EPTTL Map Contest Results - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Tohron
United States135 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 10 2011 08:22 Antares777 wrote: How is this any different from the current pool of map makers? Aside from GSL's maps, only Testbug has gone anywhere. And you crown yourselves experts and talk down other peoples' work and opinions? Where is your balance pedigree? Even being GM doesn't necessitate an understanding of balance or playing the game. Almost no maps, including the maps featured in MotM or the previous iCCup tournaments, have received extensive testing for balance. I don't see where this arrogance of understanding map balance is coming from.For all I know the seem like Bronze level players with a mediocre understanding of balance at the professional level. HL looks like RoV which was a fantastic map. It's the only map I'm excited to play on, and it's not because it's so simple that my tiny brain can comprehend it. This is like a bunch of fashion designers bitching about fabrics, edges and silly shapes, when all we want is a big, comfy La-Z-Boy. | ||
|
Scribble
2077 Posts
| ||
|
Nazeron
Canada1046 Posts
| ||
|
Clank
United States548 Posts
| ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
On November 10 2011 08:44 Jibba wrote: How is this any different from the current pool of map makers? Aside from GSL's maps, only Testbug has gone anywhere. And you crown yourselves experts and talk down other peoples' work and opinions? Where is your balance pedigree? HL looks like RoV which was a fantastic map. It's the only map I'm excited to play on, and it's not because it's so simple that my tiny brain can comprehend it. This is like a bunch of fashion designers bitching about fabrics, edges and silly shapes, when all we want is a big, comfy La-Z-Boy. Yes, the maps are getting nowhere. That's why this contest was set up in the first place, I believe. Some of my posts talked down on lower level players and lower post counts. That was in a fit of rage, which still doesn't make it right. The difference between my post and the posters that are supporting Haven's Lagoon is that I gave a reason. I supported my argument with the extent of my knowledge on balance. They just said "cool map". RoV was a BW map. That game is very different from SCII. I try to avoid making comparisons like this. I understand that RoV was a great, fun, and balanced map. Haven's Lagoon is clearly based off of it, but has a lot of poor qualities that contribute negatively to its balance. I guess my point is that the map is not a big comfy La-Z-Boy. I want what's best for the community, like everyone else, and Haven's Lagoon is not what's best for the community in my opinion. EDIT: The arrogance is coming from experience. I've been a shitty map maker before. Now I can identify good maps from bad maps. Why don't you back up Haven's Lagoon being balanced? No one has! Everyone I've argued with said nothing about why it is balanced and how I'm incorrect. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
EDIT: Everyone else is waiting to play test them. In a certain style of game, it will be a bad map, but the point is that it lends itself towards a different play style than we've seen before. Ball armies will do poorly, but counter attacks and harassment, both requiring lots of multitasking, will thrive. | ||
|
Apom
France656 Posts
On November 10 2011 06:51 Ruscour wrote: I'm not really too sure about what I'm saying here, it's just from observation. Aren't mapmakers pretty discouraged by the lack of diversity in melee mapmaking? Everything is relatively similar and you never see anything too diversified due to balance. Keep in mind these aren't the final winners, just the finalists. I dunno, if I was a mapmaker I wouldn't be mad, I'd be happy that Haven's Lagoon made it and hope it makes good games so that it opens people up to more experimentation in mapmaking. I can give a personnal answer to this - yes, I somewhat feel that way. To be perfectly honest, this is one of the reasons why I started mapmaking with a 2v2 map (Fields of Strife is actually the result of my first contact with the map editor). There is a very rigid "meta-game" of what is an acceptable 1v1 map in the map-making community, and the 3-base paint drawing posted earlier in this thread captures a visible and significant part of it. I did not feel experienced enough to do a standard 1v1 map that would be of any interest to anyone except myself, and I did not feel bold enough to challenge the standard like TimeTwister did. 2v2 melee, on the other hand, is essentially an unexplored land. Nobody can tell with any certainty what features are absolutely required to make a good 2v2 map. There is a "standard" of ladder maps, which is not really standard in fact : ramp, backdoor and expansion layouts are completely different across the board. The only consistent aspect is the number of bases, but then there are competitive maps that tend to push the enveloppe of "macro-style" very far : Citadel of Gaia, featured in this contest, has 22 bases - only one ladder map ever had more than 16, and it was removed for being too big according to Blizzard. Without delving into the details, one can see that there is much more room for experimentation in the 2v2 environment (even more so in 3v3 and 4v4, but these modes really make no sense from a competitive standpoint - 2v2 could have some sense). Hence why I opted for it. Of course, this is nothing my personal point of view, and the number of entries in the 1v1 category suggest that not every mapmaker is discouraged with it  | ||
|
FrostedMiniWheats
United States30730 Posts
| ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
On November 10 2011 03:58 IronManSC wrote: If this is true then you wouldn't be seeing the same 12 maps in every tournament map pool ever created. huh I was talking about the ladder not tournaments. Tournaments probably use the same 12 maps because they want to follow the ladder as close as possible and have trouble getting pros to play enough games on any maps they want to add to feel comfortable it is balanced. Especially if they were to add anything creative. But it is true I wish tournaments could use the powerful map editor to do a bunch of creative things. Broodwar didn't have a problem with adding a map that you could turn into an island map by destroying assimilators: troy. Maps with eggs cloaked by a neutral arbiter blocking a path: Triathlon. Or how about neutral spells permanently on the map + a command centre to infest: HolyWorld, (You could probably use the sc2 editor to make an entire area or path do anything good or bad you want to units in it instead of just using the game spells) But anyways back to the ladder maps I like all the maps chosen. I just wish somebody could explain why people are so sure most people can not handle or want absolutely zero new creative map elements every few months when maps rotate on the ladder. Even if it is just a minor change like decreasing/increasing rock hp and armour (or make them cloaked) it is against blizzards rules because it is not easy to learn? But players don't have a problem learning a crazy unique creative gimmick on every level of the single player, and won't have a problem with those rocks that block paths when destroyed in HotS that they showed. (while learning all the new units at the same time) Couldn't those be added into the ladder with the map editor right now? And if they are fine maybe other things could be fine to try out also every once in a while by the community. | ||
|
Phried
Canada147 Posts
On November 10 2011 03:55 coolcor wrote: Broodwar didn't have a problem with adding a map that you could turn into an island map by destroying assimilators: troy. To get a little off topic, I've been wanting to make a map like this for a while. Unfortunately, I've been a little bit discouraged by how universally hated the newbie map pool seems to be. | ||
|
FlopTurnReaver
Switzerland1980 Posts
I'm not saying that noone but a mapmaker can see those things, but it's just that not everyone really focuses on those "small" things. It's stupid to have such an argument between people who just use maps to play on them or watch them being played by others, rather focusing on the play itself, and people who spend many hours a week, not only creating but also studying maps. Especially if there's only an overview picture to judge from. Sure, an experienced mapmaker will see the proportions on the pictures and can proclaim things he can't really back up because it's not been proven publicly, even if it's true, other people won't see it, hence hardly believe the claims. So please stop this madness, we get it, most (?) mapmakers think it's a bad map, most non-mapmakers like it because it's very different. Also I think it's not particularly a good representation of TL for a mod to insult a large group of people because a handfull of them are crossing the line. | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
right... so the amount of playtesting the maps got seems to be minimal, and it was entirely by TL forumites/mods, whose opinion I don't automatically trust especially after the results. No Sheth, no TLO, no Jinro. no Haypro, no Tyler, no Ret, no Hero. What a wasted opportunity. | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
On November 10 2011 08:59 Jibba wrote: I think the distance to expansions lends itself better to non-Zergs than you think. EDIT: Everyone else is waiting to play test them. In a certain style of game, it will be a bad map, but the point is that it lends itself towards a different play style than we've seen before. Ball armies will do poorly, but counter attacks and harassment, both requiring lots of multitasking, will thrive. I agree to an extent. The problem is that Protoss is very ineffective without a ball army. Protoss isn't my main race, but what I know about the race is that you either all-in or get Colossi. Blizzard has been breaking away from this lack of options which is a great thing. Archons are now possible in PvP and PvT to an extent so that Colossi are not always needed. With that said, Haven's Lagoon will probably force a Archon/Gateway heavy composition in PvX. Terran will probably want to go bio against Protoss because of how effective EMP is against Archons and how mobile the army is. Zerg will probably just play normally. Their builds are least affected by the layout of this map in my honest opinion. Terran could go mech or bio or biomech vs. Zerg. EDIT: The reason that I feel it is imbalanced is because I do not think that even with Archons Protoss will stand much of a chance. Zerg will get surrounds on Terran very easily and crush them in most situations in my opinion. Also, the expansion layout favors Zerg more so than Terran and Protoss because they cannot expand toward their opponent easily and Zerg can just expand far away from their enemy. If Terran or Protoss were to attack an expansion, they'd be very vulnerable to counter-attacks and the expansions are not close together, so they wouldn't be able to move through into another expansion, forcing a base race. It would be much easier for the Zerg to win the base race, which I can picture happening in a lot of scenarios. | ||
|
RevoNinja
United States59 Posts
| ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2475 Posts
I'd be curious to see if the top 7 maps were posted with just the SC2 Analyzer Summary view rather then a top down view, which map people would like better. | ||
|
chipman
United States139 Posts
| ||
|
CeriseCherries
6170 Posts
awww... No island map  can't get tasteless to explain to us that on island maps, drops will usually be seen | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 10 2011 09:11 FlopTurnReaver wrote: This discussion is pointless. It's 2 different sides argueing about something they have a completely different angle on. The normal TL forum user just looks at a map just takes in the general concept of it, leading him to judge a map for the fun factor of playing/watching. Any mapmaker looks at it with all the things he knows about mapmaking in the back of his head. What's the distances of the bases, how's the openness, what are the options for map splitting, how vulnurable are the different bases? I'm not saying that noone but a mapmaker can see those things, but it's just that not everyone really focuses on those "small" things. It's stupid to have such an argument between people who just use maps to play on them or watch them being played by others, rather focusing on the play itself, and people who spend many hours a week, not only creating but also studying maps. Especially if there's only an overview picture to judge from. Sure, an experienced mapmaker will see the proportions on the pictures and can proclaim things he can't really back up because it's not been proven publicly, even if it's true, other people won't see it, hence hardly believe the claims. So please stop this madness, we get it, most (?) mapmakers think it's a bad map, most non-mapmakers like it because it's very different. Also I think it's not particularly a good representation of TL for a mod to insult a large group of people because a handfull of them are crossing the line. I quit being a mod so my opinion has no reflection on the site. And I'm serious, map balance pedigree was invented by the people who claim to have it. In BW the only relevant ones didn't speak English, and even they fucked up sometimes. A little humility is required for this sort of thing, especially when you're theory crafting maps you haven't played. You're basically saying "People in the know know that it's a bad map, but those ignorant of design like it because it's different. But please stop this arguing!" Look at the threads for every new Blizzard map pool. Half of the posts are about rush distances, width of naturals, how accessible expansions are and specific tank nooks. Do you really think non-map makers fail to judge gameplay features? | ||
|
Bobster
Germany3075 Posts
| ||
| ||
