesn't look symmetrical to me.
|
this is not
when drawing in a queued fassion (taylorism in action, you quickly draw a ton with no expectancies
one must get some poorly drawn material in the process
check out Dead Star, the drawing improves
the problem with 1 a select and copy to be symetrical method
is that you need to account for orientation (noone uses nukes with the camera turn, no?)
i've started on Knight to king 5 map
give your 2 cent there
just for your satisfaction vc will be the first map to get dumped when i get capped by blizz
|
what the fuck are you talking about? it's your responsibility as mapmaker to make it symmetrical so players don't get offered advantage just because of lucky spawn. people don't care if this is your first time making maps, but if you do want your maps to be played, you should put in some effort to at least make them symmetrical.
and to agree with above posters, this map would be hard to play versus tanks. you mentioned that it's zerg's job to not let terran get too many tanks. well no shit sherlock, you try to do that on any map you play. what if you can't prevent that? for example, terran just turtles and safely masses tanks to a critical number. then it's very hard to stop. of course you can say, well, you can just get mutalisks. but then in terms of metagame, it limits the options that zerg has vs terran on this map. part of the strength of zerg is versatility, and if zerg is forced to open muta instead of ground every game on this map, then terran can abuse that on this map.
i took at your knight to king map, and it looks even worse. who the fuck would play on that? i mean, if it was just for kicks and giggles with friends i guess, but if you spawn on island and other guy spawns on land, he can just take an expo first, because you have to tech up to drop or air before you can do anything. what you could do is scrap the 9 spawn locations idea, and make it 4 spawn locations. but at least make the the corners and the sides the same. if top left corner has room to build one more barracks than bottom left, then it is your fault as mapmaker for making a positionally imbalanced map.
edit: never mind this kid is just trolling. i'm outta here
|
On November 10 2010 19:27 LeoTheLion wrote:
what the fuck are you talking about? it's your responsibility as mapmaker to make it symmetrical so players don't get offered advantage just because of lucky spawn. people don't care if this is your first time making maps, but if you do want your maps to be played, you should put in some effort to at least make them symmetrical.
and to agree with above posters, this map would be hard to play versus tanks. you mentioned that it's zerg's job to not let terran get too many tanks. well no shit sherlock, you try to do that on any map you play. what if you can't prevent that? for example, terran just turtles and safely masses tanks to a critical number. then it's very hard to stop. of course you can say, well, you can just get mutalisks. but then in terms of metagame, it limits the options that zerg has vs terran on this map. part of the strength of zerg is versatility, and if zerg is forced to open muta instead of ground every game on this map, then terran can abuse that on this map.
i took at your knight to king map, and it looks even worse. who the fuck would play on that? i mean, if it was just for kicks and giggles with friends i guess, but if you spawn on island and other guy spawns on land, he can just take an expo first, because you have to tech up to drop or air before you can do anything. what you could do is scrap the 9 spawn locations idea, and make it 4 spawn locations. but at least make the the corners and the sides the same. if top left corner has room to build one more barracks than bottom left, then it is your fault as mapmaker for making a positionally imbalanced map.
this is the fuck i'm talking about...
none of us know the game yet so pipe down and clear the chips from your tummy tumtum
"it's zerg's job to not let terran get too many tanks"
look closer at the map and realize that the map is op favored to zerg, since walling off in your main is almost impossible under the 10 minute mark
you guys are sweet, but you keep hammering (not unlike said siege toy) about it,
reapers or the wall off issue far precedes the st issue... i do wish you guys took more than 3 seconds on a viewing of a minimap jpg
tanks are tier 2, who says you'll get to that?
"who the fuck would play on that?"
read further developments on said thread, personally i feel a 1v1 on 6 would be nice (with re-haul of main shapes and sizes), but i'm hoping for the hat trick and get a 1v1 with 8 spawn positions (2 or 4 being island or not), remember that to get to you, the opponent has to scout you in all 7 positions, soooo... it's worth a try anyhow
" if top left corner has room to build one more barracks than bottom left"
"it is your fault as mapmaker"
"metagame"
you guys are really something
(this is a work in progress, plus i like unbalanced titleset this one is a canvas showcasing max base potential on the largest map available)
"i took at your knight to king map"
(its knight to king 5) maybe that's where you should have posted
it'd be nice if discussions always moved on to the last current published map, it would save time
(the multiple map thread gets buried)
finally
"this is your first time making maps"
i've been making maps since warcraft 1
thank you for the "this kid is just trolling"
still not fluent, one can troll his (or her) post?
please educate me
|
"but you've been rejecting criticism"
nonononono
gogogogogo on and comment please
and pm me if the download is not functionnal
i might add that i encourage players to visit the maps for themselves, map textures of some originality may induce lots of misconceptions (on pathway sizes or other), it takes mere minutes
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
