MotM May - Submissions - Page 9

On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote:
IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,

On May 22 2012 22:36 Barrin wrote:
IMO. I would elaborate, but you know how lengthy I can get >.< would prefer to discuss a specific topic someone brings up,

On May 23 2012 03:40 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Edit: Holy, forget everything I ever said about that map, I only now realize that there are rocks on the secondary ramp, I didn't realize that.

On May 23 2012 07:04 ArcticRaven wrote:
Don't forget the terribad port zion lighting too

On May 20 2012 00:45 monitor wrote:


That's the point exactly- we actually don't have maps regardless of MotM. It happens all too often that we rush out maps to submit to motm, and it degrades the quality of them. That is the major reason why we're backing out at this point. I can see where all the criticism comes from, but right now it hurts our maps when its not necessary, since there aren't any tournaments or prizes for the competition.

On May 23 2012 20:29 DYEAlabaster wrote:



Isn't it better to just not say anything and not submit maps, and then when asked, respond with "Well, we didn't have anything and didn't wanna rush", instead of making the overwrought and ego-tripping statement that Diamond made, in short, saying "we're too good for your petty tournament"?

I'm pretty ashamed that ESV would take a stance like this to be honest. I understand not having maps to submit, or even not wanting to rush maps, but Diamond either mis-spoke or has a seriously over-inflated ego... Hopefully you guys submit maps when you have them, regardless of the "legitimacy" of MotM (an issue I have personally spoken about in times past). You guys aren't too good for this tournament, and idk whether you were implying you were, but it sure as hell came off that way.

On May 24 2012 01:10 Nightmarjoo wrote:
It's annoying how many maps submitted are good enough to consider but aren't on the NA server for testing.

On May 24 2012 03:51 Barrin wrote:

Far too hard to take & hold a fourth. And fifth, etc. Army positioning gameplay is kinda good for being confined to 3 bases so much, but still.

Perhaps it would be oversaturated with more bases. (Gotta love 8m ideal's mapping restrictions).

On May 24 2012 03:51 Barrin wrote:

Far too hard to take & hold a fourth. And fifth, etc. Army positioning gameplay is kinda good for being confined to 3 bases so much, but still.

Perhaps it would be oversaturated with more bases. (Gotta love 8m ideal's mapping restrictions).


Cracked Cell -
Well this map would be one of the last two in my top 10 (along with Doomsday, and honestly a map like Doomsday being in my top10 is not a good sign). In general, the massive openness of the 3rd and particularly the 4th base is what turns me off. The single small choke on the 5th is not enough to counteract this, especially given it's distance from earlier bases. This is kind of something I call "slippery balance", but it's not necessarily a balance issue (well, it probably is actually, but I can't say who it's imba for), it's more of a gameplay issue: it is too hard for defenders to control what happens there. Of course it shouldn't be too hard to attack either, so you must strike a balance. The middle is almost cool but it's a little sloppy... perhaps too complex/bulky.. It lacks "easy to learn", and the high ground could and probably should be a little stronger. Bases could be positioned with a little more CS to make this area more interesting (it's much better here than most maps, partly why I like it at all).

Abode -
Thoroughly lacks map control potential and incentives, largely through oversaturation on both halfs of the hourglass and not enough twisting in the center (CS is far too low). The high ground pod in the center by itself would hardly be a strong map control potential/incentive, but then there are high ground paths going right around it; these features take away positioning strength from each other. Interestingly enough, that's a very related effect of what too much CS does: it's not hard for armies to completely miss each other when attacking. So you have all these easy-to-take bases. And they're also pretty easy to hold if you devote yourself to it (this is not a favorable combination already). If you decide to attack, there's an unusually high chance that he can sneak a counterattack around. In theory, this is a well-balanced gameplay element.. but it is still "slippery" in that it is overly difficult to control (relying a bit too much on unknowns). The concept is truly intriguing, and maybe it can make a great map (unusually difficult), but I'm not sure I'm a fan of this particular execution of it (too many bases too close too early).


I guess you could boil it down to positional imbalance. In close positions, the ccw person has a significant expanding advantage IMO. Which is related to, but it has more to do with, the close proximity of the 4 bases closest to center. I feel like the distance between any two adjacent ones (think close spawns) (particularly the distance between the entrances to these high grounds) is too small compared to the long distance to expand away. But mostly I think this distance is just plain too small for such important bases.

On May 24 2012 03:51 Barrin wrote:

Cracked Cell -
Well this map would be one of the last two in my top 10 (along with Doomsday, and honestly a map like Doomsday being in my top10 is not a good sign). In general, the massive openness of the 3rd and particularly the 4th base is what turns me off. The single small choke on the 5th is not enough to counteract this, especially given it's distance from earlier bases. This is kind of something I call "slippery balance", but it's not necessarily a balance issue (well, it probably is actually, but I can't say who it's imba for), it's more of a gameplay issue: it is too hard for defenders to control what happens there. Of course it shouldn't be too hard to attack either, so you must strike a balance. The middle is almost cool but it's a little sloppy... perhaps too complex/bulky.. It lacks "easy to learn", and the high ground could and probably should be a little stronger. Bases could be positioned with a little more CS to make this area more interesting (it's much better here than most maps, partly why I like it at all).

On May 24 2012 06:18 Rkynick wrote:


I don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but I'd like to note that the third's choke is only three gateways long. The nat and third are also very close-- Tanks placed on the highground can also watch over both chokepoints (nat and third) at the same time, for instance. The third seems fairly close and defensible to me, is what I'm saying.

Anyways, I wish I could get this level of feedback more often.

On May 24 2012 06:41 a176 wrote:


Make a map thread then!

On May 24 2012 03:51 Barrin wrote:
Abode -
Thoroughly lacks map control potential and incentives, largely through oversaturation on both halfs of the hourglass and not enough twisting in the center (CS is far too low). The high ground pod in the center by itself would hardly be a strong map control potential/incentive, but then there are high ground paths going right around it; these features take away positioning strength from each other. Interestingly enough, that's a very related effect of what too much CS does: it's not hard for armies to completely miss each other when attacking. So you have all these easy-to-take bases. And they're also pretty easy to hold if you devote yourself to it (this is not a favorable combination already). If you decide to attack, there's an unusually high chance that he can sneak a counterattack around. In theory, this is a well-balanced gameplay element.. but it is still "slippery" in that it is overly difficult to control (relying a bit too much on unknowns). The concept is truly intriguing, and maybe it can make a great map (unusually difficult), but I'm not sure I'm a fan of this particular execution of it (too many bases too close too early).

On May 24 2012 06:42 Rkynick wrote:


I've had one for about a month.