On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
Mech is more APM intensive than bio. :/
On top of everything you need to do in Bio, you need depots almost twice as often, more production, and have to constantly siege/unsiege.
LOL *Producing 10 marines vs 1 Thor for 500 resources *Splitting those marines vs spreading your vikings a little *Goody vs MMA *Oh noes! I hafta make 3 supply depots instead of 2!!!!
On July 19 2012 03:38 iGrok wrote: Sometimes, mappers want to force certain styles. They can intentionally design a map that is better for Bio than mech.
Who would do that besides a Zerg-biased mapper? It hurts Protoss a ton as well. You can play bio on a mech map but not the other way around. If the map forces certain builds, then it is a shitty map and has no business being in competitive play.
This competition is not looking for the next ladder map. It's to help mappers improve. Why are you acting so offended?
On July 19 2012 05:09 TibblesEvilCat wrote: i personally found too easily gotten 3rd = zerg boomed to easily xD, gota force em to make units to defend somemoar then just to defend.
A wide open third is actually a good thing for Zerg since they can surround and flank incoming pushes. Protoss cannot forcefield in the wide open and Terran cannot wall or defend with tanks.
I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
TL mapping community loves them hard thirds.
*sigh* yeah.
PS: Your map was really really cool (other than the blink issue)
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: I like mech because I cannot have more than 150 APM on my best days... More than 50% of these maps are an auto loss because there is no way to secure a third base before 15 minutes TvZ. But since about 50% of my ladder matches are vs , I guess I can't reasonably expect less than 50% of cartographers to be Zerg.
You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
Mech is more APM intensive than bio. :/
On top of everything you need to do in Bio, you need depots almost twice as often, more production, and have to constantly siege/unsiege.
LOL *Producing 10 marines vs 1 Thor for 500 resources *Splitting those marines vs spreading your vikings a little *Goody vs MMA *Oh noes! I hafta make 3 supply depots instead of 2!!!!
You're completely ignoring the fact that you constantly have to reposition your army perfectly.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
...you get how a ProAm type event works... right? Amateur mappers aren't making what'll be the next ladder map, they're entering this competition to, under the tutelage of the more experienced mappers, come up with maps that are not only more balanced, but more interesting and better looking in general. Coming in to bash the amateur's maps before the contest is even over just makes you look ignorant. Figure out what you're commenting on before you comment.
On July 19 2012 02:54 U_G_L_Y wrote: You are all just BEGGING me to veto these maps if they ever make it to ladder or just straight up cheese. ) How is THAT for an "interesting and dynamic map," huh?
...you get how a ProAm type event works... right? Amateur mappers aren't making what'll be the next ladder map, they're entering this competition to, under the tutelage of the more experienced mappers, come up with maps that are not only more balanced, but more interesting and better looking in general. Coming in to bash the amateur's maps before the contest is even over just makes you look ignorant. Figure out what you're commenting on before you comment.
I see "Pro" mappers doing this exact same thing, so yeah, under their tutelage, the wrong ideas that amateurs have about third bases will be reinforced and when they become pro, and we will continue to get more maps like Korhal Compound and Metalopolis that are amazing and beautiful and creative maps with so many cool features but they have to be vetoed on ladder because they are so broken in one single match-up.
PS, I though that among those selected, your third base wasn't on my shitlist, though it could be choked off a teeny bit more. And it looks amazing.
@ IronmanSC2 I'm angry because the TL mapping community, Pro and Amateur, as well as Blizzard map makers, all keep producing maps with the same flaw.
@ Siphon8 Having split map TvT past 30 minutes is basically a guaranteed win for me. Any strategy where marines fight banelings or infestors at any point in the game is guaranteed loss for me. Call it what you will.
Well, I think we're not teaching them knowledge about things like how easy a third base should be, too much, because that shifts with metagame, patches, and expansion packs.
So it's good for us to focus on the skills which can carry you all the way through the changes to the game.
Ohana is great. Entombed valley's third base is great (it's way to big for TvZ but that's another story) Cloud Kingdom's third is decent.
Hero vs Stephano at NASL last week on Shakuras Plateau was a perfect illustration of the problem. Stephano denied Hero's third base like 8 times because there is no choke to force-field/wall. There was not much Hero could have done about it.
Congrats to the picked maps -- good luck on the road ahead. Kudos to IronMan for stepping out of his comfort zone (you are not allow to make that into a 2 player map, btw... lol :p). Too bad no one wanted to tackle a really difficult concept, but I'm looking forward to see in what ways the current maps change.
On July 19 2012 06:08 Gfire wrote: It's possible the 3p map was chosen by someone and then another map by the same mapper was chosen by someone higher up on the list.
Unless I'm mistaken, I am the only one who submitted any three player maps.
.... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
On July 19 2012 09:30 Diamond wrote: You guys will bitch about ANYTHING....
It's just a rule that there will always be somebody who complains whenever you do something related to the public. Imo its a good thing because it keeps you in check and there is a lot of truth to many of the complaints, as hard as it is to accept that fact.
Theres also a lot of truth that if your complaint goes more than 3 posts, you should either stop or make a new discussion thread. Either nothing new is being said or you're derailing it.
On July 19 2012 10:04 kim9067 wrote: .... Lol, it's kinda funny how everyone is so spoilt on thirds.
Moving away from that, the 2player maps = more innovative makes no sense to me, its not like innovative 2 player maps were chosen, only ones extremely boring and what will turn out to be super standard maps were only chosen (For the most part).
What baffles me the most is the third placement of many of these maps, they copied almost exactly the same as other established maps... Do I see all the mains stuck on the far left or far right side of the map? Do I see linear main - nat - third? Yeah.... Why can't you choose like maps with new ideas....
Compared to 4p maps, 2p maps are usually more interesting. This is all relative though, there are no absolutes, and besides, most of the more interesting points of a map, the points that make a game more interesting, are found more on a conceptual level, when you really dig into the dynamics of the map. It's hard for a non-mapper to grasp this sorta thing when everyone is crying out for innovation, but it's probably true.
I think every single one of my maps I've made people say the third is too easy to grab. Or maybe I play Protoss and am just sick of 2 base all-ining every map. Although with the zerg buffs that now might mean it's too easy for zerg to get a 3rd which then forces protoss to 2 base all-in anyway. Oh boy how the meta changes.
If the 3rd is super easy to defend then the P can just get an early 3rd to respond to a zerg that is 3-basing. While the Ohana 3rd isn't thattt easy to defend (I think it strikes a decent balance as the choke is still pretty wide) this is a somewhat common strategy for PvZ on that map since you can wall off the natural and have your army at the 3rd.
On July 19 2012 12:35 Fatam wrote: If the 3rd is super easy to defend then the P can just get an early 3rd to respond to a zerg that is 3-basing. While the Ohana 3rd isn't thattt easy to defend (I think it strikes a decent balance as the choke is still pretty wide) this is a somewhat common strategy for PvZ on that map since you can wall off the natural and have your army at the 3rd.
In which case Z can just take a faster 4th, etc. I think the fundamental problem is more with the units themselves than anything involving map design.
On July 19 2012 08:45 U_G_L_Y wrote: [...] we will continue to get more maps like Korhal Compound and Metalopolis that are amazing and beautiful and creative maps with so many cool features but they have to be vetoed on ladder because they are so broken in one single match-up [...]
Sorry for destroying this thread even more but that made me laugh. Korhal Compound and Metalopolis are creative maps?
Also your concerns about thirds are a bit iffy. I would definitely love to see harder thirds than like Entombed or Antiga have, and I personally like the idea of half base thirds to prevent turtling on 3 base and maxing out.
EPT
