| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
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, Yeah about that, how is Doomsday not even close to anything you would want to see?! | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
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, I would love to see an elaboration from you on your selection, not only on the 7 maps you chose for your list, but also about other good maps out there that you didn't quite choose. Like, what were your thoughts on maps like Cracked Cell, Abode, and Doomsday? I'm probably not the only one who's curious. You do get lengthy about your posts, but I enjoy reading all of them, and I think everyone else would as well. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
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. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
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. Lol, it's cool. I admit the mistake of not having the rocks there originally, since the ramp wasn't there originally in my first iterations of the layout, so I didn't think about that right away. Taking a second look at it after the feedback though, I saw that putting rocks on the ramp was a simple, but I think perfect, fix to that problem. Sorry for any heart attacks my terribad layout caused.  | ||
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
 | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 23 2012 07:04 ArcticRaven wrote: Don't forget the terribad port zion lighting too Talk instead about the terrible Zhakul'Das lighting, and do it in the map thread plz. I need a bump. | ||
|
eTcetRa
Australia822 Posts
I would love to know why Vaha wouldn't make the list, i have a feeling I already know but just in case | ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
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. He said "other mappers need the help more than us," which is entirely true and does not require an inflated ego to say. I think it's obvious to everyone that ESV maps get more exposure because they are ESV maps. He didn't say all the ESV maps are better than everyone else's. It wouldn't even make sense to say that, cause having the best maps wouldn't make ESV need the help less than everyone else, in fact the opposite because the entire goal is getting exposure to the best maps. All he was saying was that ESV maps already get exposure, and they wanted to give a chance to everyone else to get some, too, in this MotM. I guess you could say that that is assuming ESV gets a map into the top five, which if they didn't it wouldn't matter if they entered, but I don't think Diamond has a huge ego for thinking there's a decent chance for an ESV map making it to the top 5. It's kind of a stretch. | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
| ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
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. Couldn´t you just look at some replay? Are all judges only on the NA server? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
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). Oh good thing that's your problem, I'm trying to fix that atm (but don't actually have the map file until friday). Blame monitor for suggesting this much, much harder fourth than the one I had before | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On May 24 2012 03:51 Barrin wrote: Hmm, interesting, I really like Cracked Cell and I'm not the biggest fan of the maps you like the most because of the things you seem to like about them. I'm personally not a fan of easily securable thirds to the point of walling out a specific path and only having to worry about one choke and I do feel that counter attacks should be very viable together with good watchtower coverage to see them coming.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. I sort of feel like that in a good map, securing the ability to counter attack should be an advantage in itself and that one should not be able to safely push unless the appropriate preparations are first made of getting towers or putting workers/lings/overlords to guard for counter attack paths and knowing that they are going to come as well as making the map in such a way that if you know it's coming as you push through the centre you have the ability to cut it off. Cracked Cell in a lot of ways exemplifies this to me with the watchtowers as well, if you push without having secured vision over the alternate attack paths you risk to pay for it on that map with a massive counter attack. You are conversely rewarded for acquiring the vision and knowing that he cannot know you counter. | ||
|
Rkynick
85 Posts
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). 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. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
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. Make a map thread then! | ||
|
Rkynick
85 Posts
I've had one for about a month. | ||
|
loginn
France815 Posts
Cheers ! | ||
|
Namrufus
United States396 Posts
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). thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts Barrin. I really appreciate it. do you feel that if I switch the third base's and the lowground base's mineral line counts and then do something like rockblock the far half-base it might make map control more important? Like this, in a 3-3.5 base scenario, the base would count as about 28-33% of the total income (assuming full saturation on all bases) instead of about 15%, players would be more motivated to keep armies in the center to protect it, while the distance to attack (and do (or at least threaten) more significant damage) would be less and more direct, decreasing the threat of counterattacks. The rocks would increase the time needed to get to 4.0 bases and increase the power of some types of cliff harass something like this + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rTbwx.jpg) I could also maybe make one of the half-bases mineral only (or just remove it (or make it an island, maybe)) to make holding the front base strictly more rewarding than the rear bases. I could cut the highground path near the red arrow, leaving a small gap for blink/warpin/cliffwalk/drop stuff, making the center more important, but I don't want to remove a map feature termed 'truly intriguing'. ...or close the highground path indicated with the yellow arrow, in order to make the attack distance for the side path longer, but I fear that would make the gameplay even more static then it seems likely to be as it is. again, thanks barrin. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
where is it? "cracked cell" returns nothing in search and there is no link to a thread in your post ... | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
|
StarCraft2.fi
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
WardiTV 2025
StarCraft2.fi
WardiTV 2025
StarCraft2.fi
RSL Revival
IPSL
Sziky vs JDConan
RSL Revival
Classic vs TBD
herO vs Zoun
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
