|
On September 18 2011 14:07 monitor wrote:
MotM is not "Experimental Map of the Month". We judge on many things including balance, concept, proportions, creativity, and aesthetics. Don't pretend that you understand everything about mapmaking- nobody knows it all. Right now if MotM as an organization only picks maps because they are the most creative, it cannot continue under sponsorship, being casted professionally, and have a pro-gaming tournament. The fact is that most maps that users submit that you call "creative" aren't going to hold up for very long in competitive play.
i feel this will continue to be the major point of contention between map makers and yourselves. no one can say they could have forseen the success of those maps like taldarim, crevasse, or even testbug and dual sight, when they were released during the time when people only played metal and lost temple, and map pools still had blistering sands and scrap station. yet here we are today in a completely different world - those blizzard maps a far and distant memory, and mappers continue to build on the success set fourth by those drastically different maps.
perhaps you need to reconsider your description - and position - of your organization and this competition, and how you approach the community:
We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions!
Right now if MotM as an organization only picks maps because they are the most creative, it cannot continue under sponsorship, being casted professionally, and have a pro-gaming tournament. The fact is that most maps that users submit that you call "creative" aren't going to hold up for very long in competitive play.
|
On September 18 2011 17:37 a176 wrote:
i feel this will continue to be the major point of contention between map makers and yourselves. no one can say they could have forseen the success of those maps like taldarim, crevasse, or even testbug and dual sight, when they were released during the time when people only played metal and lost temple, and map pools still had blistering sands and scrap station. yet here we are today in a completely different world - those blizzard maps a far and distant memory, and mappers continue to build on the success set fourth by those drastically different maps.
That is actually not true. Back when we played maps likes delta, blistering sands, lost temple, jungle basin etc. Every player, spectator, and their pets were saying that any maps that are different than those would be much better. I remember everyone saying at first sight when they saw tal darim and test bug before they saw any games on them, that they would be much better than what people played at that time. And honestly, had it been almost any map that was submitted to this MOTM, they would have gotten an equally positive reaction.
Now map makers live a harder times, as players dont cry anymore that they would want play any other map than what they currently do. So there is not really a reason to test new compleatly different maps.
|
On September 18 2011 17:37 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 14:07 monitor wrote:
MotM is not "Experimental Map of the Month". We judge on many things including balance, concept, proportions, creativity, and aesthetics. Don't pretend that you understand everything about mapmaking- nobody knows it all. Right now if MotM as an organization only picks maps because they are the most creative, it cannot continue under sponsorship, being casted professionally, and have a pro-gaming tournament. The fact is that most maps that users submit that you call "creative" aren't going to hold up for very long in competitive play. i feel this will continue to be the major point of contention between map makers and yourselves. no one can say they could have forseen the success of those maps like taldarim, crevasse, or even testbug and dual sight, when they were released during the time when people only played metal and lost temple, and map pools still had blistering sands and scrap station. yet here we are today in a completely different world - those blizzard maps a far and distant memory, and mappers continue to build on the success set fourth by those drastically different maps. perhaps you need to reconsider your description - and position - of your organization and this competition, and how you approach the community: Show nested quote +We encourage creativity in number of spawns, bases, etc. and are excited to see the submissions! Show nested quote +Right now if MotM as an organization only picks maps because they are the most creative, it cannot continue under sponsorship, being casted professionally, and have a pro-gaming tournament. The fact is that most maps that users submit that you call "creative" aren't going to hold up for very long in competitive play.
Can you please list all of the maps that are more creative than the top five that we should have chosen instead?
The two statements that you quoted from the OP and me are not contradictory. We do encourage creativity in the maps- why would we not? However, if we only pick the maps because of creativity, say goodbye to MotM as it is currently. The OP is simply saying that making a creative map is better than a standard map- the OP does not say a creative map will always win over a standard map.
|
hey guys, im going to be taking a hiatus for a while from mapmaking since im moving, so if you dont see me posting in the custom forum thats why. gl with motm and try to be nice to eachother.
|
|
|
your Country52797 Posts
The discussion going on here has probably made my head explode and made me a better mapmaker at the same time ^^.
Edit: and gl WniO. 
|
your Country52797 Posts
|
On September 18 2011 16:25 LunaSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 09:24 Barrin wrote:I think it's okay to change these EVER SO SLIGHTLY if you're ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE you know what you're doing. BE SUBTLE.
I think it's okay to be a little more liberal with the doodads, but it's probably not a good idea to shove a bunch of 500% sized doodads all over the place (maybe 200-300% trees and the occasional 500% tree if u REALLY want around map borders?) *Whistles innocently*
LOL hehe ;D
Of course I approve of this dialogue heartily. Sometimes I forget that either side of the argument has to be articulated, at great length, even if they seem obvious to me and to--I would assume--most people. Therefore I'm really proud of Barrin and monitor for taking the time to delineate the various points and counterpoints involved in addressing the concerns being voiced. I'm also really proud of everybody who brings up a complaint and says, "well that's great, but here's my particular disagreement". That is infinitely more constructive than a bunch of dissenting posts that resemble each other and the prevailing viewpoint posters saying "no you're wrong" repeatedly. And our mapping community is the stronger for it.
I hope everybody realizes that the map forum is probably the most legit place here... not to denigrate the other sections of the website. I guess liquipedia and the coverage teams (which are almost like official segments) are pretty good too. 
I think the idea of blue posters is really cool. I hope something like that can be implemented at some point. Anyone with blue would probably feel extra motivation to step in and provide guidance in a wayward argument or dote upon a map thread with little action that needs some good feedback.
|
|
|
On September 19 2011 04:52 Barrin wrote:Master System + Show Spoiler +You were actually onto something nice with this map. Unfortunately it needs a good deal of refinement in a lot of areas 
Heh, what can I say, my first SC2 map. I've had a lot of great feedback from the motm team though which has really helped, so hopefully the next (which is coming along really well, though I still haven't managed to fit any destructible rocks into it  ) will be both nice (awesome??? ) and refined. And once I get a bit more experience under my belt I'll try to come back and make Master System into the map it really ought to be.
Looking forward to the next!
|
On September 19 2011 04:52 Barrin wrote:
ESV Bardiche
It's this kind of map that makes judging really fucking hard. It's really interesting the way the map is split in combination with the drastice shifts in openness and multiple (dynamic) pathways. I donno; this map is soo unique IMO. Actual games on it will say more than I can.
Glad to see that my map made you tear your hair off  .
|
without having access to some of the maps, especially those with no map threads, its hard to judge some of the maps. giving a rundown of the maps based on whats available;
Emerald Jungle
+ Show Spoiler +The map layout is extremely interesting in this map. As I stated in previous posts, at first glance it appears to play like shakuras plateau (on its side), but well thought out pathing and ramps make it very different. The only real criticism I can apply to the map is the texturing in combination with the lighting makes it look far too bland than what it could (too much brown!).
Cloudnine
+ Show Spoiler +Unfortunately, this map screams desert oasis to me and I very much did not enjoy that map. To be particular, its the fact the expos are extremely out of the way, very inaccessible, and the general map distances are a bit too long.
Back To Back
+ Show Spoiler +This map has some cute aspects to it, but kind of badly designed as a result. Very far third, only upto 4 bases per side (fourth extremely far as well). Considering this was designed almost a year ago may have something to do with it
Reakray
+ Show Spoiler +holy shit this map is big. its interesting the notion that you have four bases right together, but extremely hard to defend all four because they are no connected. but alas, its not really tournament spec
Flamestrike
+ Show Spoiler +I really, really love the layout of this map. When players enter the mid game, a plethora of pathing and attack options open up which should make for very interesting games for all matchups.
Ohana
+ Show Spoiler +Ohana is a very aesthetically pleasing, and seemingly interesting in gameplay at first glance. But a closer analysis of gameflow shows that its very XNC-esque in that the expos are not very accessible and engagements will end up occuring in very general areas of the map.
Crater RE
+ Show Spoiler +This map follows the XNC layout. The variation lies in the size of the map, which ends up being a bit too wide. But with XNC style maps, the issue lies in the engagement areas which end up occurring in the same general area on the map.
TPW Damage Inc.
+ Show Spoiler +Mereel says this map is inspired by Tau cross ... but I honestly don't see that resemblance, aside from aesthetics. However, as a BW player, I do notice the BW-map inspirations in the placement of the expos and layout of the map (highfive). I enjoy that there are two seperate playstyles based on spawn location. 7/2oclock spawns: At first you question the choice of having three bases in one general area, but the design of the area forces players to play very defensively if they want to be risky and take a fast third. In the case of zergs, this is actually beneficial to them as the third is perhaps the most safest to obtain in almost any SC2 map i've seen. Yet the map distance is short enough to keep zergs on alert even when expoing to this area. Macro specialist zergs may have a significant advantage on the map ... who knows 10/5 spawns: The third is not as easily accessible in this layout, but it is actually not that far in distance, and the mineral block is cute and is dispelled of quite fast, and you get 100 minerals. In this layout, the expo direction and attack pathing goes all around and across the map, is properly spread out and just looks great overall. So yes, this is a great map.
Steadfast Fortress
+ Show Spoiler +The originally submitted map was pretty bad. There was a selection of mapping follies here ... the map is a bit far too wide, redundant XNTs, straight forward pathing, rocks blocking the third AND fourth. In the updated version, the third is a bit more accessible, but still blocked by rocks, and only one gas? It is a two-layout like Damage Inc. above, but in one configuration, the third is extremely hard to get and defend. The mapper still has a ways to go with this map
Monlyth Memories
+ Show Spoiler +I believe Winio was being very expertimental with this map, obvious with the placement of the third. But the execution is somewhat lacking because there isn't much movement in the map. The gameflow resembles that of XNC where players take the gold as their third and turtle up in that area; the third here is very turtable and even more inaccessible compared to XNC due to the ramps. Further, I worry about the defense of this base from air attacks (and even siege tanks?) due to the proximity of the minerals to the edge of the cliff.
The golds become your fourth but its placement doesnt change the army movement that much. Hopefully another version of this map could make it work.
ESV Taonas
+ Show Spoiler +Unlike most people, I enjoy seeing and playing on these mirrored scrap-style maps. You have to closely examine this map in particular to see all its nuances and I do like it. My cocerns are that it may be just a tad too big, and the third (going down) may be a tad too inaccessible of moving/spreading your army for defense.
I would like to see some mechanism to help denying scouting as I really enjoy seeing secret expos on this style of map, which on a map of this size and layout, is definitely an option.
Whiteout
+ Show Spoiler +The map is best described as the offspring of metaloplis and Typhon Peaks. It has the openness of metal with the base layout of typhon. though I feel in the situation where the middle-area base becomes the third, its a bit too out of the way as compared to typhon; its very easily attacked from the enemy and poses a problem for defense because of its distance. Reorientating this expo may help but then you're just playing a typhon clone.
Meinhoff Encroached
+ Show Spoiler +The layout resembles dual sight but there are more pathing options. This seems advantageous at first, the availability of these pathing options makes countering and flanking a bit too strong. With many maps (myself included), this is a delicate operation to have these countering options, yet not be too generous with them, and to have them appropiately sized and distanced. Some rocks here or there would help steer the map in the direction. Finally, it needs alot more texturing. All in all, good start, but needs more work.
ESV Bardiche
+ Show Spoiler +Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter.
Nightmare Hollow
+ Show Spoiler + At very first glance I thought this map looked pretty cool. Then I noticed the back ramp leading into a back base and then everything began falling through the cracks. In particular, the size of this map its major drawback. Giving players a backyard third is always a risky map option, and the authors tried to alleviate it by making it fairly attackable (after destroying some rocks). The issue is that even with the rocks gone, it is easily defendable due to its proximity to the main+nat, and very out of the way for the attacker because of the map size.
Beyond that, the fourth is also easily defendable. You have to think about the gameplay balance and economics of having players on easy and quick four bases, which doesnt make for a good map. I appreciate the use of pathing on the map, but theres need to be much more risk to the players.
Pyramus Outpost
+ Show Spoiler + You want to know something? This map is a jewel in the rough. It resembles Shakuras Plateu in layout but there are major differences. The "close third" from shakuras is gone, and is now shared between the two bases rather than being close to the main; further this base is fairly risky to take for its well-foward position and orientation, yet is easily reinforced and defended because of its proximity to the your other bases. There are more bases towards the middle of the map and the positioning is superb in my eyes.
The rough part is that the pathing of the map is not much better than Shakuras. The middle of this is alot worse actually, as its pretty much a clusterfuck of chokes because of the XNTs. You can opt to go around the middle but it is much, much, much further distance because of the sizing of the map.
I would like to comment that with further refinement of the pathing and wideness, this map would be a total (and awesome) spiritual successor to Shakuras.
LoS_Dark Matter
+ Show Spoiler +So this is another rotational map. The structure of the map is such that the attack pathing doesnt really change as the game flows because the you have to go through the third to get to the nat. The distance of the third, as well as the area around the third, is structured in such a way to be far enough to worry about defense of your entire base from harass, but I see little in the way of movement for T and P armies.
Heartstone Canyon
+ Show Spoiler +There are layout issues with the map. The gameflow upto three bases is static because the one general attack path to the enemy base, which includes the ramp into the third. You have go a distance around the third to attack from the other ramp, but you do not have much room for movement in that situation. There are also structures in the middle which inhibit army movement, creating an aritificial choke, which is not good. The fourth is a major problem because in one direction, its ridiculously far away for both players to attack and defend, and the other direction is ridiculously easy to attack and hard to defend.
Shakuras Proving Grounds
+ Show Spoiler +Note, this is not a Shakuras plateu clone. The significant issue is that there's only one way to into the third, which is protected by the choke into your entire base. Essentially, a free and easy third. There is no variation in the attack path as a result so its a pretty bland map.
Venti
+ Show Spoiler +So Venti. It is a rotational map so there is a certain imbalance in the expo directions. When you look at the other (and only) 3p maps; XNFortress is pretty badly designed as you are either forced to expo towards the middle, which drastically reduces the attack distance, or go the safer route towards a much further (and i mean far) expo. Testbug is a much better map with the placement of the bases, but there is an expo with only one ramp leading into it. Further, the middle is virtually featureless and wide open. Venti resembles Testbug's layout but there are major differences. It is significantly pathing orientated due to many breaks in the terrain, in particular the cliffs around the golds in the middle. The bases are all accessible for both attackers and defenders, unlike that one single base on testbug, The wide open third is obviously less favorable than the third with the ramps, but I designed it to be equidistant from the nat as the third with the ramps to help alleviate imbalance. There is significant airspace around the map but so is the nature of these three player maps (trying to fit a triangle in a square). Indeed, this is present in testbug as well. The only way to solve this problem is to use a circular map ala Fortress, or try to design an unsightly map like Outsider from BW. But then, its not like players are expanding to those open spaces?
Harmony
+ Show Spoiler +Can it be? A properly done BW remake? While I cannot give credit to the mapper for the layout, its an extremely well done copy of the bw map. The use of green minerals is the crux of this map and what makes it awesome. The design of the map in combination with those minerals is what breaks the traditional 4p rotational gameflow. The positioning of the third is what forces players to be more agressive with army positioning in order to have proper defense of these expos. The texturing job is also amazing. Great map.
ESV Derelict
+ Show Spoiler +Like Bardiche, there are critical choke issues with the map. I'm not quite sure what to say with having a XNT in the middle, on a high ground, behind chokes. Also, I'm not quite sure what to say with having such a safe gold either; in other maps, this is commonly 'the other third'. But there's only one ramp into the gold and plenty of space for static AA defense. The cliff behind the gold is peculiar as well; I thought the SC2 community had long forgotten about these things after lost temple/kulas/DQ? Its true that this is a gold, but then the mapper is literally forcing you to do dropship play in order to deal with this gold.
(To the ESV guys, I would definitely like to hear your responses to my issue with the chokes on your maps, in case there might be something I'm overlooking.)
Master System
+ Show Spoiler +Another dual-play map, but not a very good one. In 10/5 spawns, it plays like DQ with virtually all attacks going through the middle. Also, WHY IS THERE A BACKDOOR TO THE MAIN OMG Also, the XNTs on this map will see units going around the middle, but in this configuration, virtually all movement goes through the middle, so is there something I'm missing here? In the 2/7 spawns, despite the shortest path being through the middle, I'm sure the path around the middle is almost as short. Its alot less constricted, that's for sure. This attack lies in the XNT vision ... but not in the enemy's XNT vision, meaning you have to capture the XNT on the far side of the map. The attacking pathing is much better in this configuration, but the above concerns are major issues that need to be addressed
TPW Tenarsis
+ Show Spoiler +Apparently this is XNC inspired? And I believed it! I can see the resemblance in the middle, but the map is in fact much more reminiscent of Dual Sight. There are many pathing and expo options for three base and beyond.
Top 5
+ Show Spoiler +In no particular oder,
Flamestrike
Venti
Emerald
Damage Inc
Tenarsis
Honourable Mentions
Pyramus Outpost
Harmony
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y4dfY.jpg)
Yes it's time!
First of all I'd like to apologize for beeing a bit late for this. For some unknown reason I kinda lost the motivation to read in and contribute to this thread for a short while. Not to keep you waiting for any longer though, here are not the winners of this months Special Award:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PvUZ0.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +Monolyth Memories by WniO ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UC33O.jpg)
I know exactly what every single one of you is thinking right now. "Why didn't the master and commander of all Destructible Rocks placement - Dustin Browder - win this months award??" Settle down people! Now would it be fair to give the 'baskersville Award' to baskersville? Would it be fair to give the 'Match- MVP' award to IM.MVP? Or would it be fair to give the 'Oscar' to someone called Oscar? No it wouldn't! That's why I decided to dignify someone with it who has earned it almost just as much.
If you take a look at the winning map you'll see that any possible 3rd base as at least one set of Destructible Rocks around it. Ok granted, it's actually always 1 set. Still, he recognized where the rocks are needed to prohibit inbalances through mass expanding early on. To be honest it doesn't really surprise to see our appreciated fellow mapmaker WniO taking this Award home since he openly declared to have made a map that resembles a Blizzard map as well as possible. The Destructible Rock placement has certainly added to this goal quite a bit.
Congratulations to you fine sir and may you continue providing such excellent pieces of work in the future, especially since next month the goal will actually be the one you already attained this month. I would even say that you're one step ahead of everyone else.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/35ax9.png)
+ Show Spoiler +Stepway by RumbleBadger ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/viVxk.jpg)
First of all, if you're supposed to potatoballs judgement of a map and you look at a picture like this, it's just confusing as hell. To clarify, this is actually an asymmetrical map, so it's really supposed to look weird. If you're past this there are still a few things you can discover. As example, why are there 3 tiny ramps instead of a big one? What are those tiny paths/ramps in the middle right doing? Why does this whole map look like some kind of battle droid with some sort of horn attached to his forehead and his male genitals sticking out?
Well I can tell you right here! Ok I lied, noone but the creator can give you the answers you are seeking. But I can tell you one thing. Have you ever imagined how it would look like if you took all the crazy features you can think of and stuff it into one map? Yes? Well I have too and I don't know what would come out. But back to this map. It too is really crazy and doesn't try to be balanced like all those mainstream maps. I have no idea how it would play out and probably never will but I just must say one more thing about the map's looks: The aesthetics work is amazing and you can see how much time was put into it. I'm sure we'll see a lot more of our friend RumbleBadger in the future. So congratulations to you for securing this months 'Justin Bieber Award'.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cVUFx.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +TPW Damage Inc. by Mereel ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sv9BMl.jpg)
This is actually not an award for the map but rather for the mapmaker himself. If you served in the Custom Map forum for some time you've definitly stumbled over some work of this guy. He's been around for quite some time and has produced a ton of high quality maps. Still he has never made it into a Top5 of our competition. Bad concept? Bad quality? Bad luck? To be honest, as long as I can remember this competition, Mereel has always made it ridiculously close to the Top5, always denied by some small features that got dismissed by some judges. Everytime a new MotM rolls around I keep out for his map in hope to finally grant him his first entry into the olymp of mapdesign.
For the sake of it, let's take a look at the latest submission, TPW Damage Inc. The idea of this map is so wildly awesome as the looks of it. The execution is.. almost without flaws. Let's say this: If the mainbase had been on highground and the taking of 6 bases a bit harder, it woul've most definitly been among the 5 winners. So you see how close this decicion was.
If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that our fellow mapmaker Mereel will make it into the Top5 eventually, even if it takes another year, and he shall push the curse of the kong line off himself as he turns to the gods of mapmaking, wielding his allmighty mouse cursor while shouting in agony and relief!
|
|
|
On September 19 2011 09:45 a176 wrote:ESV Bardiche + Show Spoiler +Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter.
I apologize but I fail to see any critical flaws here. Could you elaborate a bit????
The chokes in front of the naturals are not meant to be used as large pushing paths. Just for minor counter attacks or stuff like that, as well as pushes early enough to benifit going through the middle, but late enough to take the D-rocks down quickly.
A few critical differences between my map and crossfire. 1: a very easy and viable third base. 2, wide open paths. Yes, there are many chokes, but the actual fighting will be based around controlling the two high ground paths since that's where the expansions are. You have a huge open area to move around in and if you can't break through, just go around.
The bases on the side are actually more akin to neutral bases. Based on common expansion pattern, they should belong to the side they are further from, but because of the distances, the other player can also take them. A good example would be a Zerg taking that base early on in the game, but sacrificing it later once Terran gains control of the high ground. Thus, the high ground path into this base is not just for harassment, but can also be used for reinforcing and attacks as Terran/Toss against Zerg. Especially the latter because it's choked up and perfect to creep up from.
And also, Zerg has a winning record on Crossfire in both matchups. Go figure.
I appreciate your comments and thoughts on my map. Thanks.
|
a176, thanks for the feedback on Master System, though would you be okay to clarify something for me? Though I'm wondering if you think my map is smaller than it really is... it doesn't compare to DQ in rush distance, it's actually a little uncomfortably large in my opinion (more like Shakuras' rush distance on the 10-5 naturals with the more direct route).
Anyway, the back door rocks weren't really intended to be meaningful in the 10-5 positions, but rather to open up 2 extra lategame routes around the edge of the map for counter attacks when playing from the 2-7 positions. I didn't think they were such a big concern when spawning in the 10-5 positions though, as the distance from the natural to the back door rocks is much smaller for the defender than the attacker, so any mobile defence shouldn't be hampered, and there's no direct path to it which Terran can exploit to have a counterattack free push against Zerg (unlike Blistering Sands and the original Shakuras Plateau respectively). But by avoiding these issues, I thought it would be okay. Is there another reason why there should never be back door rocks though? I'm thinking maybe it makes FFE much riskier, but if you can clarify exactly why you're having such an adverse reaction to them I'd appreciate the insight. ^^
|
On September 19 2011 10:44 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 09:45 a176 wrote:ESV Bardiche + Show Spoiler +Right off the bat I will comment that Bardiche is very choke orientated. I get the image of Crossfire in my head and I very much do not like that map. Watching zergs trying to take on stacked siege tanks on Crossfire is so painful to watch. There are no comparable ramp structures on Bardiche, but there is only one real (wide) area for engagement here, infront of the 1 gas expo. Everything else is through chokes that can, and will, be exploited, through siege tanks or even building blocking. There is a very small choke at the front of the nat which I feel will never be used, except in the most special of situations, as a result of its size. Further, I question the use of that 1 gas expo in that position, and in a map of this size.
The combination of the above factors into the attack pathing which is pretty bland. The 3rd/fourth(1gas) expos also lie on this path so there is no variation in movement. There is a ramp near the 2gas third that can be exploited by siege tanks, or by harass (dt, zealot/hellion/infestor hit squads), but it serves not much else purpose.
I written quite a bit more here not because this was a MOTM finalist; I appreciate the thought that went into trying to make this map very different and original, but there are critical errors to the map design that causes the map to falter. I apologize but I fail to see any critical flaws here. Could you elaborate a bit???? The chokes in front of the naturals are not meant to be used as large pushing paths. Just for minor counter attacks or stuff like that, as well as pushes early enough to benifit going through the middle, but late enough to take the D-rocks down quickly. A few critical differences between my map and crossfire. 1: a very easy and viable third base. 2, wide open paths. Yes, there are many chokes, but the actual fighting will be based around controlling the two high ground paths since that's where the expansions are. You have a huge open area to move around in and if you can't break through, just go around. The bases on the side are actually more akin to neutral bases. Based on common expansion pattern, they should belong to the side they are further from, but because of the distances, the other player can also take them. A good example would be a Zerg taking that base early on in the game, but sacrificing it later once Terran gains control of the high ground. Thus, the high ground path into this base is not just for harassment, but can also be used for reinforcing and attacks as Terran/Toss against Zerg. Especially the latter because it's choked up and perfect to creep up from. And also, Zerg has a winning record on Crossfire in both matchups. Go figure. I appreciate your comments and thoughts on my map. Thanks.
+ Show Spoiler +So when I look at this map, this is what I see: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EIL6n.jpg) If I were playing terran, the red arrows dictate how I would expo. The yellow areas are what I would term 'safe zones'. The size of these areas in combination with the paths into them, makes siege tanks hella effective. The area by the third looks wallable by maybe 2 barracks? Again there is zero data on this map as you have no map thread so I'm just guessing from experience. From a zerg pov, ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fC95E.jpg) The arrows, again, indicate direction of expo. The circle is the XNT viewable area. The red areas here indicate DANGER zones that I would try to avoid because of siege tanks, xnt , AND ramp combination. The squares at the sides are peculiar to me - is the image based on playable map bounds? Because if so, there is basically only one general direction for muta/ovie drop which can then be populated by thors, marines, turrets; ie next to impossible to harass. Furthering this, there is the red area by the entrance of the terran's nat: if I were to attack around to counter the nat, I have to deal with first repositioning my army the area infront of the nat to get a proper spread, because my units would just file into the nat due to the ramp from this direction. In the prior image, this area is very easily defendable from the terran's pov, and only has one limited direction of attack for the zerg. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E5TnN.gif)
|
On September 19 2011 10:59 totalpigeon wrote:
a176, thanks for the feedback on Master System, though would you be okay to clarify something for me? Though I'm wondering if you think my map is smaller than it really is... it doesn't compare to DQ in rush distance, it's actually a little uncomfortably large in my opinion (more like Shakuras' rush distance on the 10-5 naturals with the more direct route).
Anyway, the back door rocks weren't really intended to be meaningful in the 10-5 positions, but rather to open up 2 extra lategame routes around the edge of the map for counter attacks when playing from the 2-7 positions. I didn't think they were such a big concern when spawning in the 10-5 positions though, as the distance from the natural to the back door rocks is much smaller for the defender than the attacker, so any mobile defence shouldn't be hampered, and there's no direct path to it which Terran can exploit to have a counterattack free push against Zerg (unlike Blistering Sands and the original Shakuras Plateau respectively). But by avoiding these issues, I thought it would be okay. Is there another reason why there should never be back door rocks though? I'm thinking maybe it makes FFE much riskier, but if you can clarify exactly why you're having such an adverse reaction to them I'd appreciate the insight. ^^
+ Show Spoiler +The back door here is a bit more accessible than you may believe. In shakuras, you had to go around and into the next-door base, destroy the rocks there, destroy another set of rocks for the entrance into the main. In blistering sands, the rock entrance was at the front of the base so it was defendable as army size and movement increased. Yet these rocks were always very troublesome, which is they're gone in the current version of shakuras, and BS is a long gone memory. In your map, there is only the one set of rocks, there is no extraneous terrain to go around, and as zerg, trying to stop hellions dashing into there will be extremely difficult throughout the entire length of the game due to these paths. As is always the issue, zergs do not have sunken colonies anymore to wall off these things with buildings like a toss and terran can, unless you build like a shitload of spine crawlers. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/14Lcs.jpg) As for the DQ comparison - I'm not trying to say that its copying DQ to the letter, but having that base at the front will mimic the same kind of cross-position attacking you saw in DQ. But its really the notion that you go through the middle to attack nat to nat, and you still go through the middle to attack third to third, there is no real change as the game progresses.
|
I have a quick question. Would we be able to submit a remake of a blizzard map for MotM 10?
|
On September 19 2011 13:44 AaronJ wrote:
I have a quick question. Would we be able to submit a remake of a blizzard map for MotM 10?
No - unless it has been redone to the point where its a completely different map :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
