EPTOn March 09 2011 04:08 dezi wrote:
Is this the attempt to create the perfect map? Oo
Is this the attempt to create the perfect map? Oo
I feel the same way.
[M]/[P] Liquid (Updated) - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
EffectS
Belgium795 Posts
I feel the same way. | ||
|
Griffith`
714 Posts
| ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
simbot
Australia95 Posts
| ||
|
adso
718 Posts
| ||
|
RobiTL
France55 Posts
I don't like 2 players because too easy to proxy without even scouting, or other all-inish things without scout needed. I don't really like most 4 players map because it takes a very long time to scout (especially on macro maps). For instance, I like to fast-expand once I saw there was no 6pool/cheese. On some 4players maps, it's just impossible depending on luck/scout order. Edit : Just saw the preview, the narrow bridges bothers me as a Zerg player. Edit2 : There is no such thing as a perfect map. Variety of maps is what is needed. | ||
|
Space Invader
Australia291 Posts
| ||
|
JiYan
United States3668 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
4 Player maps introduce a real "luck" factor as far as rolling close/far positions. I agree with the comments Jinro made about metalopolis being one of the worst maps since it's pretty much a win/lose roll of the dice. Any maps that try to eliminate close positions by spoking the direction of each base still has the inevitable problem of map imbalance, such that in every non-cross matchup one players third base will be significantly easier to take and defend, such as backwater gulch. 2 player map simply eliminates all of these problems. | ||
|
Kazzabiss
1006 Posts
On March 16 2011 00:35 RobiTL wrote: Edit2 : There is no such thing as a perfect map. Variety of maps is what is needed. Why is it impossible to have a map that is 50-50 in all match-ups? | ||
|
Disciple7
United States198 Posts
On March 08 2011 15:06 Geovu wrote: + Show Spoiler [TLParadise] + ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/yGqCb.jpg) Feel free to comment. I think maybe the 3rd is a little wide open personally :o I also made a version of the map that is better suited to Blizz's creative style of mapmaking: + Show Spoiler [BlizzParadise] + ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PXTFc.jpg) Brown Turds = Destructable rocks Keep up the voting guise! OMG GENIUS, I suggest we call the first one Xel'Naga Caverns, and the second one something shitty and stupid.....like.....STEPPES OF WAR!!! Lol but no seriously, your first one's concept does look very good (like an improved XNC). I'm not too keen on Griffith's map though...Looks like Siege tanks will be LOL NO GROUND, and air play will be extremely dominant. I think if the bridges were made much wider the map would be pretty decent. Oh, and, third is also extremely easy to defend with siege tanks from high ground. | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
 | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On March 07 2011 17:36 Mogget wrote: Looking at the results so far, zerg win% on this map? %100 lol huge map with easily defensible natural and quick third, and only semi open air, this would be better if it was vulnerable from air so the other races could put -some- sort of early pressure on a zerg, (remember that protoss/terran actually need to be able to make a zerg panic so they dont just get out macro'd and die) I agree with the earlier sentiment that there should be 4 more of these poll's, this one as mixed and an additional poll for each race (counting random as a race) Im also not sure why everyone is hating on the smoke (long grass) sure, we hate cheese, but its not like its hard to throw up a pylon/depo/ovie spotter in there early game, it just adds another dimension to the early game, punishes lasy people, and lures cheesy people to perform extreemly predictable and scoutable proxies. I also agree totally with Sadist's point. Other than that, at the very least this will be a nice chance in venue to play on such a large macro map, so thanks a lot for making the effort to start this thread and develop a map for us  all the best of luck! I hope its a sucessI voted as a protoss player. Longer distances between bases benefit zerg more as their units have excellent mobility and maphacks everywhere. Closed bases make it easier to defend for P/T, but slightly harder for Z. It depends, against a 4 gate you want them to run into your crawlers, but on a map like XNC you can attack at any angle and never have to fight the crawlers while at the same time they can attack your army at any angle. The grass issue I don't really care for so I just voted yes. But I can see if people hate it since you can cheese a little easier. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On March 08 2011 00:38 Griffith` wrote: I've avoided adding the 3 player option mainly because symmetry is difficult to preserve when the axes of symmetry are non perpendicular to each other. I've also tried to deal with the issue of # of xel'naga towers using a coverage poll, because if i do it simply based on # of towers, they could be placed in awkward positions. # of towers is irrelevant. It's what's done with them that matters. | ||
|
Absolutionn
United States512 Posts
It looks like everywhere on the map is a choke, would suck for zerg but maybe it looks that way from the picture. | ||
|
Eiii
United States2566 Posts
| ||
|
rolfe
United Kingdom1266 Posts
| ||
|
OpticalShot
Canada6330 Posts
| ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
On March 16 2011 05:52 Eiii wrote: Hahah, I love these polls. Perfect map? Four players, seven bases per player. LET'S DO THIS 7 bases for each player in a 1v1, not 1v1v1v1. | ||
|
RobiTL
France55 Posts
On March 16 2011 02:39 Kazzabiss wrote: Why is it impossible to have a map that is 50-50 in all match-ups? Oh, by perfect, I didn't assume a 50-50 in all-matchup. For instance, IF a square map with no cliff, no ramp, nothing would be 50-50, it wouldn't be perfect to me because it would be just boring. | ||
| ||
