EPTcustom map : Hades' Locker
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
baskerville
541 Posts
| ||
|
darklordjac
Canada2231 Posts
| ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 07:31 darklordjac wrote: Wait so a hard natural and very skinny. Basically zergs expos are very hard to get and terrans siege tanks will own everything on the ground you should never let terran get too many tanks | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On November 09 2010 07:54 baskerville wrote: you should never let terran get too many tanks How many points are you in Diamond? | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
play only 5 hours a week or so so no diamond league why? is that relevant? | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
Omigawa
United States1556 Posts
I think you should at the very least open up the middle of the map, do away with some of the destructible rocks, and widen the paths. I think five Xel'Naga Towers are slightly excessive as well. Cool concept though, I just don't see it being balanced/ready for competitive play any time soon. | ||
|
-{Cake}-
United States217 Posts
I know you wanted to put all sorts of cool features in the map, but the first step would be to not have so many narrow winding paths, the second would be to encourage expanding, this opens up the possibility to use ground armies and much more strategic play I'm guessing you play terran? It probably looks like a really fun map to play on as terran, because you can put siege tanks and bunkers everywhere and laugh as the zerglings explode as they try to attack you, but, think about it from a toss or zerg point of view | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 08:21 neobowman wrote: Yeah, it sort of is. If you want to make a good map than you should be at a decent level. Not saying you should spend more time gaming, just saying that if you expect your maps to be at a good level, you have to learn the game. i respectfully disagree i intend to propose maps nothing more i do wish people would play the maps before commenting though by the by, i 've played tides of darkness, i was 13 played every rts from blizz | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 09:03 -{Cake}- wrote: I'm guessing you play terran? i play random ze only fun way to play sc2 | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
On November 09 2010 08:21 neobowman wrote: Yeah, it sort of is. If you want to make a good map than you should be at a decent level. Not saying you should spend more time gaming, just saying that if you expect your maps to be at a good level, you have to learn the game. Thats is sooo not true, there are plenty of developers who are terrible at playing their games, but making them, they are amazing. - Im sure there are people here who are not plat-diamond players, but make very good maps | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 08:25 Omigawa wrote: I think you should at the very least open up the middle of the map, do away with some of the destructible rocks, and widen the paths. I think five Xel'Naga Towers are slightly excessive as well. ... ready for competitive play any time soon. "unless they came from different directions" : my work is done then, zerg have to spread (like a swarm) ; plus the double ramp at the main favors zerg (particularly the large one) "open up the middle of the map, do away with some of the destructible rocks" : that's your job as a player, most of the rocks are 100 hp (a lone zergling can destroy 1 in 15/20 sec) "five Xel'Naga Towers are slightly excessive" : it's a trench war, so the eu is taking pictures... seriously i think it's interesting in such a large map (the bottom is exempt from them...) to be able to placate your opponent with watchers (worker or other inexpensive unit) have u tried it? | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 10:16 WniO wrote: Thats is sooo not true, there are plenty of developers who are terrible at playing their games, but making them, they are amazing. - Im sure there are people here who are not plat-diamond players, but make very good maps thank u for that hope u play my maps and have fun | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 09:03 -{Cake}- wrote: ... it is almost impossible to rush why? not because of the rocks? (they are 100hp, a decent unit will pass any blob in less than a minute) i think you can rush on it... the paths are narrow, yes, but you're suppose to move the units around and attack / retreat try it and have fun | ||
|
-{Cake}-
United States217 Posts
On November 09 2010 10:25 baskerville wrote: why? not because of the rocks? (they are 100hp, a decent unit will pass any blob in less than a minute) and have fun A minute, or even 15 seconds, which you mentioned earlier can actually be a pretty big amount of time, that's the difference between your warpgate research just finishing, and having to frantically micro until you get some warpins, and you warpgate research finishing, changing your gateways, warping in the first round of units, and chronoboosting all your gates I suggest looking at some of the other map threads, and how they label their maps with: main, nat, 3rd, 4th etc. also, the map analyzer which gives ground, air and cliff rush distances, maybe pick one of your concepts (low hp rocks, minerals, mass xelnaga) and design a more standard map around that, you can still be creative while coming up with competitive map ideas | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On November 09 2010 10:16 WniO wrote: Thats is sooo not true, there are plenty of developers who are terrible at playing their games, but making them, they are amazing. - Im sure there are people here who are not plat-diamond players, but make very good maps Totally different issue. Take Halo for example. You don't need hand eye coordination and reaction time to make a game like that. Still, it's played competitively and yeah. Etc etc. Starcraft 2 is a game of strategy. Blizzard obviously doesn't know **** about balance but taking pro feedback, they managed to get a decently balanced game. In fact, the original Starcraft's balance was almost a fluke. Also, their maps are terrible as many people agree. That's because they don't understand the game. Take any map from any player who doesn't play at a high diamond level, I could probably point out 10 different flaws in their map. Of course, that doesn't mean people would believe me since this is TL, a high diamond player would 9/10 times, agree with the argument after playing. This map, with its huge size, lack of a natural and wide open spaces, is shit to play. If it was put in ladder, people would rage about it 10x more than Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine combined. You gotta understand that as a lower level player, you do not know how balance works, nor what makes a good map in Starcraft 2. I won't say it's impossible for you to make a good map without being a high level player, since most mapmakers on TL are probably low level players and I don't want to shatter their hopes, but you have to get an understanding of how the game works. | ||
|
flowandebb
Canada158 Posts
May I ask what league you ARE in baskerville? I'm in gold league myself but even I can recognise imbalance on a map when I see it. | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 17:23 flowandebb wrote: As a zerg player, this map makes me weep. May I ask what league you ARE in baskerville? I'm in gold league myself but even I can recognise imbalance on a map when I see it. Oh yes ...you may ask lol if u want to test someone, u do not ask what color of hair or the count of his teeth ... u just pm that person with your game id, he'll respond by giving you his game id... and then at the convenient time, play said custom map (one of mine, them being the subject of contention and all...) i'll even take zerg every time... it's not ze size zat matters, it's what you do with it ps: i'm far from thinking that any of my maps are perfect, or even "balanced" (whatever that means) ... however, i feel that players have a ravishingly narrow understanding of the fact that their opinion (while as honorable as anybody else s) is but a lazy afterthought .. until they actually play the map ... then again i'm not diamond so i should sell my sc2 cd, i'm unworthy of having any fun with it creepers jeepers | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
you're kidding right? ze rocks are 100 hp takes one roach/zealot/marine to open ze chokes up ever heard of queuing ("control") attacks? once the high hp rocks are identified, just queue the attacks on every low hp in the right order... nah u had to be kidding "frantically", .. that's hilarious that is | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 13:41 neobowman wrote:Blizzard obviously doesn't know **** about balance aahh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa u sheep, u repeat everything you hear zat sounds tough i hate blizz for no lan i love blizz games, they are polished over ze years 1 game out of 1000 gets that sort of attention after their launch scbw was more balanced than sc1 and on and on ... u guys and your "balance" here goes my 2 cent : balance: termed applied only in a precise time frame with 2 opposing forces in motion that are in a standstill stand off position for instance in sc2 : "the zerg needs the first overlord and the sight advantage of overlord sight to equalize their difficulty in walling off (and the other races opportunity to wall off against them) (fair) unbalance : in sc2, term created for sloppy trend sheep followers, because they couldn't think of new strategies to deal with certain aspects of the game... (units, timings, maps, resources, minerals' placement around the main, there actually being 3 different races in the game and yadiyadiya... for instance : "the marauder should not have stim, it's imbalanced" (unfair) seriously: the three races are sooooo different... unbalance was the starting point of sc1... blizz is sort of working on putting them on equal footing at the start... but there is a HUGE amount of strategies to make them work against each other all through to tier 3 colossi vs broodlords or carrier vs broodlords or templars vs ultras (duh, dark or high?) or marine vs voidray ... too many, this is not go or chess ... as for my maps: even go so far to say (for instance) "this is a mirror only matchup map" then said map would still be potent enough to be PROPOSED so in essence, the more maps the merrier and after LIVE testing... then you can tweak and change said maps... it does not have to be balanced at the gate... nor even at all, if it works for even half of the matchups | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 07:31 darklordjac wrote: Wait so a hard natural and very skinny. Basically zergs expos are very hard to get and terrans siege tanks will own everything on the ground whatabout the north gold expos not to your taste? | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 08:25 Omigawa wrote: There needs to be more open space in the middle, as it is right now I don't think Zerg could get a surround unless they came from different directions. It looks Terran can hit 3 different paths if they siege behind the destructible rocks just south of the main. Stalkers could also probably blink between paths. It doesn't seem particularly balanced. And I don't think you can just throw down a blanket statement like "you should never let Terran get too many siege tanks". Even in high level competition, like Jinro vs Painuser from MLG Dallas, both of them had 10+ siege tanks for the majority of the game. Sometimes it's inevitable. I think you should at the very least open up the middle of the map, do away with some of the destructible rocks, and widen the paths. I think five Xel'Naga Towers are slightly excessive as well. Cool concept though, I just don't see it being balanced/ready for competitive play any time soon. sorry, just realized you have not tested this map...? the pathways are not cramped (for surrounds), just the drawing of the path makes it feel like that of course if u only move with maxed out armies it will be a whole other story... | ||
|
ezdez
Australia28 Posts
You mention that the term balanced is used by sheep, and that it is their narrow-mindedness and inability to see different strategies. I propose then what your belief of balance is on your map regarding the points given by other posters: 1) No space to surround - you do mention that the paths are not as narrow as people think and you are correct; but they are also not as wide as you think. It doesn't take a maxed out army to make it hard to micro your units around. Try taking 10 stalkers or 10 roaches down a path, and see if you can effectively concave them. (Perhaps this is a point missed because of lower levels not understanding the effectiveness of some units having concave). Further more, try this for yourself: 20 zerglings against 5 hellions on your map. Attack-move both forces down a choke. How many zerglings survived? Now try this: have 10 zerglings attack from the north, and 10 zerglings attack from the south. How many survived this time? Some units (mainly melee) benefit more from surrounds and hence become unbalanced when one race does not have units that require surrounds, and so this map is more effective for that race. You mentioned that your aim was to force trench warfare - force people to use multiple attack routes. Take for example you are defending the left position. The enemy has taken the middle two rocks and attacking you from your west entrance. You spot this with the many zTowers. How do you move your units, all the way around so that you can come up behind the enemy to get a good surround to defend yourself? You can't. Simple as that, and so people complain about balance. 2) Blink distance of paths - You seem to value strategy, which is good and "trench warfare" forces this in real world situations. For Starcraft though, this favors one race mechanic over the other. Reapers, Colossi and Stalkers can traverse cliffs - allowing them to take advantage of terrain. The trenches which you have created unfortunately is not a terrain type all 3 of these units can take advantage of; reducing the effectiveness of Reapers and Colossi as harassment units. When one unit has a large advantage over the other, is this not unbalanced? This is effectively the same as having multiple cliffs - allowing for cliff traversing units to harass, whilst the race without cliff traversing units cannot. Which brings me to the next point. Your argument may be that Protoss players can make Stalkers instead of Colossi, or Zerg can make Mutalisks instead. If your map naturally forces towards one unit composition, does that not then make it a 2 dimensional map which becomes boring real quick? Does that also not mean imbalance when a race MUST use a particular unit. Closing Sorry for the rant, but I see this so much in TL. People (children) shouldn't be throwing your rank in your face to tell you that you can't make a map. It's not right. Having said that, a low ranked player who watches some high level replays can tell how the units interact with each other. Perhaps try to take away from the comments their real meaning: "I like the option to rush (or I like the opponent to have the option to rush so I can defend and out macro), and the 100 health rocks whilst taking only 5 seconds to destroy - may lead to my rush failing as it can mean the difference between having no defense for 5 seconds and having a full round of production defending the base". Keep in mind too, there are better deterrents to rushing other than destructible rocks. | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
i like when people give insightful comments and i do agree that this map is not perfect at all for all matchups strategies units race skill... i like thorough concepts in maps and i wish people would test it to actualy fix the bugs and battle the preconceived notions most players have about any map by watching a minimap view as for the rush, REALLY ... try it before saying it deters/slows anything on a side note, i don't understand... "there are better deterrents to rushing other than destructible rocks" i feel a misconception: ... i think this map is good for rushing "to go fucking kill him (tm d9)" i've referenced my first 3 maps as tributes to bloodbath from warcraft 1 and i love rushing (not particularly with zerg but hey, i've done it...) i'm trying to further blizz maps concepts, not copy them in my mind you start opening the low hp rock blocks in the first 3 minutes, it's point is only to slow down the first scout... and you get the added value of slowing down with temporary chokes when retreating or such a bit of the single player feeling if u must know how i feel about it choosing random does force the "normal" players to go out and scout me, so i guess i'm biased thank you for the "shouldn't be throwing your rank in your face" i don't even agree with his analysis: you only have to love ze game, even not practicing would be fine by me, just loving the game... and i repeat: i've cracked ze nugget since tides of darkness, eagerly awaiting the dark archon back in scbw ... i'm the man... as for sc2, i didn't get beta but i got it right at launch so i'm as knowledgeable as the next player out there... and i make maps so... i'm past ridicule or trollbites also: "whilst you are also not taking on board the critique given to you" wait wait wait, i'm taking it all in... working on publishing 3rd with 2 nats in the main, still tribute to bloodbath, but more bridge to bridge oriented, a 4 player map for all those 2v2 s (4real) i love the idea of 4 mains, but it reduces the space for funsies "concave" sorry i cannot play more, but ...hush hush... i get by only with said skill (the better concave), and a bit of the upgrade and macro helps too... the map favors drops nydus warp ins cliffing blink forcefields towers crawlers... (i admit i'm not as good with the cracklings, but its not intentionnal) my goal is to see variety played on my maps not to bottle it down to 2/3 per race and no i do not prefer terran and yes i do think blizz favors them, just like they will favor z next, and finally toss "The trenches which you have created unfortunately is not a terrain type all 3 of these units can take advantage of" i respectfully disagree, i think the rocks do not hinder a very stratified map, the cliff walking ability will be awesomely vital (especially for scouting defense and attack) in both victorian checkmate and hades' locker, my first two downloadable published (on tl) maps not so much in my third "imbalance when a race MUST use a particular unit" i agree i hope it's not the case in my maps, i feel you have to ponder 10 minutes on tier 1 and then if both players are still up and running you need to tech and macro to each his own foreclosing: i'm not a tl wizz poster, i still remember you had to have 500 post to be eligible for beta keys ... didn't care much for that attitude have a nice day, hope you try my maps out and post comments gogogo | ||
|
PlaGuE_R
France1151 Posts
| ||
|
GrapeD
Canada679 Posts
| ||
|
-{Cake}-
United States217 Posts
On November 09 2010 18:56 baskerville wrote: you're kidding right? ze rocks are 100 hp takes one roach/zealot/marine to open ze chokes up ever heard of queuing ("control") attacks? once the high hp rocks are identified, just queue the attacks on every low hp in the right order... nah u had to be kidding "frantically", .. that's hilarious that is Quotes out of context are always good for backing up your posts *eyeroll* Of course it is 0 micro at all to kill the rocks, the point was, you said to kill the rocks if you want to rush,...I said the time you spend doing that weakens rushes because the defender has more time for his defender's advantage to kick in. I gave an example about warpgates saying 10-15 seconds is the difference between some frantic micro to hold off a rush and a comfortable, easy hold What did you honestly expect when you posted a map? People to tell you that everything is absolutely perfect? You seemed like you wanted constructive criticism, you got it, now you aren't happy with it? That doesn't make any sense... Overall, I was saying rush strategies are weakened, I personally hate rushes, and love long macro games, but diversity is necessary for creative strategic high level play, meaning, the option should remain viable..., and a big map, with long ground distances and no natural, cuts down on options | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
you can micro back and forth at rapidly disappearing chokes | ||
|
Omigawa
United States1556 Posts
On November 09 2010 18:48 baskerville wrote: Oh yes ...you may ask lol if u want to test someone, u do not ask what color of hair or the count of his teeth ... u just pm that person with your game id, he'll respond by giving you his game id... and then at the convenient time, play said custom map (one of mine, them being the subject of contention and all...) i'll even take zerg every time... it's not ze size zat matters, it's what you do with it ps: i'm far from thinking that any of my maps are perfect, or even "balanced" (whatever that means) ... however, i feel that players have a ravishingly narrow understanding of the fact that their opinion (while as honorable as anybody else s) is but a lazy afterthought .. until they actually play the map ... then again i'm not diamond so i should sell my sc2 cd, i'm unworthy of having any fun with it creepers jeepers I think you're getting offended over nothing. People are just simply stating that this map is imbalanced and wouldn't work for competitive 1v1 play. Some people may have gotten a little bit personal, especially about your rank, but that's to be expected. And it does matter for the most part. Instead of telling people that their opinions don't matter until they play the map, maybe you should be more open minded and take some of what people are saying into consideration. There is a reason why no other competitive map ever made doesn't look like the one you made, and it's not because the map makers were inferior to you in skill or creativity. Maybe you didn't make the map to be used for competitive play. That is completely fine, but you should state that in the OP so you could avoid some of the criticisms you are receiving. | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
? i can't be offended, i shovel poup every 8 hours, so i read and awnser i was just stating that i can handle pissing contests anyday (that is if my kid 'll let me) i like mapmaking and am prolific stay tuned for "Knight to king five" i'll deliver the goods (probably my 13th map will hit a corde) | ||
|
Omigawa
United States1556 Posts
On November 10 2010 11:58 baskerville wrote: to Omigawa ? i can't be offended, i shovel poup every 8 hours, so i read and awnser i was just stating that i can handle pissing contests anyday (that is if my kid 'll let me) i like mapmaking and am prolific stay tuned for "Knight to king five" i'll deliver the goods (probably my 13th map will hit a corde) Good luck, fwiw I'm just a bronzie | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 10 2010 12:09 Omigawa wrote: Good luck, fwiw I'm just a bronzie "fwiw", i don't get that, i'm old, bladder control is my thing " just a bronzie", at least you love the game? that's what matters | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 10 2010 02:26 -{Cake}- wrote: I personally hate rushes, and love long macro games, but diversity is necessary for creative strategic high level play, meaning, the option should remain viable..., and a big map, with long ground distances and no natural, cuts down on options try Demonoid Whisper map ("easiest" 3 base ever) | ||
|
cocosoft
Sweden1068 Posts
On November 09 2010 07:54 baskerville wrote: you should never let terran get too many tanks wtf? haha | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
what ze fu.k ???? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
| ||
jhNz
Germany2762 Posts
mutalisks are an option, but as soon as the opponent has some decent AA the game is over for the zerg. t >>> p >> z ... the huge area of effect damage dealers of terran and protoss (storm) will kill any zerg attempts on the ground. | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 11 2010 00:09 jhNz wrote: t >>> p >> z ... the huge area of effect damage dealers of terran and protoss (storm) will kill any zerg attempts on the ground. thank you zat was well typed have you considered that in the early game t and p cannot wall off in their main...? | ||
|
LeoTheLion
China958 Posts
On November 11 2010 00:15 baskerville wrote: thank you zat was well typed have you considered that in the early game t and p cannot wall off in their main...? have you co nsidered that there are 100 hp destructible rocks in the way... ? so it will take time for zergling to get to base? also have you considered that terran can completely wall off one choke just with barracks... ? and that protoss can do the same with gateways and cyber... ? or even block one choke off with three pylons... ? also have you considered that it is hard for zerg to get an expansion... ? and one base terran and protoss usually does very well against one base zerg.... ? | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 11 2010 00:20 LeoTheLion wrote:... terran can completely wall off one choke just with barracks... ? and that protoss can do the same with gateways... there are huge ass ramps at the mains my testing shows that you can't wall off entirely... ive tried... you'll always fail against insane cp thats why i feel zerg has got it fair on my maps.. the lings can harass effectively while mass droning for tier 2, yes my maps usually imply a turtle harass and tech ploy for zerg: ling into mass queen nydus for exemple... so turttling hardcore yes but no easy wall and tech for neither toss nor t thank you for the conversation | ||
| ||
