|
|
|
Wow...this map looks fucking awesome. I cannot wait to try it out. I love the expos on the side that can only be accessed by the rocks and overhangs the 3rds. Neat feature.
|
On February 10 2012 15:39 TheAmazombie wrote:
Wow...this map looks fucking awesome. I cannot wait to try it out. I love the expos on the side that can only be accessed by the rocks and overhangs the 3rds. Neat feature.
Getting it up on all of the servers shortly... I still need to bug test one last time but I wanted to get it out there for MotM!
|
So the natural will behave similarly to Tal'darim but with a main ramp, I suppose.
After a solid few minutes of staring at the overview, I quite like the design in general. The third isn't super easy to take but it's in a great position to be able to defend all 3 bases against mutas and such. Holding the ground where the two ramps nicely makes up for how easy you get a blink into the main in PvP because at that position you can really control the front and have the ability to zone out blinks into the main decently.
Looks cool, anyways. Published only on NA for the moment?
|
On February 10 2012 15:44 Ruscour wrote:
So the natural will behave similarly to Tal'darim but with a main ramp, I suppose.
After a solid few minutes of staring at the overview, I quite like the design in general. The third isn't super easy to take but it's in a great position to be able to defend all 3 bases against mutas and such. Holding the ground where the two ramps nicely makes up for how easy you get a blink into the main in PvP because at that position you can really control the front and have the ability to zone out blinks into the main decently.
Looks cool, anyways. Published only on NA for the moment?
That's correct, I'll get it up on EU and KOR tomorrow
EDIT: I've gotten some mixed responses so far, how do you guys feel about the rocks on the semi-island? They are there to delay them from being used as a place to harass the expo below but many people are raising concern with Zerg being able to reliably take the expansion, which combined with positional balance and the lowground third nearby being potentially more vulnerable could be a problem. I personally like keeping the expo as a semi-island as I think semi islands are baller and as a feature makes the game more interesting then just generic "expand away from your opponent however you want"
|
As always some cool ideas here. I just feel the rotational imbalance is too prominant. There is only one choice for the third no matter where you spawn, but if you are clockwise close positions you are extremely vulnerable to a drop on the highground overlooking the third meaning you essentially HAVE to take down those debris before your opponent can start dropping or you lose any mining there.
|
On February 10 2012 15:53 wrl wrote:
As always some cool ideas here. I just feel the rotational imbalance is too prominant. There is only one choice for the third no matter where you spawn, but if you are clockwise close positions you are extremely vulnerable to a drop on the highground overlooking the third meaning you essentially HAVE to take down those debris before your opponent can start dropping or you lose any mining there.
The more I think about it the more I am tempted to delete the rocks entirely. It was part of the original concept but now that the map has fully manifested I think it will be better without, and I'd rather have playtesting tell me it needs rocks there rather than they need to go.
v1.1 incoming!
|
v1.1 up... I wouldn't double post but I accidentally hit quote instead of edit on my OP, my bad~
|
You have a map, in space, with no Space Shark? HOW COULD YOU?!
|
gotta say i like the look of the map, lots of bases, many areas that are easy to forcefield off, i dont ever have to engage in a wide open area, and its a 4 player map so PvP cheese isnt very viable
Well done on the map sir
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
I'd rather have playtesting tell me these expansions need rocks and give players the freedom to explore rather than constrain them right out of the gate
I actually really like this change. I think the cliff will still be somewhat usable for harassing the third base anyways
|
say you spawn close to each other. Can siegetanks harass the natural from the fourth? (if this doesn't make any sense, do tell! :D)
|
Is there any reason that there isn't a watchtower in the center?
EDIT: Nevermind I'm silly. I didn't see the watchtowers on the sides.
|
Looks like a miniature golf course :D
|
That's a great looking map, should make for interesting games. I like the astroturfed antiga shipyard feel.
|
On February 10 2012 17:14 Dukat wrote:
You have a map, in space, with no Space Shark? HOW COULD YOU?!
There's a space shark! Look at the pic of the middle
On February 10 2012 17:27 Wintex wrote:
say you spawn close to each other. Can siegetanks harass the natural from the fourth? (if this doesn't make any sense, do tell! :D)
Of course not! This isn't amateur hour 
|
damn this map is cool as fuck!
|
The ever returning question of positional balance on rotational symetry 4 spawn maps. Expanding in one direction you get a closer third that is easier to horrass, the other direction is further away but on highground so it may balance itself out. I guess this would require some playtesting.
Click here for hi-res top-down image
Links to low res angled overview 
|
|
|
Beautiful map! Next ladder map perhaps? 
|
Reminds me of a golf course.
I like that you don't use soft brushes for artificial textures, looks really nice like this.
|
I definitely think the semi-islands should have rocks.
|
Am I missing something or is not zerg seriously boned when spawning clockwise adjacent?
|
|
|
On February 10 2012 15:46 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 15:44 Ruscour wrote:
Looks cool, anyways. Published only on NA for the moment? That's correct, I'll get it up on EU and KOR tomorrow
That's great news, I hope you will also publish your other maps on EU and KOR.
As usual a really great looking map, can't wait to play it and get some ingame impressions.
I really the idea of an easy to take thrird, but hard to hold/protect against harassment from above.
|
Wow, the map looks really well rounded and the aesthetics are amazing!
|
Beautiful map, prodiG! I think Antiga Shipyard is a good basis of inspiration for 4 player maps, but you should be wary of distance from Protoss main or nat to a Zergs natural 3rd.
Some games on Antiga I can warp in from in-base and 5 seconds later, my +1 zealots are at the Zergs 3rd, which can be a bit too strong some times. At least P should have to probe sneak, or push out with zealots to be able to get a pylon up that close.
Oh, and I love the use of different tile sets and other aesthetics!
Edit: That 3rd lowground base with the 4th above can make for some really interesting plays! Will we see this map in the Korean Weekly soon? :D
|
The aesthetics is really nice!
Can Protoss cannons hit mining drones? Or marines in a bunker (+1 range)?
Siege tanks? (I'm quite sure they can?)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
excuse me if this is not a direct commet about the map (which looks awesome)
how did you create these smooth white lines around the grass textures?
|
That's definitely in range of cannons and bunkers.
Can be good for Protoss if Zerg decides to take that spot before natural, cause of pylon block.
It's kinda like the low ground (non-gold) 3rd on Xel'Naga, you can do some harassment from up there.
|
I'd actually really like to see this in the ladder pool. No obvious (serious) flaws that I can see at first glance.
Beautiful aesthetic work aswell, per usual!
|
On February 10 2012 22:56 Irratonalys wrote:
excuse me if this is not a direct commet about the map (which looks awesome)
how did you create these smooth white lines around the grass textures?
Those are actually decals. I believe they can be found by searching "decal" in the doodad menu- you just have to take a while to rotate them correctly and place them in line.
|
The aesthetics are wonderful, I love both the colors and all the little details.
Blizzard mapmakers should be ashamed.
About the map balance I am not good enough to suggest anything, sadly.
The only question I have is about the Xel'naga towers' range.
How far do they reach? How many ways for a land army (let's say spawning position bottom-left) to sneak past an opponent who control 2 of them?
|
Seems hard to simultaneously defend a third and your nat. I think zerg woul dbe strong on this map because of that.
Also, terran would really benefit from drop play in the high ground above the third.
I think if the minerals at the third were tucked on the main base side instead of away from the main base, that would make it better. I would then suggest adding a second ramp to where the 4th is (in the location that the minerals at the third currently are)
I would maybe suggest havint the gas at the nat tucked closer to the main, rather than the space side. mutas are already pretty strong. Easy gas target does not seem necessary.
The things i like:
The main base is great. lots of room. good ramp size and positioning to the nat.
Nat is good, looks like can be blocked with 3 3x3 buildings.
I really like the aesthetics of this map. I have always been partial to grass maps.
I think spawn positions should always force cross spawn, but up to you.
|
My Zerg heart BLEEDS from seeing the elektroshocked Ultralisk and the Hydralisk tied on the Desk with all the blood Q_Q
Why would you tie a Hydralisk? it would need 2 years to get out of the Room without Creep enyway ...
(Great Map tho and i love all those optic extras! If this aint the next Tournament map i will be sad)
|
On February 11 2012 00:45 Roxy wrote:
I dont like it.
Seems hard to simultaneously defend a third and your nat. I think zerg woul dbe strong on this map because of that.
Also, terran would really benefit from drop play in the high ground above the third.
I think if the minerals at the third were tucked on the main base side instead of away from the main base, that would make it better. I would then suggest adding a second ramp to where the 4th is (in the location that the minerals at the third currently are)
I think the third might be too easy to hold, as you can hold both the third and the nat from a small area, especially with help from building wall-offs.
|
On February 11 2012 01:10 VoirDire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 00:45 Roxy wrote:
I dont like it.
Seems hard to simultaneously defend a third and your nat. I think zerg woul dbe strong on this map because of that.
Also, terran would really benefit from drop play in the high ground above the third.
I think if the minerals at the third were tucked on the main base side instead of away from the main base, that would make it better. I would then suggest adding a second ramp to where the 4th is (in the location that the minerals at the third currently are) I think the third might be too easy to hold, as you can hold both the third and the nat from a small area, especially with help from building wall-offs.
My primary concern would be mutalisks. If they go mutas, you are not taking a third base on the map the way it is. pain and simple.
I disagree that it is too much of an advantage. All of the spaces that you would need to be defending (speaking from a protoss point of view) are about 8 forcefields wide. It is pretty wide open, so it is not like you could expand too agressively or else you would just get over-run
|
This is a pretty cool map. I especially like the decision players have to make between the clockwise and counterclockwise third: do they take the closer counterclockwise base with the weakness to the high ground, or the farther away clockwise base that sits upon its own high ground? I can see the answer to that question working out differently based on your race and starting position.
Out of curiosity, have you ever considered messing around with expansion resource counts to see what would happen? We take the 8 blue mins 2 gas as a given, but it might be interesting to see how the game plays out with different combinations. As a high-ranking mapmaker, you're perhaps in the best position to experiment with those values. I'd be interested to see whatever you and everyone else in ESV come up with.
Hell, there might even be a way to make gold minerals not only balanced but also beneficial to map design.
|
SoCal8910 Posts
wow i like this one a lot. natural feels very secure, 3rd has a high ground above it for harassment opportunities.
would be interested to play on it! keep up the great work.
(PS: vicious - reminds me of Bebop )
|
Have you guys considered putting the logos of your sponsors as kind of easter-eggs on your maps?
i think this would be a good way to support your sponsors (and eventually make you more in demend and receive higher money from sponsors)
also, some other guy who i dont remember (so i cant give him credit) suggested adding notes to the loading screen.
IE, you would just have text instructions that says:
- depot at bottom of ramp
- cross positions only
hell, you could even put rush distance information on the map as an FYI
|
Really interested by how people will take their third.
Also generally: Not sure why sc2 map makers fetishize the empty space behind bases. I think that's something that has degraded the quality of sc2 maps. Maps like BW Matchpoint of Chepoung ryong or heart break ridge all allowed muta/drop harass but there was more risk to it. The empty space lets a drop ship just... idle there or mutas face minimal risk darting in and out.
About "rotational imbalance" I don't think it's too big a deal but maybe editing the available drop space might be a way to softly neuter that problem?
|
I was wondering one more thing:
Have map makers ever experimented with having gates?
Im thinking along the lines of at your natural, you can have a space that is 3 3x3 buildings wide plus 1 space where you cant put buildings. That space operates similar to a lowered depot (but in true xel-naga fashion, is indestructible).
There can be a trigger somewhere inside the natrual where you can place a unit on the space to make that gate lift up (if no unit is on it, the gate stays down)
I think that would be an interesting way of making it so you can have a full wall-off of buildings with more health, but still be able to get out with destroying one of your own buildings. Obviuosly it requries more micro to operate the wall though.
|
On February 11 2012 01:43 Sabu113 wrote:
Really interested by how people will take their third.
Also generally: Not sure why sc2 map makers fetishize the empty space behind bases. I think that's something that has degraded the quality of sc2 maps. Maps like BW Matchpoint of Chepoung ryong or heart break ridge all allowed muta/drop harass but there was more risk to it. The empty space lets a drop ship just... idle there or mutas face minimal risk darting in and out.
About "rotational imbalance" I don't think it's too big a deal but maybe editing the available drop space might be a way to softly neuter that problem?
There's not enough airspace behind any of the bases to prevent ground units from reaching them (aside from hanging out between the nat and 4th)
On February 11 2012 01:13 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 01:10 VoirDire wrote:On February 11 2012 00:45 Roxy wrote:
I dont like it.
Seems hard to simultaneously defend a third and your nat. I think zerg woul dbe strong on this map because of that.
Also, terran would really benefit from drop play in the high ground above the third.
I think if the minerals at the third were tucked on the main base side instead of away from the main base, that would make it better. I would then suggest adding a second ramp to where the 4th is (in the location that the minerals at the third currently are) I think the third might be too easy to hold, as you can hold both the third and the nat from a small area, especially with help from building wall-offs. My primary concern would be mutalisks. If they go mutas, you are not taking a third base on the map the way it is. pain and simple. I disagree that it is too much of an advantage. All of the spaces that you would need to be defending (speaking from a protoss point of view) are about 8 forcefields wide. It is pretty wide open, so it is not like you could expand too agressively or else you would just get over-run
...? all of the ramps or choke points are 4 perfectly placed force fields or 5 slightly misplaced force fields
On February 10 2012 22:56 Irratonalys wrote:
excuse me if this is not a direct commet about the map (which looks awesome)
how did you create these smooth white lines around the grass textures?
Decal doodad (used over 1000 times)
On February 10 2012 22:53 Stips wrote:The aesthetics is really nice! Can Protoss cannons hit mining drones? Or marines in a bunker (+1 range)? Siege tanks? (I'm quite sure they can?) + Show Spoiler +
Yes, all of this is intentional
Have map makers ever experimented with having gates?
This is redundant with current setups. Terran can just make their supply depot, Protoss (and even Zerg) can choose to set up a wall as usual and put a Zealot or a Roach or something in the last remaining hole effectively functioning as a gate anyway. Need more health? add more units or more buildings
|
My comment about the forcefields was just meaning that there isnt a chance in hell you can infinitely forcefield to keep an army away from you on this map (past the ramp at the main).
I think that the grass entrance to the third is a little larger than 4 FF wide though. (perhaps 4 on each side of that thing that i dont know what words to use to identify it)
|
Please add to ladder, now. :D
|
This map looks amazing, I'm getting a Trackmania Nations feel from it. ^^
Third base is interesting to take, especially against Terran.
|
This looks like a really good macro map. Blizzard, get your testicles on the right fucking occasion! (put this community map in to the ladder pool, and +10 internet points for anyone who gets that reference)
|
United States10158 Posts
solid map with an alternate 3rd incase of bad spawning locations. beautiful.
|
This map looks absolutely gorgeous. The grass borders in particular, along with most other textures really pop like crazy and give this map a completely different feel. Nothing in this map feels bland or tacked on, the attention to detail is awesome, this is just a beautiful map.
|
also, some other guy who i dont remember (so i cant give him credit) suggested adding notes to the loading screen.
IE, you would just have text instructions that says:
- depot at bottom of ramp
- cross positions only
I didn't see this post but I used to do this on all of my maps. 99% of players ended up not reading them at all and every time I make a change I'd have to update the loading screen
|
Can't say much for balance until I playtest it but aesthetically its AMAZING! good job
|
your Country52797 Posts
Decal doodad (used over 1000 times)
Ahhhh.
Very nice aesthetics. Good use of the decals.
|
pretty solid map, but that nat setup is getting old
|
Fantastic, as always! We'll have to play on it a bunch and maybe we'll use it in our next NeSPA tournament map pool. Keep up the great work!
|
On February 12 2012 06:24 SpaceYeti wrote:Fantastic, as always! We'll have to play on it a bunch and maybe we'll use it in our next NeSPA tournament map pool. Keep up the great work!
Let me know if you do!
|
So you know those rocks that are on the clockwise nat ramps? Could those possibly be moved to the other side of that same ramp? That way the choke size stays the same but the rush distance to the third is a little shorter (because right now it is rather long). I don't know if it's necessary, but I think it might help... unless you had some other motive for putting the rocks there that I'm not seeing. o.o
Anyway, great looking map. I like the layout and the aesthetics are very fun and interesting. A very pleasurable map.
|
is this on KR/TW yet? love to play some games on it.
|
Awesome map dude! I'm actually just posting to ask you how excited you are for the new album next tuesday?
I've been waiting like 8 months for this and this last week is killing me!!!!!!!
All in all though I think this map should be on ladder lol
|
How far does the Xelnaga towers' range extend?
|
The map is extremly beautiful... I just wonder what would happen if the second entrance to the natural would be removed, and you could only go in through the third...
|
On February 22 2012 00:59 c_kAelle wrote:is this on KR/TW yet? love to play some games on it.
Our KR account got all borked so no, not yet :<
On February 22 2012 02:29 Ollie wrote:
How far does the Xelnaga towers' range extend?
To the edges of the ramps leading to the 4th's (Basically the entire lowground path).
On February 22 2012 02:15 Broodie wrote:
Awesome map dude! I'm actually just posting to ask you how excited you are for the new album next tuesday?
I've been waiting like 8 months for this and this last week is killing me!!!!!!!
All in all though I think this map should be on ladder lol
I can't fucking wait. Unless Time comes out this year (which it's looking like it will, i've probably listened to shitty low-quality re-masters of Way of the Fire a thousand times already) I think this album is a strong contender for my favorite metal album of 2012 8)
|
Sick map. Maybe the best yet.
|
will be ladder or tournament map? so beautiful
|
Bump! Because it got into Dreamhack!!!
|
On April 04 2012 05:02 DYEAlabaster wrote:
Bump! Because it got into Dreamhack!!!
W00t! Nice to see all the community made maps at Dreamhack.
|
On March 26 2012 11:47 c_kAelle wrote:
will be ladder or tournament map? so beautiful
Why yes, yes it will.
ATTN: I'm in the process of moving all of my competitive maps to the ESVMaps account but I just reinstalled my OS + as we all know bnet is very wonky. This could take 30 seconds or 30 days.
EDIT: Map is now published on NA as ESV Vicious 1.1
+ Show Spoiler [why name it 1.1?] +The bnet name directory is, simply put, broken. After deleting a map it takes an unpredictable amount of time for the name list to update and for bnet to recognize there no longer is a map with that same name. The only way to get around this is to wait; or to upload with a different name. Since this is version 1.1 (see changelog, basically rocks were removed) it's logical to add 1.1 to the end of the name to get around this bug.
EDIT 2: Map is now published on NA, EU, SEA and KR under the name ESV Vicious 1.1 on the account ESVMaps - Please use this version!!!
|
|
|
On April 04 2012 08:28 Barrin wrote:
grats on dreamhack :DDD
Thx :D I know a map like this isn't your thing so that means a lot~
|
Grats ProdiG and ESV!
Love costume maps taking over tourneys and ladder
|
On April 04 2012 08:43 prodiG wrote:Thx :D I know a map like this isn't your thing so that means a lot~
Just a quick question- How do the graphics scale with the settings? It's a very doodad/aesthetic heavy map.... How does that affect lower end pcs and ppl playing on low?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Sorry prodiG, but I think this map will play out no better than Antiga as it still retains a lot of the bad features of the map and its only benefit is that the 4th is more accessible (but third is less accessible :x )
|
On April 04 2012 17:32 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 08:43 prodiG wrote:On April 04 2012 08:28 Barrin wrote:
grats on dreamhack :DDD Thx :D I know a map like this isn't your thing so that means a lot~ Just a quick question- How do the graphics scale with the settings? It's a very doodad/aesthetic heavy map.... How does that affect lower end pcs and ppl playing on low?
The vast majority of the doodads are 2D/sprite based so unless your video card is made out of ham and has absolutely no VRAM you should be fine
(ie if you can play other maps this should be fine)
On April 04 2012 17:49 Plexa wrote:
Sorry prodiG, but I think this map will play out no better than Antiga as it still retains a lot of the bad features of the map and its only benefit is that the 4th is more accessible (but third is less accessible :x )
I disagree. The biggest problem with Antiga is that the mains are exposed to the middle of the map, making them very easy for things like blink and drop play to be abused. On top of that, I don't feel like the center expansions work all that well on Antiga.
This map's most experimental feature is the extremely powerful Xel'Naga Towers, something that I definitely think sets it apart from Antiga Shipyard quite a bit.
The Korean Weekly S3 starts up shortly and this map is in the first week map pool. I'll know a lot more after being able to watch a handful of pro games on it outside of testing (you could very well be right!)
|
cool map prodig, you have made a new fan today
|
What is the bug that they are talking about at DreamHack?
|
|
|
No idea. Must be leggit if the admins decided to force a map-change.
|
|
|
Ouch, ThorZaIN killed this map. Sorry ProdiG, I really liked it except for the tileset.
|
Google knows nothing about the bug either.
|
[23:15] <Batcha> one of the mineral patches on the map has +1 more than normally
|
sucks when an ESV map makes it into Dreamhack and then ... this :/
|
Russian Federation484 Posts
I call bullshit on this one. Why didn't he said anything to anybody before final? He played on it vs Roll in Group Stage #3.
|
On April 23 2012 06:20 chuDr3t4 wrote:
I call bullshit on this one. Why didn't he said anything to anybody before final? He played on it vs Roll in Group Stage #3.
That may be where he discovered this bug. This is actually the only explanation I can think of, hence no one knowing what it is.
|
On April 23 2012 06:18 Griznah wrote:
[23:15] <Batcha> one of the mineral patches on the map has +1 more than normally
are you kidding?
|
Russian Federation484 Posts
On April 23 2012 06:20 Durn wrote:That may be where he discovered this bug. This is actually the only explanation I can think of, hence no one knowing what it is.
So he discovers it and doesn't report to admins immediately after? Wow.
|
We are already looking into the bug, mineral and gas counts are correct.
|
Batcha was just fucking around on IRC, I can't believe someone quoted that here.
|
On April 23 2012 06:22 chuDr3t4 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 06:20 Durn wrote:That may be where he discovered this bug. This is actually the only explanation I can think of, hence no one knowing what it is. So he discovers it and doesn't report to admins immediately after? Wow.
Hard to say. In a Bo3, he may have forgotten about it in the heat of his run. I'm not trying to defend him, maybe just justify a possible explanation. I think it was pretty silly. That being said, it's not really of too much consequence.
|
Isn't it possible he discovered it in game? Something with the building layout like you cant wall your ramp or something like that? He wouldn't have known from the previous game if he didn't spawn in that position.
|
why would he let them start if he found the bug beforehand, i'm guessing there was something off about how the gas or minerals operated in whichever base he was in, as i don't believe either player had started scouting yet
edit: i agree with the above poster, that was so annoying on the map that was desert tileset in season 4, forget the name, the different ramps walled differently
|
If anyone has any TANGIBLE information as to why he called a bug on the map I'd appreciate it a lot. All hands are on deck from ESV right now and we have yet to be able to replicate anything that looks out of place.
Note: All bases on the map are 8m2g, 12,000 minerals total. I can confirm this isn't the problem on my end, loading EU client now
|
Reddit says that this map deletes workers randomly. Not sure what to think about this.
|
On April 23 2012 06:18 Griznah wrote:
[23:15] <Batcha> one of the mineral patches on the map has +1 more than normally
srsly? No way.
|
On April 23 2012 06:35 metho wrote:
Reddit says that this map deletes workers randomly. Not sure what to think about this.
shouldn't that be verifable by looking at the vods? you'd see thorzain's supply randomly drop by 1
|
On April 23 2012 06:36 Coramoor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 06:35 metho wrote:
Reddit says that this map deletes workers randomly. Not sure what to think about this. shouldn't that be verifable by looking at the vods? you'd see thorzain's supply randomly drop by 1
That's not possible without triggers and if true is not a problem with the map but a problem with the game itself. What may have happened is there's a bug in the terrain somewhere causing units to fall under the map but I can't see it so far.
|
The dissapearing workers is an epicxD 4chan troll. Don't focus too much on it.
|
|
|
that's a solid bug, i don't get unbuildable terrain, there are random spots on daybreak you can't build things for no reason as well
|
Found it, it's in the screenshot. It looked fine in the editor and I must have missed it in testing.
In Editor]
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CrbmG.jpg)
In game - Thx to S1eth
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X7DcT.jpg)
Fixed, uploading now - The generator doodad just needed to have its pathing footprint disabled despite the editor not indicating it was a problem. I honestly don't know how we missed this in testing but rest assured it will never happen again, we're tightening our testing protocols a LOT more after this given how unreliable the editor can be for information like this.
|
On April 23 2012 06:44 S1eth wrote:
you can still drop the supply depot 2 hexes down for a full wall off with the same buildings.
|
Still a solid wall though.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aaFKF.jpg)
|
On April 23 2012 06:50 Tivoniol wrote:you can still drop the supply depot 2 hexes down for a full wall off with the same buildings.
you shouldn't have to though i suppose it the point and a different position creates different vulerabilities
|
On April 23 2012 06:50 Tivoniol wrote:
you can still drop the supply depot 2 hexes down for a full wall off with the same buildings.
But doubt that Thorzain will settle for that during a finals game. Not really a chance you would like to take. So if he experienced that when building his wall, it is fully understandable. Aswell as why he didn't say anything after playing on it earlier or before this game...
|
Wait so is that terrain you can walk over but can't build buildings on? Wouldn't that be super useful on the bottom of ramps instead of those neutral supply depots?
|
Well this explains why he didn't find it in his previous game on this map. Probably spawned somewhere else and noone walls off another main lol.
@starcraft2dotno I doubt he thought of that during game 2 in a finals on home turf.
"Can't wall, what is this. PAUSE"
|
Those neutral supply depots are there so you can't build there at the start of the game (ie. protoss/terran walling his opponent in his main). It can be destroyed and you can build on that spot later on.
|
On April 23 2012 06:53 jeeneeus wrote:
Wait so is that terrain you can walk over but can't build buildings on? Wouldn't that be super useful on the bottom of ramps instead of those neutral supply depots?
a dropped down supply depot has the same effect and makes it more visual. You wouldnt want people to commit to 2 rax thinking you could wall of the ramp and then discover there is some invisible blocker.
Thats why the depot is perfect for this, also the depot can be killed of by the respective owner of the ramp later on.
|
It's so ugly though  . But this is probably the wrong thread to discuss that.
|
On April 23 2012 06:47 prodiG wrote:
Fixed, uploading now - The generator doodad just needed to have its pathing footprint disabled despite the editor not indicating it was a problem. I honestly don't know how we missed this in testing but rest assured it will never happen again, we're tightening our testing protocols a LOT more after this given how unreliable the editor can be for information like this.
The footprint for doodads (and everything else) is not applied until they are loaded when the game starts, overwriting painted pathing. This is why you can't detect pathing problems due to footprints unless you're in a test or real game. Placing units/buildings in the editor does not show you where you have footprint blockage. (Same thing happened on your rocky beaches on the early version of that other map several months ago.)
imo all pathing should be painted and all doodads should be set to no-footprint, otherwise you deal with multiple layers of sometimes conflicting pathing information.
Really unfortunate didn't get to see that game, sry ESV and prodig. =[
|
On April 23 2012 06:50 Tivoniol wrote:you can still drop the supply depot 2 hexes down for a full wall off with the same buildings.
in TvT yes, but in ZvT lings will squeeze through diagonal holes.
|
On April 23 2012 07:02 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 06:47 prodiG wrote:
Fixed, uploading now - The generator doodad just needed to have its pathing footprint disabled despite the editor not indicating it was a problem. I honestly don't know how we missed this in testing but rest assured it will never happen again, we're tightening our testing protocols a LOT more after this given how unreliable the editor can be for information like this. The footprint for doodads (and everything else) is not applied until they are loaded when the game starts, overwriting painted pathing. This is why you can't detect pathing problems due to footprints unless you're in a test or real game. Placing units/buildings in the editor does not show you where you have footprint blockage. (Same thing happened on your rocky beaches on the early version of that other map several months ago.) imo all pathing should be painted and all doodads should be set to no-footprint, otherwise you deal with multiple layers of sometimes conflicting pathing information. Really unfortunate didn't get to see that game, sry ESV and prodig. =[
That's probably the best straight-forward solution, yeah. Pathing paint has a great way of not showing up in the editor for me half the time either so I still think it's equally unreliable. The terrain in the editor appears as red/unpathable on the same level of terrain, not the level above which is what happened in the case of this 2x2 generator doodad - it influenced the pathing on the above cliff level without an in-editor visual representation.
At the end of the day, the lesson to be learned here is the editor has many shortcomings and they need to be accounted for in testing. I tested the terrain geometry of the ramps themselves originally before applying doodads to make sure the space behind the ramp was as intended but didn't test every single spawn location and ramp.You can place blame on the editor but at the end of the day it was my fault for not testing this location correctly and I apologize to Thorzain, Polt, Dreamhack and everyone watching at home and sincerely hope that this does not affect your impression of ESV in the future. We are actively working to impose even more strict testing requirements before tagging a map "ESV" in the future.
|
On April 23 2012 07:11 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 07:02 EatThePath wrote:On April 23 2012 06:47 prodiG wrote:
Fixed, uploading now - The generator doodad just needed to have its pathing footprint disabled despite the editor not indicating it was a problem. I honestly don't know how we missed this in testing but rest assured it will never happen again, we're tightening our testing protocols a LOT more after this given how unreliable the editor can be for information like this. The footprint for doodads (and everything else) is not applied until they are loaded when the game starts, overwriting painted pathing. This is why you can't detect pathing problems due to footprints unless you're in a test or real game. Placing units/buildings in the editor does not show you where you have footprint blockage. (Same thing happened on your rocky beaches on the early version of that other map several months ago.) imo all pathing should be painted and all doodads should be set to no-footprint, otherwise you deal with multiple layers of sometimes conflicting pathing information. Really unfortunate didn't get to see that game, sry ESV and prodig. =[ That's probably the best straight-forward solution, yeah. Pathing paint has a great way of not showing up in the editor for me half the time either so I still think it's equally unreliable. The terrain in the editor appears as red/unpathable on the same level of terrain, not the level above which is what happened in the case of this 2x2 generator doodad - it influenced the pathing on the above cliff level without an in-editor visual representation. At the end of the day, the lesson to be learned here is the editor has many shortcomings and they need to be accounted for in testing. I tested the terrain geometry of the ramps themselves originally before applying doodads to make sure the space behind the ramp was as intended but didn't test every single spawn location and ramp.You can place blame on the editor but at the end of the day it was my fault for not testing this location correctly and I apologize to Thorzain, Polt, Dreamhack and everyone watching at home and sincerely hope that this does not affect your impression of ESV in the future. We are actively working to impose even more strict testing requirements before tagging a map "ESV" in the future.
Problem can be fixed as you guys will do at least someone found it. Your a human being sometimes you make a mistake. We're not robots that can be programmed to do everything perfectly. Shouldn't be a lot of flaming to come from it. At least now you can add that to your check list of things to do as a map tester. Hopefully you don't get discouraged about this one little bug that was found and keep making maps. :D
|
On April 23 2012 07:40 Random_Guy09 wrote:
Problem can be fixed as you guys will do at least someone found it. Your a human being sometimes you make a mistake. We're not robots that can be programmed to do everything perfectly. Shouldn't be a lot of flaming to come from it. At least now you can add that to your check list of things to do as a map tester. Hopefully you don't get discouraged about this one little bug that was found and keep making maps. :D
I agree mistakes happen, but with our maps being used worldwide we need to implement stricter testing. It's pretty strong testing as is but some simple things like making sure wall offs work right were getting skipped.
We will fix it, and we will learn from it
|
The only issue I find is the expos behind the thirds... siege abuse to the max.
|
I dislike the fourth design. Half the time it's actually a bad idea to attack it because there's only one entrance/exit and it's SO big. Sandwiching units in there just seems like something that's too strong of a defense for a base like a fourth.
|
Second resources fields are very dangerous. Because of the 2nd floor behind them. If 1 time vs 11 time, 1 time can't get there, and 3 time resources field that he don't want to get because it is so far from main base.
|
On April 23 2012 13:25 HuRoMap wrote:
Second resources fields are very dangerous. Because of the 2nd floor behind them. If 1 time vs 11 time, 1 time can't get there, and 3 time resources field that he don't want to get because it is so far from main base.
I disagree. In this scenario, the 3'oclock was designed in such a way that you would still have to be physically controlling the same amount of space on the map in order to hold the expansion safely as you would by taking the lowground 3rd expansion. The key is the Xel'Naga Towers. They are positioned in such a way that when taking a third expansion, having your army out on the map is absolutely mandatory in order to keep the expansion alive. The idea is that this will lead into intense games around that third base timing and stay intense until the end (and I think the ESVTV Korean Weekly and Dreamhack this weekend has shown that this effect is achieved quite well).
You are right that they are dangerous. They were intended to be dangerous. The map hinges on not-so-safe third expansions that forces players to be active on the map instead of parking their army between their 3rd and nat until they are maxed and 3/3 ups.
You are also correct in that the 3'oclock expansion is quite far from the main base. This is intended to be offset by the fact that this is a dead-end expansion and if you control the ramp leading into this area, the expansion is not vulnerable to attacks by ground and can only be hit by some form of air circling around the outer rim of the map, outside the Xel'Naga Tower's control range. When players commit ground forces to attacking this expansion, almost every time I've seen those units will not make it out of the area alive as the defending player simply waits belwo the ramp for the army to come out.
|
On April 23 2012 07:43 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 07:40 Random_Guy09 wrote:
Problem can be fixed as you guys will do at least someone found it. Your a human being sometimes you make a mistake. We're not robots that can be programmed to do everything perfectly. Shouldn't be a lot of flaming to come from it. At least now you can add that to your check list of things to do as a map tester. Hopefully you don't get discouraged about this one little bug that was found and keep making maps. :D I agree mistakes happen, but with our maps being used worldwide we need to implement stricter testing. It's pretty strong testing as is but some simple things like making sure wall offs work right were getting skipped. We will fix it, and we will learn from it
Given what happened with Vicious at Dreamhack, do you feel that this will hamper the validity of using 'non-tested' maps in major tournaments?
It seemed more a liability than a boon to have these maps in the first place...
|
On April 24 2012 18:17 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 07:43 Diamond wrote:On April 23 2012 07:40 Random_Guy09 wrote:
Problem can be fixed as you guys will do at least someone found it. Your a human being sometimes you make a mistake. We're not robots that can be programmed to do everything perfectly. Shouldn't be a lot of flaming to come from it. At least now you can add that to your check list of things to do as a map tester. Hopefully you don't get discouraged about this one little bug that was found and keep making maps. :D I agree mistakes happen, but with our maps being used worldwide we need to implement stricter testing. It's pretty strong testing as is but some simple things like making sure wall offs work right were getting skipped. We will fix it, and we will learn from it Given what happened with Vicious at Dreamhack, do you feel that this will hamper the validity of using 'non-tested' maps in major tournaments? It seemed more a liability than a boon to have these maps in the first place...
It will, but the more important thing to take away from DH is that no pros like playing on maps they don't know. I watched a fair bit (not all of, tbf) the series, and saw about three maps on vicious and one on the snow one. I don't blame them for chosing maps they're familiar with, however, what can we do about it? Props to the ESV weekly for having a pool of fresh maps, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have Cloud Kingdom rocking GSL, MLG, DH, ladder, et al. But it would be unfair to have, say, a large LAN on a small pool of only new and (comparatively) unestablished maps. Weeklys and longer seasons can adjust around changes better (eg: the swift removal of calm before storm from GSL), so I'd like to see more variation in things like playhem and go4sc2
|
On April 24 2012 21:22 bbm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 18:17 DYEAlabaster wrote:On April 23 2012 07:43 Diamond wrote:On April 23 2012 07:40 Random_Guy09 wrote:
Problem can be fixed as you guys will do at least someone found it. Your a human being sometimes you make a mistake. We're not robots that can be programmed to do everything perfectly. Shouldn't be a lot of flaming to come from it. At least now you can add that to your check list of things to do as a map tester. Hopefully you don't get discouraged about this one little bug that was found and keep making maps. :D I agree mistakes happen, but with our maps being used worldwide we need to implement stricter testing. It's pretty strong testing as is but some simple things like making sure wall offs work right were getting skipped. We will fix it, and we will learn from it Given what happened with Vicious at Dreamhack, do you feel that this will hamper the validity of using 'non-tested' maps in major tournaments? It seemed more a liability than a boon to have these maps in the first place... It will, but the more important thing to take away from DH is that no pros like playing on maps they don't know. I watched a fair bit (not all of, tbf) the series, and saw about three maps on vicious and one on the snow one. I don't blame them for chosing maps they're familiar with, however, what can we do about it? Props to the ESV weekly for having a pool of fresh maps, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have Cloud Kingdom rocking GSL, MLG, DH, ladder, et al. But it would be unfair to have, say, a large LAN on a small pool of only new and (comparatively) unestablished maps. Weeklys and longer seasons can adjust around changes better (eg: the swift removal of calm before storm from GSL), so I'd like to see more variation in things like playhem and go4sc2
The thing that bothers me most is the reaction that pros such as Sase and Naniwa has towards these maps. They outright scorned the organization for using new maps. I'll remind you that Cloud Kingdom didn't work through the ESV weekly- rather, Team Liquid helped make that map what it is (along with KC, and Ohana... all the 'tournament' ESV maps)
So I'm not sure if ESV is successful, or if Team Liquid is good for marketing and quality control. Results at DreamHack speak to the latter, and I wanted to have Diamond's/ProdiG's thoughts on that. We can see from how Morrow/Sase got screwed because they felt they needed to veto different maps and instantly got gibbed on these maps, etc., or the above error. Just wondering about what ESV feels about their own validity after a slap in the face like this.
|
On April 24 2012 21:29 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 21:22 bbm wrote:On April 24 2012 18:17 DYEAlabaster wrote:On April 23 2012 07:43 Diamond wrote:On April 23 2012 07:40 Random_Guy09 wrote:
Problem can be fixed as you guys will do at least someone found it. Your a human being sometimes you make a mistake. We're not robots that can be programmed to do everything perfectly. Shouldn't be a lot of flaming to come from it. At least now you can add that to your check list of things to do as a map tester. Hopefully you don't get discouraged about this one little bug that was found and keep making maps. :D I agree mistakes happen, but with our maps being used worldwide we need to implement stricter testing. It's pretty strong testing as is but some simple things like making sure wall offs work right were getting skipped. We will fix it, and we will learn from it Given what happened with Vicious at Dreamhack, do you feel that this will hamper the validity of using 'non-tested' maps in major tournaments? It seemed more a liability than a boon to have these maps in the first place... It will, but the more important thing to take away from DH is that no pros like playing on maps they don't know. I watched a fair bit (not all of, tbf) the series, and saw about three maps on vicious and one on the snow one. I don't blame them for chosing maps they're familiar with, however, what can we do about it? Props to the ESV weekly for having a pool of fresh maps, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have Cloud Kingdom rocking GSL, MLG, DH, ladder, et al. But it would be unfair to have, say, a large LAN on a small pool of only new and (comparatively) unestablished maps. Weeklys and longer seasons can adjust around changes better (eg: the swift removal of calm before storm from GSL), so I'd like to see more variation in things like playhem and go4sc2 The thing that bothers me most is the reaction that pros such as Sase and Naniwa has towards these maps. They outright scorned the organization for using new maps. I'll remind you that Cloud Kingdom didn't work through the ESV weekly- rather, Team Liquid helped make that map what it is (along with KC, and Ohana... all the 'tournament' ESV maps) So I'm not sure if ESV is successful, or if Team Liquid is good for marketing and quality control. Results at DreamHack speak to the latter, and I wanted to have Diamond's/ProdiG's thoughts on that. We can see from how Morrow/Sase got screwed because they felt they needed to veto different maps and instantly got gibbed on these maps, etc., or the above error. Just wondering about what ESV feels about their own validity after a slap in the face like this.
ESV's validity? As the only foreign organization still standing to make a dent in the terrible map pool by blizzard? As the admins of an immensely popular tournament in the Korean weekly? As the guys who are fighting to keep SC2 fresh and entertaining despite receiving no praise when they succeed and heaps of scorn when they have a slip-up?
The issue here is that without community support, new maps can't get tested. And pro players don't play on maps they don't have to. This means ESV has to supply in-house all the testing it can for a map, but when you've got a team of mappers churning out new map concepts, there's no way you can test everything. In this case, the mapper did double check the map, and a known graphical bug in the editor invalidated his check. To me, the mapper did practice due diligence. And if the community ever got behind mappers instead of alternating between ignoring them and dumping on them, this bug wouldn't have affected any games.
The only way to get pros to change maps is to force them. And the only way to have enough leverage to force them is to either pay them or withhold pay (in the form of enforced games on new maps). ESV has tried paying them, with the Korean Weekly, and its done well. You can see statistically that players who came up through the KW have an advantage over their Code A/S counterparts on these maps, because they've played them before. Non-GSL tournaments often leave map choice up to the players, and this causes new maps to always be ignored. Force the pros to play on new maps and they'll practice in advance, and any bugs would get caught in advance.
All that being said, of course Diamond is going to come out and accept full responsibility. He's a very upstanding guy and I'm sure he means it when he says testing will be even more rigorous than it already is.
|
The best way to fix part of this problem and to get pros to train and play on these maps would be alot smaller map pools. The DH map pool had 9 maps, impossible to practice every map for every matchup and you also will basically always veto out the new maps.
With a 5 map map pool pros could focus a lot more on each map in preperation and practice map specific strategies and then you would see games played on new maps and also you'd probably see more variety and higher quality in regards to the strategies used.
If you don't force the pros, they will play the same shit on the same maps forever.
|
I love the detail of these maps
|
On April 24 2012 21:52 iGrok wrote:
the mapper did double check the map, and a known graphical bug in the editor invalidated his check.
To me, the mapper did practice due diligence.
While I agree with everything you say, if it's a known graphical bug in the editor, then before you release it to tournaments (especially large ones with lots of eyes watching such as DH) you NEED to put extenisve time into testing it in game. This isn't the first time this has happened iirc (the map where you could drop/blink on a supposedly non pathable beach area).
Obviously, mistakes have been made, will be rectified, and hopefully we won't see this happen in the future. But if it was a known bug that pathing is glitched sometimes in the editor, I wouldn't say that vicious' release cycle was subject to due diligence in testing.
|
On April 24 2012 23:47 bbm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 21:52 iGrok wrote:
the mapper did double check the map, and a known graphical bug in the editor invalidated his check. While I agree with everything you say, if it's a known graphical bug in the editor, then before you release it to tournaments (especially large ones with lots of eyes watching such as DH) you NEED to put extenisve time into testing it in game. This isn't the first time this has happened iirc (the map where you could drop/blink on a supposedly non pathable beach area). Obviously, mistakes have been made, will be rectified, and hopefully we won't see this happen in the future. But if it was a known bug that pathing is glitched sometimes in the editor, I wouldn't say that vicious' release cycle was subject to due diligence in testing.
It's a known graphical error. But extremely difficult to detect. Basically, its the equivalent of finding both Bubbles the Powerpuff Girl toys in the below picture:
+ Show Spoiler +
Except in this case you can only use your hands and feel through the toys, while your eyes are blind.
prodiG said that he (as most mappers do and should) used a Copy/Paste method to make this map, and then tested one of the entrances. This should be more than sufficient, and if you had asked any mapper prior to this, they would have agreed that it was sufficient. Going forward, they know that Copy/Paste has even more issues than previously known, and can deal with that.
|
On April 23 2012 07:11 prodiG wrote:
That's probably the best straight-forward solution, yeah. Pathing paint has a great way of not showing up in the editor for me half the time either so I still think it's equally unreliable.
It happens to me a lot too ; it might not be the same problem, but I found painted pathing disappeared when I went from editor view to game view then switched back to editor view, in which it's supposed to appear but doesn't. The solution is to go back to another layer (terrain, units, doodads...) then back to pathing layer, where painted pathing should appear.
|
WEll THorzain seems to think this map is bugged. What is the issue with this map? What is the bug?
|
On April 24 2012 21:52 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 21:29 DYEAlabaster wrote:On April 24 2012 21:22 bbm wrote:On April 24 2012 18:17 DYEAlabaster wrote:On April 23 2012 07:43 Diamond wrote:On April 23 2012 07:40 Random_Guy09 wrote:
Problem can be fixed as you guys will do at least someone found it. Your a human being sometimes you make a mistake. We're not robots that can be programmed to do everything perfectly. Shouldn't be a lot of flaming to come from it. At least now you can add that to your check list of things to do as a map tester. Hopefully you don't get discouraged about this one little bug that was found and keep making maps. :D I agree mistakes happen, but with our maps being used worldwide we need to implement stricter testing. It's pretty strong testing as is but some simple things like making sure wall offs work right were getting skipped. We will fix it, and we will learn from it Given what happened with Vicious at Dreamhack, do you feel that this will hamper the validity of using 'non-tested' maps in major tournaments? It seemed more a liability than a boon to have these maps in the first place... It will, but the more important thing to take away from DH is that no pros like playing on maps they don't know. I watched a fair bit (not all of, tbf) the series, and saw about three maps on vicious and one on the snow one. I don't blame them for chosing maps they're familiar with, however, what can we do about it? Props to the ESV weekly for having a pool of fresh maps, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have Cloud Kingdom rocking GSL, MLG, DH, ladder, et al. But it would be unfair to have, say, a large LAN on a small pool of only new and (comparatively) unestablished maps. Weeklys and longer seasons can adjust around changes better (eg: the swift removal of calm before storm from GSL), so I'd like to see more variation in things like playhem and go4sc2 The thing that bothers me most is the reaction that pros such as Sase and Naniwa has towards these maps. They outright scorned the organization for using new maps. I'll remind you that Cloud Kingdom didn't work through the ESV weekly- rather, Team Liquid helped make that map what it is (along with KC, and Ohana... all the 'tournament' ESV maps) So I'm not sure if ESV is successful, or if Team Liquid is good for marketing and quality control. Results at DreamHack speak to the latter, and I wanted to have Diamond's/ProdiG's thoughts on that. We can see from how Morrow/Sase got screwed because they felt they needed to veto different maps and instantly got gibbed on these maps, etc., or the above error. Just wondering about what ESV feels about their own validity after a slap in the face like this. ESV's validity? As the only foreign organization still standing to make a dent in the terrible map pool by blizzard? As the admins of an immensely popular tournament in the Korean weekly? As the guys who are fighting to keep SC2 fresh and entertaining despite receiving no praise when they succeed and heaps of scorn when they have a slip-up? The issue here is that without community support, new maps can't get tested. And pro players don't play on maps they don't have to. This means ESV has to supply in-house all the testing it can for a map, but when you've got a team of mappers churning out new map concepts, there's no way you can test everything. In this case, the mapper did double check the map, and a known graphical bug in the editor invalidated his check. To me, the mapper did practice due diligence. And if the community ever got behind mappers instead of alternating between ignoring them and dumping on them, this bug wouldn't have affected any games. The only way to get pros to change maps is to force them. And the only way to have enough leverage to force them is to either pay them or withhold pay (in the form of enforced games on new maps). ESV has tried paying them, with the Korean Weekly, and its done well. You can see statistically that players who came up through the KW have an advantage over their Code A/S counterparts on these maps, because they've played them before. Non-GSL tournaments often leave map choice up to the players, and this causes new maps to always be ignored. Force the pros to play on new maps and they'll practice in advance, and any bugs would get caught in advance. All that being said, of course Diamond is going to come out and accept full responsibility. He's a very upstanding guy and I'm sure he means it when he says testing will be even more rigorous than it already is.
I agree completely. The only way to get pros to play new maps is to force them. If you're a pro player where your ability to perform is your lifeblood, why would you NOT want to run people over with that same Metalopolis build you invented a year ago?
That being said, my testing policy here wasn't thorough enough and I should have caught this before DreamHack. It would have been great if a player reported it to me before the finals, but I can't count on that to happen. I've said it quite a few times before in this thread and I'll say it again, ESV's testing policies are much more strict after this event.
Stuff like this is bound to happen at some point. Every other day we're discovering something new and broken about the editor and/or balance that we need to watch out for in the future. Simply put, we don't have the same resources that Blizzard does to avoid things like this, whether it be a full staffed QA testing team (that still managed to missed the FPS issues on Metropolis mind you, they're not perfect either) or the vast amount of balance data from the ladder. What we do have is some incredibly creative and intelligent minds designing brilliant maps that give a better SC2 experience overall. You have to take the good with the bad - and if you don't want to, enjoy playing Metalopolis for the next five years. I won't be around if that's the case.
|
It was a doodad causing the problem, right? The doodads aren't copy/paste, they are unique at each position.
The bug in the editor, I believe, is because the doodad footprint is different for pathing or building. Building footprints are displayed only on the build grid, in such a way that a 3x3 doodad always shows up as a 3x3 footprint when you turn the build grid on. However, the pathing footprint is on a grid 8x smaller than the build footprint. When the doodad loads in-game, it finds all the squares with are partially unpathable and makes them also unbuildable. The result is a 4x4 unbuildable area unless the doodad is centered on the build grid, which it always will be unless you ignore placement requirements.
When you look at the build grid, it only shows the unbuildable footprint provided by the doodad, and does not calculate buildability on squares based on the pathability painted onto them, whether painted by the doodad or by the mapper with the pathing brush tools. Maybe it should display that, as it would give a more game-accurate view.
So long as you check the pathing mesh, it shouldn't be too hard to detect, though. But in this case, it's right around the edge of a thick cliff which covers up the terrain, so it's understandable it was overlooked, although it's still inexcusable. Generally it's probably best to disable the footprint of most doodads and paint it by hand.
It really shouldn't be a matter of catching these things in testing after-the-fact, though, should it? I mean, that sort of testing is important before going to a big tournament, of course, but I think it would make more sense to be a little more thoughtful with each individual doodad placement so that these issues don't even get to the testing phase? Maybe that's just me, though, and it's more of an OCD kind of thing.
Anyway, I hope you guys get things worked out in the future, whether it's better testing, more care in placement or a better understanding of how doodad footprints work (whichever caused the issue,) and I'll look forward to more ESV maps.
Of course as a mapper and a spectator I'm in agreement about the mapping situation. The fact that a map got to a big tournament like this without anyone playing games on it ever before is a bit disturbing. There needs to be a better way of getting new maps in and making it worth it for players to practice them, because right now it seems hard for any map to be a success without being in GSL or ladder. Maybe kespa will start introducing maps with SC2 and they'll have a good system, but that probably wouldn't help foreign map makers very much.
|
On April 24 2012 22:22 Ragoo wrote:
The best way to fix part of this problem and to get pros to train and play on these maps would be alot smaller map pools. The DH map pool had 9 maps, impossible to practice every map for every matchup and you also will basically always veto out the new maps.
With a 5 map map pool pros could focus a lot more on each map in preperation and practice map specific strategies and then you would see games played on new maps and also you'd probably see more variety and higher quality in regards to the strategies used.
If you don't force the pros, they will play the same shit on the same maps forever.
I agree, but I don't understand why these big tournament orginizers don't stop using old and proven to be horrible out of their map pools like metalopalis for instance. It's not like it costas them money to do so.
|
On April 24 2012 23:55 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 23:47 bbm wrote:On April 24 2012 21:52 iGrok wrote:
the mapper did double check the map, and a known graphical bug in the editor invalidated his check. To me, the mapper did practice due diligence. While I agree with everything you say, if it's a known graphical bug in the editor, then before you release it to tournaments (especially large ones with lots of eyes watching such as DH) you NEED to put extenisve time into testing it in game. This isn't the first time this has happened iirc (the map where you could drop/blink on a supposedly non pathable beach area). Obviously, mistakes have been made, will be rectified, and hopefully we won't see this happen in the future. But if it was a known bug that pathing is glitched sometimes in the editor, I wouldn't say that vicious' release cycle was subject to due diligence in testing. It's a known graphical error. But extremely difficult to detect. Basically, its the equivalent of finding both Bubbles the Powerpuff Girl toys in the below picture: + Show Spoiler +
Testing each ramp ingame to see if it can be walled off normally should not take much time at all.
|
It is pretty much impossible to 100% prevent things like that from happening. Blizzard maps are the best proof of this. Several Blizzard maps are bugged/faulty and have been until today, like naturals on Antiga Shipyard.
The only difference is that a community map can get fixed within half an hour of noticing it. So  to ESV for offering best possible map support.
|
I can actually see the antiga base, and i must say this map looks really really cool. I like the dynamic that the sim city can provide in this map, and how it actually makes building placement even more NB, if i'm reading it right.
Sadly, i'm not a pro map maker, nor a pro, but just want to say this map is awesome
Can't wait to play it.
|
This bug was actually already noticed in the game FXO.GuMiho vs. oGs.jookTo, but I guess Gumiho didn't report it.
At least I assume that game was played before Dreamhack. I'm watching the rebroadcast of that match right now on ESV TV.
|
On April 25 2012 05:18 S1eth wrote:
This bug was actually already noticed in the game FXO.GuMiho vs. oGs.jookTo, but I guess Gumiho didn't report it.
At least I assume that game was played before Dreamhack. I'm watching the rebroadcast of that match right now on ESV TV.
Those matches were played before the fix was made and you're right, I guess they just didn't say anything.
|
|
|
Just fyi Vicious was in 2 weeks of the Korean Weekly prior to DH without the bug being reported. It was played on just this one issue was missed. Again I have implemented better QA to make sure this issue (or any issue we know exists) does not happen in the future.
Remember everyone we would like to have 500 pro games on each before a major tourney uses it, with both the map climate and the fact that mapmakers make $0, this is not possible. While I feel we could have done better, you can only expect so much from people that have to work full time jobs to support themselves and just do map making in all their spare time.
|
I just played this map a couple of times because it's currently 1v1 obs map of the day on europe and I have noticed some pretty frustrating things.
First off 1 of the gasses in the main is a lot farther away than the other one (there is actually 1 probe not in the assimilator when mining with 3). This made about a 7-15 gas difference in my build on the first 100 gas mined. There is a similar issue with a lot of maps but as far as I can judge it is the most extreme on this one.
Secondly, it seems like every natural entrance has a different wallin requirement. It varies from 3 gateways to 1 gateway 2 pylons. Now this may be due to walling at a different point but with the doodas it is extremely hard to judge exactly where your wall will be smallest.
All the other issues with the map aside (the close 3rd is not only extremely wide open but it can also be cliff-harrassed, really?) this just makes it infuriating to play. When you notice you just chronoboosted an empty gateway because you still need 10 gas for that stalker or that your wall is not tight it has a big psychological effect.
|
On April 25 2012 07:11 lazyo wrote:
I just played this map a couple of times because it's currently 1v1 obs map of the day on europe and I have noticed some pretty frustrating things.
First off 1 of the gasses in the main is a lot farther away than the other one (there is actually 1 probe not in the assimilator when mining with 3). This made about a 7-15 gas difference in my build on the first 100 gas mined. There is a similar issue with a lot of maps but as far as I can judge it is the most extreme on this one.
Secondly, it seems like every natural entrance has a different wallin requirement. It varies from 3 gateways to 1 gateway 2 pylons. Now this may be due to walling at a different point but with the doodas it is extremely hard to judge exactly where your wall will be smallest.
All the other issues with the map aside (the close 3rd is not only extremely wide open but it can also be cliff-harrassed, really?) this just makes it infuriating to play. When you notice you just chronoboosted an empty gateway because you still need 10 gas for that stalker or that your wall is not tight it has a big psychological effect.
You are taking the wrong 3rd then.
|
On April 25 2012 07:11 lazyo wrote:
I just played this map a couple of times because it's currently 1v1 obs map of the day on europe and I have noticed some pretty frustrating things.
First off 1 of the gasses in the main is a lot farther away than the other one (there is actually 1 probe not in the assimilator when mining with 3). This made about a 7-15 gas difference in my build on the first 100 gas mined. There is a similar issue with a lot of maps but as far as I can judge it is the most extreme on this one.
Secondly, it seems like every natural entrance has a different wallin requirement. It varies from 3 gateways to 1 gateway 2 pylons. Now this may be due to walling at a different point but with the doodas it is extremely hard to judge exactly where your wall will be smallest.
All the other issues with the map aside (the close 3rd is not only extremely wide open but it can also be cliff-harrassed, really?) this just makes it infuriating to play. When you notice you just chronoboosted an empty gateway because you still need 10 gas for that stalker or that your wall is not tight it has a big psychological effect.
I can re-arrange the geysers a little bit if this is the case, I'll look into it more thoroughly this evening.
All natural expansion chokes are 10 tiles wide. They can be blocked by gate gate forge, leaving a one tile wide lane for you to put your zealot. See the spoiler below and turn on the building placement guide in SC2.
What you described on the third is intentional. In order to safely hold a third, you need to be active in controlling the middle. The map is designed so that if your game plan is to sit back on 3 bases and turtle, you'll lose to anyone actively controlling the map. This is to entice constant conflict once players secure their natural expansions and 2-base economies.
+ Show Spoiler [protoss wallins] +
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On April 25 2012 07:40 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 07:11 lazyo wrote:
I just played this map a couple of times because it's currently 1v1 obs map of the day on europe and I have noticed some pretty frustrating things.
First off 1 of the gasses in the main is a lot farther away than the other one (there is actually 1 probe not in the assimilator when mining with 3). This made about a 7-15 gas difference in my build on the first 100 gas mined. There is a similar issue with a lot of maps but as far as I can judge it is the most extreme on this one.
Secondly, it seems like every natural entrance has a different wallin requirement. It varies from 3 gateways to 1 gateway 2 pylons. Now this may be due to walling at a different point but with the doodas it is extremely hard to judge exactly where your wall will be smallest.
All the other issues with the map aside (the close 3rd is not only extremely wide open but it can also be cliff-harrassed, really?) this just makes it infuriating to play. When you notice you just chronoboosted an empty gateway because you still need 10 gas for that stalker or that your wall is not tight it has a big psychological effect. I can re-arrange the geysers a little bit if this is the case, I'll look into it more thoroughly this evening. All natural expansion chokes are 10 tiles wide. They can be blocked by gate gate forge, leaving a one tile wide lane for you to put your zealot. See the spoiler below and turn on the building placement guide in SC2.What you described on the third is intentional. In order to safely hold a third, you need to be active in controlling the middle. The map is designed so that if your game plan is to sit back on 3 bases and turtle, you'll lose to anyone actively controlling the map. This is to entice constant conflict once players secure their natural expansions and 2-base economies. + Show Spoiler [protoss wallins] +
I love you
|
Watched the game between Genius and Puma in DH, and it exactly reflected my thought - too little space for decent sized army enagements. When I first saw this map I thought it's a Kulas Ravine 2.0. The maxed army of Genius and Puma could not move around the map due to overall narrowness. Both of them took turns losing their entire army (Note: maxed T/P army) when they tried to take out the semi-island expansions.
Not a fan of this map at all.
|
On April 25 2012 11:40 usethis2 wrote:
Watched the game between Genius and Puma in DH, and it exactly reflected my thought - too little space for decent sized army enagements. When I first saw this map I thought it's a Kulas Ravine 2.0. The maxed army of Genius and Puma could not move around the map due to overall narrowness. Both of them took turns losing their entire army (Note: maxed T/P army) when they tried to take out the semi-island expansions.
Not a fan of this map at all.
This map doesn't have semi-islands.
|
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured...
|
On April 25 2012 16:15 SoniC_eu wrote:
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured...
Really helpful comment, care to explain why?
And to usethis2, I think that's kind of the point of this map.
ProdiG said himself that this map is meant to be played actively after getting your natural.
That more or less implies that smaller groups of units will be more effective than 200/200 deathballs.
Shouldn't we be glad that someone is trying to make maps that attempt to combat the turtle-into-deathball-into-1A playstyles?
|
On April 25 2012 16:15 SoniC_eu wrote:
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured...
We've only ever created one Toss favored map in our history 0_O
|
This is the most absurdly positionally imbalanced map currently used in any pool. I have no idea how it got in, other than the fact that it's really pretty.
Needs to be made cross only, or removed from tournaments ASAP.
|
On April 27 2012 07:33 Syphon8 wrote:
This is the most absurdly positionally imbalanced map currently used in any pool. I have no idea how it got in, other than the fact that it's really pretty.
Needs to be made cross only, or removed from tournaments ASAP.
The amount of space you need to control in order to maintain a 3rd expansion safely is the same whether you take a lowground expansion or highground expansion in either direction.
You don't have to take the lowground expansion every game.
In other words, I disagree 8)
|
On April 27 2012 10:44 prodiG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 07:33 Syphon8 wrote:
This is the most absurdly positionally imbalanced map currently used in any pool. I have no idea how it got in, other than the fact that it's really pretty.
Needs to be made cross only, or removed from tournaments ASAP. The amount of space you need to control in order to maintain a 3rd expansion safely is the same whether you take a lowground expansion or highground expansion in either direction. You don't have to take the lowground expansion every game. In other words, I disagree 8)
To control the lowground expansion when it's far back, you need to control the high ground between it and your natural, and a small corridor off to the side of it
To control the highground expansion when it's far back you need to control the area below the elevated stage next to your natural... This lowground is directly exposed to the middle, meaning to ACTUALLY safely control that third you need to control the middle of the map, which is far, more space.
|
On April 28 2012 05:50 Syphon8 wrote:
To control the lowground expansion when it's far back, you need to control the high ground between it and your natural, and a small corridor off to the side of it
To control the highground expansion when it's far back you need to control the area below the elevated stage next to your natural... This lowground is directly exposed to the middle, meaning to ACTUALLY safely control that third you need to control the middle of the map, which is far, more space.
I disagree as well. Either choice for a 3rd requires you to push out to the middle, the high ground one just because of its position, the low ground one because you can harass it from the high ground base. Either way, you need to move out and secure your share of map space to successfully hold three bases, making turtling very difficult.
|
On April 28 2012 05:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 05:50 Syphon8 wrote:
To control the lowground expansion when it's far back, you need to control the high ground between it and your natural, and a small corridor off to the side of it
To control the highground expansion when it's far back you need to control the area below the elevated stage next to your natural... This lowground is directly exposed to the middle, meaning to ACTUALLY safely control that third you need to control the middle of the map, which is far, more space. I disagree as well. Either choice for a 3rd requires you to push out to the middle, the high ground one just because of its position, the low ground one because you can harass it from the high ground base. Either way, you need to move out and secure your share of map space to successfully hold three bases, making turtling very difficult.
It's more difficult to take and hold the high ground 3rd, significantly so in certain matchups. I think more importantly the 3rd is a little too hard in general, especially the high ground 3rd. This doesn't mean they won't be taken and defended, but it creates much larger windows for aggressive play to end in a blowout. The only recourse you have facing this map-specific metagame is to build up on 2 bases, which it has been our mapmaking mission to deter since the game came out.
|
On April 26 2012 02:37 Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 16:15 SoniC_eu wrote:
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured... We've only ever created one Toss favored map in our history 0_O
Cloud Kingdom? Korhal Compound? Which "one" map were you talking about?
|
On April 28 2012 09:07 DYEAlabaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 02:37 Diamond wrote:On April 25 2012 16:15 SoniC_eu wrote:
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured... We've only ever created one Toss favored map in our history 0_O Cloud Kingdom? Korhal Compound? Which "one" map were you talking about?
How are these maps toss favoured? On neither one of these maps you can easily turtle-until deathball, on neither of these maps you have a super-safe natural like on shakuras.
|
Calm down, he just wants to know which map Diamond is talking about.
You don't want to turn the "ESV Vicious" map thread into a discussion about CK and KC, do you?
|
On April 28 2012 23:59 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 09:07 DYEAlabaster wrote:On April 26 2012 02:37 Diamond wrote:On April 25 2012 16:15 SoniC_eu wrote:
I never liked ESV maps. They always seem slightly toss favoured... We've only ever created one Toss favored map in our history 0_O Cloud Kingdom? Korhal Compound? Which "one" map were you talking about? How are these maps toss favoured? On neither one of these maps you can easily turtle-until deathball, on neither of these maps you have a super-safe natural like on shakuras.
Statistically speaking, both maps are toss favoured (70% pvt CKLE, 62% pvz KCLE)
|
On April 25 2012 17:14 Shkudde wrote:
And to usethis2, I think that's kind of the point of this map.
ProdiG said himself that this map is meant to be played actively after getting your natural.
That more or less implies that smaller groups of units will be more effective than 200/200 deathballs.
Shouldn't we be glad that someone is trying to make maps that attempt to combat the turtle-into-deathball-into-1A playstyles?
But in order to encourage small army engagements, the map needs to be less turtle-friendly. But as it is, that doesn't seem to be the case. So the map encourages ball-ball battles yet there isn't enough room for that. I don't think they succeeded in the stated goal.
|
On April 29 2012 15:28 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 17:14 Shkudde wrote:
And to usethis2, I think that's kind of the point of this map.
ProdiG said himself that this map is meant to be played actively after getting your natural.
That more or less implies that smaller groups of units will be more effective than 200/200 deathballs.
Shouldn't we be glad that someone is trying to make maps that attempt to combat the turtle-into-deathball-into-1A playstyles?
But in order to encourage small army engagements, the map needs to be less turtle-friendly. But as it is, that doesn't seem to be the case. So the map encourages ball-ball battles yet there isn't enough room for that. I don't think they succeeded in the stated goal.
Can you elaborate a little bit? What you said here is counter-intuitive - the map needs to be less turtle-friendly and there aren't enough room for deathball battles (which would imply that instead players need to take smaller engagements throughout the game). I'm not sure I follow here
|
|
|
Yeah, here it shows that building placement is fine, prodiG. But when I played on it, it had the issue where you can't wall off as Terran that I showed you on Twitter. :/
|
On May 01 2012 13:47 eXeKryos wrote:
Yeah, here it shows that building placement is fine, prodiG. But when I played on it, it had the issue where you can't wall off as Terran that I showed you on Twitter. :/
For the sake of having the information here in the TL thread that I gave you on Twitter
Kryos and I had a quick twitter discussion about this - he played the Dreamhack ESV Vicious version which is out-of-date, does not contain the fix and is not within my ability to change or manipulate in any way.
The latest and most up-to-date version of ANY ESV map will always be the version uploaded by the account ESVMaps with solely an ESV tag and Vicious is no exception. These are the versions the map team endorses as this is what we have control over.
We do not have access to the Dreamhack maps account and I personally don't handle the talks with them.
|
Yeah, I finally found the ESVMaps version. Helps out a lot. :D I bookmarked it so I don't end up using the wrong version again. Thanks for the help though prodiG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iWQzh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aEHvk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Gb99E.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yzmDf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mPj1I.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/p8I7F.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0YnSh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RUNnF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2057/2487631402_a8e5602961.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cQyw7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v5uQB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lxSQV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2FzyX.jpg)
