EPTTL Map Contest Results - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
S2Lunar
1051 Posts
| ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On November 10 2011 13:47 Toppp wrote: TPW seems extremely butthurt coming into this thread and bashing other peoples maps. Hard to believe you can be that bad mannered when most of you're maps placed so highly. yeah, I was surprised by what seemed like a collective effort on their part to be butthurt. The TPW maps are all really nice looking, but almost all of them share the same problems of running at what feels like half the framerate of the ladder maps and generally not being outstanding to play on. You can't win on looks alone. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
It probably doesn't matter now but my favorite to win is Sanctuary. A lot of neat concepts in the finalists but that one I like. Obviously disappointed none of my maps made it through but I wasn't holding my expectations too high given the volume and the generally less than "standard" ideas I like to put forward. Nevertheless, I will PM to find out the judges opinions. My wife, bless her, likes Haven's Lagoon. She doesn't play. She knows little to none about gaming in general much less Starcraft. And yet, as I scrolled down the list showing her the finalists, she goes, "I like that one"... lol, I'm sure much to the chagrin of some of the other mappers. I will let you decide whether that is a plus for the map or just another sign that it "shouldn't be top 7". Again, congrats to the finalists, may your maps play well in the tournament. | ||
|
XRaDiiX
Canada1730 Posts
On November 10 2011 13:55 Quotidian wrote: yeah, I was surprised by what seemed like a collective effort on their part to be butthurt. The TPW maps are all really nice looking, but almost all of them share the same problems of running at what feels like half the framerate of the ladder maps and generally not being outstanding to play on. You can't win on looks alone. I'm not trying to be mean or anything but when i tested the TPW maps my framerate was significantly lower than playing normally on a Ladder map. Sorry TPW Your maps are beautiful but my computer lagged like 15 fps on them only 30fps and above is acceptable.... I'm not sure what made the maps so laggy; i know my computers not the best and i play on low Graphics but my game never lags like that. I'm hoping TPW can fix the Lag issue because their maps overall are really; well-done maps. | ||
|
Ojahh
Ireland728 Posts
You guys are the like Building designers who are upset because some Engineer told you: "You cant use 5mm steel beams for your massive roof." "But it doesn't look aesthetic if it is build with big steel beams" "Well it will crash and bury people underneath it" "But it doesn't look aesthetic" Here is a thought, if f.e. Zerg has a 70 percent win rate on a map and you need in general awkward strategies on a map to win, your map might be shit! Regardless of your nicely planted grass and the beautiful cliff side. You need to design something that WORKS, this is not a painting competition, because if it works, you can always give it to some one who will give it a nice paint job. How about instead of bitching you would have asked the guy if he needs helps with the graphic details, so it would look nice and shiny for the big TLopen weekend, you might even have gotten 50% of the credit at the end... | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On November 10 2011 14:23 Ojahh wrote: awesome maps, congrats to the winners, I am laughing my ass of at the sore losers. You guys are the like Building designers who are upset because some Engineer told you: "You cant use 5mm steel beams for your massive roof." "But it doesn't look aesthetic if it is build with big steel beams" "Well it will crash and bury people underneath it" "But it doesn't look aesthetic" Here is a thought, if f.e. Zerg has a 70 percent win rate on a map and you need in general awkward strategies on a map to win, your map might be shit! Regardless of your nicely planted grass and the beautiful cliff side. You need to design something that WORKS, this is not a painting competition, because if it works, you can always give it to some one who will give it a nice paint job. How about instead of bitching you would have asked the guy if he needs helps with the graphic details, so it would look nice and shiny for the big TLopen weekend, you might even have gotten 50% of the credit at the end... Not that I agree with all of the opinions of those on the mapping teams nor even all those of Barrin though there is often something to be learned from any of them, but I think the main argument most of them have been making is that they *are* using the 5mm steel beams *and* making it look aesthetically pleasing whereas a map like Haven's Lagoon is *not* using the 5mm steel beams *and* does not even hide the fact with good aesthetics. I think their argument goes so far as to say the lack of aesthetics *indicates* the lack of 5mm steel beams. Again, this is *their* argument, if I have interpreted it correctly. Though I like me a good Broodwar map (though the author claims it is not much if at all inspired by RoV), I am unsure of my thought about this one except that I am glad at least some non-team mapper got through to this point. Kudos on that, timetwister! From one rogue mapper to another, cheers. ::drinks:: | ||
|
srikanth94
India16 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2403 Posts
On November 10 2011 13:55 Quotidian wrote: yeah, I was surprised by what seemed like a collective effort on their part to be butthurt. The TPW maps are all really nice looking, but almost all of them share the same problems of running at what feels like half the framerate of the ladder maps and generally not being outstanding to play on. You can't win on looks alone. I'd like to say that with the amount of time they put into their maps, I expect them to be a little bit angry. These guys spend a huge amount of time perfecting their aesthetics, and it shows because their maps look incredible. The TPW mapmakers just need a little bit more experience with tournaments using their maps to get a good feel for layouts and gameplay, and then the maps will be truly amazing. | ||
|
FlopTurnReaver
Switzerland1980 Posts
| ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
On November 10 2011 09:59 Zelniq wrote: we discussed your map, it was denied mostly by me iirc. The 3rd is stupidly close to the natural, and anyone can easily defend both nat + 3rd simultaneously. it's the most extreme "free 3rd" i've ever seen. and as in sc2 all you need is 3 bases to get a near maxed econ (gas excluded) and to easily max, free 3rds that are tough to attack are kinda dumb. Plus the choke from middle to that area outside nat/3rd is too narrow, yet again making attacks very tough. Then you have basically the free 4th, which is not only a gold base but also like right next to the 3rd and nestled within that aforementioned area outside nat/3rd. Sure the mineral line is exposed on the other side..but in some matchups this would be retardedly unfair, most noticeably TvZ where a tank or 2 easily defends that problem, whereas zerg has no such equivalent. Then you take the other free 4th, from the backdoor in main, yet another TvZ imbalance..map is the definition of a ZvT nightmare. There's really only 1 small area terran needs to defend their main/nat/3rd/4th-gold bases from ground assaults haha i can imagine many reasons why it wasnt picked ^^ i was just making a joke you dont have to explain why my map wasnt chosen | ||
|
Serpest
United States603 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 10 2011 15:27 Serpest wrote: I'm curious as to why all the maps have the main and natural connected by ramps. Why not something more like Tal'Darim Altar where the natural, main and potential third are on the same plane? Does having no ramp make it significantly harder to balance? Other than that, though, I think Heaven's Lagoon is the most interesting mechanically, with Cloud Kingdom not far behind, and Ohara looks to be a better implementation of Belshir Beach v 1.0. I'm going to need to playtest that one though to get a better idea of how it plays. Having main-nat-third on same plane breaks pvp. | ||
|
Serpest
United States603 Posts
On November 10 2011 15:28 Plexa wrote: Having main-nat-third on same plane breaks pvp. Thanks. | ||
|
Garnet
Vietnam9011 Posts
| ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 10 2011 15:48 Garnet wrote: burning altar is not on NA yet? It should be there now | ||
|
johngalt90
United States357 Posts
 For my comments a lot of the maps look very crossfire'esque in the sense the are narrow attack paths with multiple elevations this too me seems inherently unbalanced and definitely tough for zerg. I think maps benefit from having some openness and points of narrowness (i.e the shattered temple and xel'naga caverns) that being said just from eyeballing sanctuary looks pretty awesome, though i think maybe the two bridges should be widened into one (i remember destination and trying to bust naturals >_<). The defensive exapnsion and offensive expansion on CITADEL OF GAIA IS REALLY F***ING COOL!! definitely i think something that needs to be experimented with i also dont think sc2 has fully harnessed the idea of mineral only expos.really cool and think there is some potential for some of these maps (i only say potential because i havent played on them yet, dont mean to discredit someones work with the p word) | ||
|
sVnteen
Germany2238 Posts
i can see good games played on almost all of them and it makes me happy that we have a good map making community to get such good results | ||
|
S2Lunar
1051 Posts
On November 10 2011 14:56 FlopTurnReaver wrote: It's hilarious how many people are judging mapmakers/maps wihtout having a clue what they're talking about^^ It's called Feedback and constructive criticism , ever heard of it? | ||
Empyrean
16950 Posts
| ||
|
Timmay
United States111 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GhZFp.png) For anyone interested, these are the preview images of the maps I submitted: + Show Spoiler + Abducted: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sbaYl.jpg) Temptastic: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hWUG6.jpg) Wreckquiem: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HZh6l.jpg) | ||
| ||
