EPT[M] (2) ESV Ohana LE - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Nimelrian
Germany142 Posts
| ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
On March 28 2012 16:58 IronManSC wrote: The ladder map will be Ohana LE, but the tournament version will be ESV Ohana LE Sorry missed that part. On March 28 2012 20:11 Nimelrian wrote: Why can't Blizzard just leave the neutral depots? WHY? Simply put they value the pylon block in the same leage as a 6 pool. It is a rush like any other, with added risks aswell, Doesn't need special treatment specificly. Also the depots are too lazy of a solotion for blizz. They could design ramps that covered 5 squares in the bottum or simply nerf the block. They did infact do so a long time ago, so that you never can completely block off with just 2 buildings. Mappers will go to alot of extremes to make their map balanced. Xelnaga fortress for example had a C4 timer added on the central watchtower because a terrible layout favored terran too much. I think it is fine that blizzard set some conditions for what can be in ladder and what can't | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:57 Ruscour wrote: In the OP It says "GSL Season Two", might wanna clarify that that's 2012 Season Two. Fixed, thanks! | ||
|
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
On March 28 2012 20:11 Nimelrian wrote: Why can't Blizzard just leave the neutral depots? WHY? I think the primary reason is that it's a terran building being used, which can be confusing to those lower level players. If there was another replacement that was pathable, didn't block line of sight, is destructible, and looks as if it belongs to the map and not a player, then I don't think blizzard would mind. Unfortunately there isn't such a thing, just yet. However, I think with the depots being mainstream in tournaments such as GSL and MLG, I would not be surprised if blizzard included a small unit in Heart of the Swarm that blends with the map, and does exactly what the depot does. | ||
|
ZongTG
United States12 Posts
I heard someone say something about Destructible Grass, I thought I would develop the idea on my own a little. | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
Does Blizzard ever contact you for consultation or advice on your maps and potential changes that could be made to it? I'm just curious as to how Blizzard treats the developers of the maps it uses for the ladder. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On March 30 2012 06:46 Praetorial wrote: IronManSC, if you are reading this: Does Blizzard ever contact you for consultation or advice on your maps and potential changes that could be made to it? I'm just curious as to how Blizzard treats the developers of the maps it uses for the ladder. There's been around 50 e-mails back and forth with blizzard to get Ohana ready for ladder. They told me what their SC2 Map Team didn't like, or what needed a change, and I did that. Every change I made resulted in them doing a whole new round of play testing and Q&A, then would e-mail me any other fixes that they thought were "necessary" for ladder. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
Still, congrats dude! I do have to say your map was probably mangled the least, out of the three, so take some satisfaction from that. Oh, on the topic of mangling and the whole depot thing, they mentioned potentially using textures to paint unbuildable areas. The idea of texturing in and of itself is kinda stupid, but they are on to something. An idea that could definitely work, I think, is use Rock(small), in a cluster in the unbuildable area. The small rocks don't block pathing, but can easily be used to distinguish an unbuildable area. Alternately, for manmade/space platform maps, deadman's port ground mix, or something similar, can be used. This is all assuming they would actually go for it, but I put a bit of thought into it. | ||
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
| ||
|
skatbone
United States1005 Posts
On March 30 2012 06:58 IronManSC wrote: There's been around 50 e-mails back and forth with blizzard to get Ohana ready for ladder. They told me what their SC2 Map Team didn't like, or what needed a change, and I did that. Every change I made resulted in them doing a whole new round of play testing and Q&A, then would e-mail me any other fixes that they thought were "necessary" for ladder. That sounds like a potentially constructive dialogue/approach. Even though I often don't agree with Blizzard, I take some solace in knowing that they are thorough...still, it's hard to believe they've been this thorough with some of their ladder maps. | ||
|
Corsica
Ukraine1854 Posts
| ||
|
Warzilla
Czech Republic311 Posts
On March 30 2012 08:21 Corsica wrote: Map should be renamed to Zergana... You cant be serious | ||
|
Corsica
Ukraine1854 Posts
Well, they call metalopolis a zegapolis why not? | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On March 30 2012 06:58 IronManSC wrote: There's been around 50 e-mails back and forth with blizzard to get Ohana ready for ladder. They told me what their SC2 Map Team didn't like, or what needed a change, and I did that. Every change I made resulted in them doing a whole new round of play testing and Q&A, then would e-mail me any other fixes that they thought were "necessary" for ladder. That is very ironic. Blizzard throws together maps like Slag Pits, or Lost Temple with the droppable cliffs overlooking the natural, that are absolute trash on ladder, then takes a good map and demands "necessary" changes. The map was fine as it was for ladder (I played on it in multiple tournaments, including the original TLMC Open). Doesn't surprise me that most ladder maps are gone from tournaments. | ||
|
avc
121 Posts
On March 30 2012 11:32 Corsica wrote: Well, they call metalopolis a zegapolis why not? Guess we should have Terran Shipyard, Terran Plateau, Terran Valley, Terran Caverns, Terran Beach and all manner of others then. Such naming nonsense is stupid. I'm looking forward to seeing Ohana have even more exposure, liked it a lot since I first saw it months ago. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On March 31 2012 00:20 IronManSC wrote: ilike the rivers too dude but blizz won't let me. They'll take it off ladder if I do... Didn't they make you take it off because of performance issues on some computers or what was the deal with that? | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On March 31 2012 01:21 MNdakota wrote: Didn't they make you take it off because of performance issues on some computers or what was the deal with that? Yes. Ladder is full of players with a wide range of computers; from terrible machines to state of the art. For a map to work on ladder, it had to be smooth from level to level on the terrain so even bad computers can handle it. That's why in tournaments, maps look supremely better, because tournament players have good computers. It's kind of dumb really. This is StarCraft 2 .... 2012... why do people still use computers from 2000? If people were on top of this I probably could've kept the rivers. I don't blame blizzard, I blame people who think it's fine and dandy to run SC2 off a 10-year old computer. They are the ones who limit me -_- | ||
| ||
