|
On April 08 2012 05:31 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 02:18 Barrin wrote:
Excellent concept, excellent execution for 8m. Perhaps the concept would fit better with 6m (needs some choke resizing for 6m), but I really love the way it is now for 8m anyway.
10/10, my new favorite 8m map. can you please stop spamming every map thread with variations on "it would fit better with 6m." It's really, really annoying. If you can't appreciate and comment on the maps for what they are, but rather what you wish they would be, maybe you shouldn't comment at all.
Can you please stop posting about someone posting? It's getting really, really annoying. I'm serious though... Do you realize how silly you look by posting about someone posting? Who cares if he talks about his FRB idea in every map thread. You don't have to read his comments, nor do you have to post about it... but for some asinine reason, you did both.
Anyway - This map is pretty bad ass. One of few new maps (recently) where I actually saw it and thought to myself "Wow, this is pretty cool looking..." Can't wait to see it in GSTL (and/or GSL).
|
On April 08 2012 06:56 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 06:37 Ragoo wrote:
@the two people before me:
When I saw the map I thought great, this is a very standard 4p rotational, overall very solid, just maybe a bit too easy to expand. So I thought this was pretty great for 6m cos you want bases to be a bit easier to take with that concept. And that's what I also said to Barrin^^ So stop hating on him, he is not the only one who thinks like this about this map.
who's hating anybody? It's just not relevant to the thread and seeing it brought up again and again is annoying. If Barrin wants the Crux guys to make 6m maps, maybe he should PM/mail and ask them instead of bringing it up in threads that aren't about the subject. It's extra tiresome because 6m isn't in any way a proven concept, certainly not going by the replays released so far, and I'd even say it's an inherently flawed idea for a number of reasons not related to this thread.
And you're being JUST AS annoying as you think he is by posting about it.
|
This would make a good 6m map, OHHHH!!!
Anyway, beautiful map, so many pathways which really excites me 
|
This would make an excellent replacement for Tal'Darim Altar on the ladder.
|
Wow excellent map! Especially i like idea for 3rds. Gj, want it on ladder. 
|
On April 08 2012 16:51 -NegativeZero- wrote:
This would make an excellent replacement for Tal'Darim Altar on the ladder.
I never thought of that, but that's a great idea.
|
On April 08 2012 16:51 -NegativeZero- wrote:
This would make an excellent replacement for Tal'Darim Altar on the ladder.
It would be better as a replacement for Antiga in my opinion
|
While this map looks really good, I think making the lower ramp block-able by 3gates would be great for FFEing, and also maybe reducing the amount of space of the mains a bit, haven't played it, but it seems really big.
|
it's a great map. however, the ramps are a little too big. just look at the FFE pictures, you will know.
|
Probably the first map of this kind that seems to have removed a lot of the rotational imbalances you see on maps like TDA.
I'd like to see the thirds changed to low ground bases I think, or if they must stay high, then open up the choke a lot wider.
Have a feeling we might be seeing a lot of this map in the future.
|
Personally I think this is kind of a lazy-mans solution to rotational imbalance.
'Oh, its impossible to balance the thirds on a 4p rotational map? Just make them IDENTICAL'
I'm sure hte map plays fine, probably very well in fact, but there is absolutely nothing new or innovative about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On April 10 2012 02:20 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 06:37 Ragoo wrote:@the two people before me: When I saw the map I thought great, this is a very standard 4p rotational, overall very solid, just maybe a bit too easy to expand. So I thought this was pretty great for 6m cos you want bases to be a bit easier to take with that concept. And that's what I also said to Barrin^^ So stop hating on him, he is not the only one who thinks like this about this map. + Show Spoiler +I am not a convinced supporter of 6m, I think it's too hard to theorycraft about it... Nice job winpark! As I said, very solid, good positional balance, nice aesthetics. Maybe just a bit easy to expand and not very innovative. But I still like it, one of the best 4p rotational maps That doesn't change the fact that everyone is aware of 6m and doesn't need it spammed in every map thread.
No, everyone isn't aware. With the widespread praise the idea has been getting, it's only amongst those who know about it, so if it was truly a popular idea, you'd be seeing a lot more discussion about it, and possibly even tournaments. If Barrin wants to make a post here and there promoting the idea, there's nothing wrong with it. You criticize the posts he's making as though he's promoting some useless product that nobody uses - that's the wrong way to look at it. What he's doing is promoting an idea that could very well make this game a lot more fun to play, as well as watch. Thinking of it that way, he may not be talking about it enough.
edit: ^^this is directed at everyone who's been making this sort of post, not just the above poster.
edit2: I really wish this thread hadn't been so derailed, such that the map gets buried under people bickering over Barrin's posts. If you would, please direct your attention to the damn map in the OP, please
|
(not sure you realize how much time I spent thinking about it, I couldn't even keep it contained even before it went public)
Since you kept going OT in this thread, yes, you've obviously spent too much time thinking about it. You've convinced yourself that "FRB" is the correct way for the game to go, even before any real testing has been done, and the"FRB" games shown so far don't seem to be any more inherently interesting or different than standard games. Your theory also has holes in it, because we're actually seeing the type of small scale engagements you want to promote in standard games without the need to change anything as far as resource nodes go. On top of that "FRB" doesn't do anything to address issues of unit design or unit clumping, which is the real clincher as to why SC2 games look the way they look. So all in all, I see no reason why the game should move towards fewer resources at all. There's no good reason to.
Seriously, if you weren't a mod, you would probably have been warned/temp'ed for spamming/going OT in threads when there already are multiple threads on the subject on TL.
|
On April 10 2012 05:19 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote + (not sure you realize how much time I spent thinking about it, I couldn't even keep it contained even before it went public) Since you kept going OT in this thread, yes, you've obviously spent too much time thinking about it. You've convinced yourself that "FRB" is the correct way for the game to go, even before any real testing has been done, and the"FRB" games shown so far don't seem to be any more inherently interesting or different than standard games. Your theory also has holes in it, because we're actually seeing the type of small scale engagements you want to promote in standard games without the need to change anything as far as resource nodes go. On top of that "FRB" doesn't do anything to address issues of unit design or unit clumping, which is the real clincher as to why SC2 games look the way they look. So all in all, I see no reason why the game should move towards fewer resources at all. There's no good reason to. Seriously, if you weren't a mod, you would probably have been warned/temp'ed for spamming/going OT in threads when there already are multiple threads on the subject on TL.
Just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I just went through Barrin's posts, and this is the first map he has mentioned would be a good 6m map. So what it sounds like to me is that you have some sort of personal reason against Barrin for continuing this nonsense, or you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and just want to troll.
|
On April 10 2012 05:57 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 05:19 Quotidian wrote: (not sure you realize how much time I spent thinking about it, I couldn't even keep it contained even before it went public) Since you kept going OT in this thread, yes, you've obviously spent too much time thinking about it. You've convinced yourself that "FRB" is the correct way for the game to go, even before any real testing has been done, and the"FRB" games shown so far don't seem to be any more inherently interesting or different than standard games. Your theory also has holes in it, because we're actually seeing the type of small scale engagements you want to promote in standard games without the need to change anything as far as resource nodes go. On top of that "FRB" doesn't do anything to address issues of unit design or unit clumping, which is the real clincher as to why SC2 games look the way they look. So all in all, I see no reason why the game should move towards fewer resources at all. There's no good reason to. Seriously, if you weren't a mod, you would probably have been warned/temp'ed for spamming/going OT in threads when there already are multiple threads on the subject on TL. Just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I just went through Barrin's posts, and this is the first map he has mentioned would be a good 6m map. So what it sounds like to me is that you have some sort of personal reason against Barrin for continuing this nonsense, or you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and just want to troll.
and what a fine piece of research you did
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=310713#15
|
Seriously, it's been said before, only now it's more so: you've become infinitely more obnoxious than Barrin could ever have been, even for someone agreeing with your views. Now you're just beginning to look like a troll who got bored with the Blizzard forums.
|
On April 10 2012 07:11 NewSunshine wrote:Seriously, it's been said before, only now it's more so: you've become infinitely more obnoxious than Barrin could ever have been, even for someone agreeing with your views. Now you're just beginning to look like a troll who got bored with the Blizzard forums.
well, that's just your opinion, isn't it..
You know one of the things that characterizes the blizzard forums? People labeling everyone they don't agree with as trolls.
Seriously, if everyone who made a post/thread about "their idea" started posting in other threads not about "their idea," the mods would probably start banning these people as quickly as they ban image macros or balance whine.Just because you have "an idea" it shouldn't give you carte blanche to spam in other people's threads.I suspect Barrin only gets away with it because he's a mod and for some reason people have blindly latched onto an unproven idea.
I am seriously not trolling Barrin -- why would I? I've never even had an exchange with him before. From what I've been saying, I thought my motives for criticizing him were immediately obvious. I have no other agenda here except to tell him to stop spamming his idea around the forum when there are already threads dedicated to the topic. If I came off as rude* or whatever before, yeah, I can see why and I'll change my tone from now on. So yeah, Barrin, please stop spamming your idea outside of the thread(s) dedicated to it. It's not a cool way to behave.
(*imo, jumping into a thread with "this would be better if it conformed to My Idea" is also disrespectful behavior)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
