EPTMotM ProAm: Selected Maps - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 19 2012 11:22 NewSunshine wrote: 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. 2p maps are usually more interesting because it seems like mapmakers in SC2 don't know how to make decent 4p maps. For some reason, in nearly every tournament-level 4p map there's this idea that you need 3+ bases in each corner, negating the need for players to expand across the map, making dynamic army movement and harassment harder to pull off. To accomplish this flawed concept, many 4p maps are thus made way too large, making it nearly impossible to allow any sort of dynamic play, and guaranteeing turtling up to 200/200 unless someone decides to do a proxy all-in. Clear-cut examples of this are/were: Tal'Darim Altar Clam Before the Storm Whirlwind Terminus The exceptions to this tend to come from Blizzard, but Blizzard's 4p maps have their own significant flaws. Metropolis is also different in that it's a reasonable size, but has the same results due to it's turtle-friendly map layout and 5(!) bases per corner, done in a way that, for all practical purposes, makes it a 2p map. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 19 2012 16:56 -NegativeZero- wrote: 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. Oh, how I couldn't disagree more. If 3rd/4th bases weren't so darn close as they tend to be on current maps, Zergs trying to get away with this 1-up style would be subject to timing attacks on their further away bases. Good example of this is in Brood War in TvZ; Zergs tend to expand to a faraway corner for their third, and Terrans do their best to hit a 2-base timing to deny it. Best part of this concept is that even if the third is denied, Zerg doesn't auto-lose the game to continued steamroll, as the Terran army is still far away from the Zerg main/natural. Edit: And if anyone is reading this thinking, "How the hell would a Terran or Protoss be able to hold bases that are further away than they already are in SC2?", well, maybe stop making the thirds so ridiculously open. Feels to me that there were two major options mapmakers could have chosen when figuring out how to make balanced thirds: 1. close to the natural, but wide open 2. reasonable distance, defendable with chokes Brood War mapmakers chose option 2. Currently in SC2, option 1 is the preferred choice. If you ever wondered why SC2 feels 200/200 deathball-ish, that's your reason. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On July 20 2012 07:11 stormfoxSC wrote: Oh, how I couldn't disagree more. If 3rd/4th bases weren't so darn close as they tend to be on current maps, Zergs trying to get away with this 1-up style would be subject to timing attacks on their further away bases. Good example of this is in Brood War in TvZ; Zergs tend to expand to a faraway corner for their third, and Terrans do their best to hit a 2-base timing to deny it. Best part of this concept is that even if the third is denied, Zerg doesn't auto-lose the game to continued steamroll, as the Terran army is still far away from the Zerg main/natural. It's kinda different in SC2, at least with the current state of things, because Zergs rely on creep spread to their third. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 20 2012 07:13 Gfire wrote: It's kinda different in SC2, at least with the current state of things, because Zergs rely on creep spread to their third. They rely on creep spread to their third for what reason? To defend. They have to defend because their third is generally adjacent to their natural, which in turn is adjacent to their main. Not immediately committing to defence means a guaranteed base race, or simply playing from behind if the Zerg chooses not to counter-attack. If thirds were located in a more distant location, a Terran or Protoss committing their whole army would put them out of position and open to direct counterattacks. We see this a lot more later in games, when it's further away 4ths/5ths that are being hit. For a Zerg, trading a third for an opponent's natural would be a pretty decent deal. I think it's something to consider. Edit: also to note, nydus worms. They suddenly become more useful to Zerg when expanding further away; same deal as nydus canals in BW. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 20 2012 07:07 stormfoxSC wrote: 2p maps are usually more interesting because it seems like mapmakers in SC2 don't know how to make decent 4p maps. For some reason, in nearly every tournament-level 4p map there's this idea that you need 3+ bases in each corner, negating the need for players to expand across the map, making dynamic army movement and harassment harder to pull off. To accomplish this flawed concept, many 4p maps are thus made way too large, making it nearly impossible to allow any sort of dynamic play, and guaranteeing turtling up to 200/200 unless someone decides to do a proxy all-in. Clear-cut examples of this are/were: Tal'Darim Altar Clam Before the Storm Whirlwind Terminus The exceptions to this tend to come from Blizzard, but Blizzard's 4p maps have their own significant flaws. Metropolis is also different in that it's a reasonable size, but has the same results due to it's turtle-friendly map layout and 5(!) bases per corner, done in a way that, for all practical purposes, makes it a 2p map. Tal'darim was a map with incredible aggression play on it in TvT (very weak mech, very strong drops), TvP (very strong drops), ZvP (very strong mutas and roaches) and ofc TvZ (killing the natural by elevator play, mutas, drops), ZvZ (very strong mutas) and PvP (a warpgate count between 3 and 5 was the prefered playstyle) Whirlwind doesn't seem so bad either. As shown by quite some players now, the expansion setup caters mobile styles a lot, making lategame turtling towards immobile deathballs very vulnerable. Also nearly every 4player map that seems to work balancewise (more or less for some time at least), has either a very strong starting corner (Tal'darim, Terminus, Entombed, Antiga) or is splitable (metropolis, shakuras, metalopolis, Shattered Temple). All the others (Slag Pits, Blackwater Gulch, Nerazim Crypt, Abyssal Caverns, Typhon Peaks), never really made it into tournament play, even if the startposition flaws (like on slag pits) could have been fixed. Only Typhon was kind of OK for some time, because of a somewhat OKish starting corner and somewhat controlable middle - until a backdoor path would break your neck from behind. | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On July 19 2012 20:55 Plexa wrote: Update: Mereel (a pro that we had asked previously but was too busy) has found time to participate. He has chosen the map Mar Sara Fissure by OxyGenesis! Update #2: NullCurrent has awoken and chosen to work on Aurora Frost by Broodie. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 20 2012 08:12 Plexa wrote: Update #2: NullCurrent has awoken and chosen to work on Aurora Frost by Broodie. Sweeeeeet. Ice maps ftw  | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 20 2012 08:02 Big J wrote: Tal'darim was a map with incredible aggression play on it in TvT (very weak mech, very strong drops), TvP (very strong drops), ZvP (very strong mutas and roaches) and ofc TvZ (killing the natural by elevator play, mutas, drops). Whirlwind doesn't seem so bad either. As shown by quite some players now, the expansion setup caters mobile styles a lot, making lategame turtling towards immobile deathballs very vulnerable. Also nearly every 4player map that seems to work balancewise (more or less for some time at least), has either a very strong starting corner (Tal'darim, Terminus, Entombed, Antiga) or is splitable (metropolis, shakuras, metalopolis, Shattered Temple). All the others (Slag Pits, Blackwater Gulch, Nerazim Crypt, Abyssal Caverns, Typhon Peaks), never really made it into tournament play, even if the startposition flaws (like on slag pits) could have been fixed. Only Typhon was kind of OK for some time, because of a somewhat OKish starting corner and somewhat controlable middle - until a backdoor path would break your neck from behind. Tal'Darim - TvT is always an aggressive matchup until a reasonable tank count is made. This is no different on Tal'Darim. The sheer size of it does make mech pretty much impossible, though. - Tal'Darim's larger/droppable main is definitely a plus for the map (though I would argue that the map layout made it a little too droppable from all sides). However, that's not aggression play, that's "I hope you're not at home and/or have adequate AA defence". Anyone can sit their main army at home and have a couple medivacs worth of units sit around and wait for an opportune moment to drop in. - Exploiting the natural cliff is actually a balance flaw of the map. Mapmakers shouldn't rely on layout imbalances to make aggression possible. Name me any aggressive strategy seen on Tal'Darim that didn't exploit this cliff. When you take this balance issue out of account, you realize just how unaggressive the map size makes it. There's a reason cross-position is imbalanced in favour of Zerg, who benefit from long distances, while close position is imbalanced against Zerg due to cliff abuse -- ironically, the two imbalances balance one another, making overall win rates look balanced. Whirlwind - Not much different from Tal'Darim, except it lacks cliff abuse. - Produced some of the longest games in tournaments, just by virtue of its passive, deathball nature. While you point out drop vulnerability for deathballs (and that is true), a lot of what we've seen (usually dropping Zerg) has just been poor drop defence in general and the choice of a less ideal deathball composition (BLs instead of Ultras). - Verdict on balance is still out, as the map is new. Definitely not prudent to already declare the map works (or doesn't) balance-wise. Antiga - Straight-up imbalanced map unless you turn it into a 2p map (as tournaments have done, forcing cross-spawn). - Aggressive play on this map is possible thanks to Blizzard's choice to not make this map overly large (in fact, it's too small for a 4p map, which is one of the major reasons it has to be made into 2p -- cross spawn increases the rush distance). Entombed - Protoss love 3-base turtle on this map. Made it notorious as being deemed a Protoss map. - Imbalance in close third positions; disabled in tournament play, making this map essentially a 3p map. Metropolis - Straight turtle map, to the excessive point that 200/200 pure BC/Ghost compositions are somehow viable in highest-level play. Wtf? Shakuras Plateau - Bit of a weird map; plays out reasonably until someone controls the centre, then it becomes a straight passive/turtle map. - Arguably imbalanced; Terrans controlling the centre properly make it nearly impossible to break through. Pros have complained about this sort of thing. - Close spawns disabled; this map was originally a 2v2 map, which explains its issues in 1v1. Metalopolis - Completely imbalanced, but in a way that is similar to Tal'Darim. Cross position is Zerg town, close positions were so imbalanced they needed to be disabled even on ladder, and close air positions are imbalanced in favour of Terran/Protoss. The combined imbalances even out, making overall balance stats look reasonable. Shattered Temple - Main base cliff abuse (like natural cliff abuse on Tal'Darim, but worse) and ridiculously close air positions made this map imbalanced against Zerg. - Close ground spawns imbalanced; forced to be disabled. Honestly, all of the Blizzard 4p maps listed here have horrible imbalances that either force certain spawns to be disabled or have the map removed from tournament play. The community maps all have issues with deathball, for the reasons I already mentioned. There's a reason why I said current 4p tournament maps aren't very good. | ||
|
Semmo
Korea (South)627 Posts
On July 20 2012 08:54 stormfoxSC wrote: Tal'Darim - TvT is always an aggressive matchup until a reasonable tank count is made. This is no different on Tal'Darim. The sheer size of it does make mech pretty much impossible, though. - Tal'Darim's larger/droppable main is definitely a plus for the map (though I would argue that the map layout made it a little too droppable from all sides). However, that's not aggression play, that's "I hope you're not at home and/or have adequate AA defence". Anyone can sit their main army at home and have a couple medivacs worth of units sit around and wait for an opportune moment to drop in. - Exploiting the natural cliff is actually a balance flaw of the map. Mapmakers shouldn't rely on layout imbalances to make aggression possible. Name me any aggressive strategy seen on Tal'Darim that didn't exploit this cliff. When you take this balance issue out of account, you realize just how unaggressive the map size makes it. There's a reason cross-position is imbalanced in favour of Zerg, who benefit from long distances, while close position is imbalanced against Zerg due to cliff abuse -- ironically, the two imbalances balance one another, making overall win rates look balanced. Whirlwind - Not much different from Tal'Darim, except it lacks cliff abuse. - Produced some of the longest games in tournaments, just by virtue of its passive, deathball nature. While you point out drop vulnerability for deathballs (and that is true), a lot of what we've seen (usually dropping Zerg) has just been poor drop defence in general and the choice of a less ideal deathball composition (BLs instead of Ultras). - Verdict on balance is still out, as the map is new. Definitely not prudent to already declare the map works (or doesn't) balance-wise. Antiga - Straight-up imbalanced map unless you turn it into a 2p map (as tournaments have done, forcing cross-spawn). - Aggressive play on this map is possible thanks to Blizzard's choice to not make this map overly large (in fact, it's too small for a 4p map, which is one of the major reasons it has to be made into 2p -- cross spawn increases the rush distance). Entombed - Protoss love 3-base turtle on this map. Made it notorious as being deemed a Protoss map. - Imbalance in close third positions; disabled in tournament play, making this map essentially a 3p map. Metropolis - Straight turtle map, to the excessive point that 200/200 pure BC/Ghost compositions are somehow viable in highest-level play. Wtf? Shakuras Plateau - Bit of a weird map; plays out reasonably until someone controls the centre, then it becomes a straight passive/turtle map. - Arguably imbalanced; Terrans controlling the centre properly make it nearly impossible to break through. Pros have complained about this sort of thing. - Close spawns disabled; this map was originally a 2v2 map, which explains its issues in 1v1. Metalopolis - Completely imbalanced, but in a way that is similar to Tal'Darim. Cross position is Zerg town, close positions were so imbalanced they needed to be disabled even on ladder, and close air positions are imbalanced in favour of Terran/Protoss. The combined imbalances even out, making overall balance stats look reasonable. Shattered Temple - Main base cliff abuse (like natural cliff abuse on Tal'Darim, but worse) and ridiculously close air positions made this map imbalanced against Zerg. - Close ground spawns imbalanced; forced to be disabled. Honestly, all of the Blizzard 4p maps listed here have horrible imbalances that either force certain spawns to be disabled or have the map removed from tournament play. The community maps all have issues with deathball, for the reasons I already mentioned. There's a reason why I said current 4p tournament maps aren't very good. ........... Whirlwind= not much different from Taldarim??!?! They are completely different maps. Whirlwind alleviates any positional imbalances by making you have a choice of thirds Also 4 player maps essentially being a 3 player map is not true. In a 3 player map, there will be 1 neutral base left; in 4 player maps there will be 2 neutral bases, which completely changes gameplay. Noone came up with a perfect 4 player map, but whirlwind is the closest to it. taldarim obviously has problems, but it was made early in sc2 history. I think antiga isn't the worst map ever, because it's quite different from the other maps we've got. I know it's imbalanced. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 20 2012 08:54 stormfoxSC wrote: Tal'Darim - TvT is always an aggressive matchup until a reasonable tank count is made. This is no different on Tal'Darim. The sheer size of it does make mech pretty much impossible, though. - Tal'Darim's larger/droppable main is definitely a plus for the map (though I would argue that the map layout made it a little too droppable from all sides). However, that's not aggression play, that's "I hope you're not at home and/or have adequate AA defence". Anyone can sit their main army at home and have a couple medivacs worth of units sit around and wait for an opportune moment to drop in. - Exploiting the natural cliff is actually a balance flaw of the map. Mapmakers shouldn't rely on layout imbalances to make aggression possible. Name me any aggressive strategy seen on Tal'Darim that didn't exploit this cliff. When you take this balance issue out of account, you realize just how unaggressive the map size makes it. There's a reason cross-position is imbalanced in favour of Zerg, who benefit from long distances, while close position is imbalanced against Zerg due to cliff abuse -- ironically, the two imbalances balance one another, making overall win rates look balanced. Whirlwind - Not much different from Tal'Darim, except it lacks cliff abuse. - Produced some of the longest games in tournaments, just by virtue of its passive, deathball nature. While you point out drop vulnerability for deathballs (and that is true), a lot of what we've seen (usually dropping Zerg) has just been poor drop defence in general and the choice of a less ideal deathball composition (BLs instead of Ultras). - Verdict on balance is still out, as the map is new. Definitely not prudent to already declare the map works (or doesn't) balance-wise. Antiga - Straight-up imbalanced map unless you turn it into a 2p map (as tournaments have done, forcing cross-spawn). - Aggressive play on this map is possible thanks to Blizzard's choice to not make this map overly large (in fact, it's too small for a 4p map, which is one of the major reasons it has to be made into 2p -- cross spawn increases the rush distance). Entombed - Protoss love 3-base turtle on this map. Made it notorious as being deemed a Protoss map. - Imbalance in close third positions; disabled in tournament play, making this map essentially a 3p map. Metropolis - Straight turtle map, to the excessive point that 200/200 pure BC/Ghost compositions are somehow viable in highest-level play. Wtf? Shakuras Plateau - Bit of a weird map; plays out reasonably until someone controls the centre, then it becomes a straight passive/turtle map. - Arguably imbalanced; Terrans controlling the centre properly make it nearly impossible to break through. Pros have complained about this sort of thing. - Close spawns disabled; this map was originally a 2v2 map, which explains its issues in 1v1. Metalopolis - Completely imbalanced, but in a way that is similar to Tal'Darim. Cross position is Zerg town, close positions were so imbalanced they needed to be disabled even on ladder, and close air positions are imbalanced in favour of Terran/Protoss. The combined imbalances even out, making overall balance stats look reasonable. Shattered Temple - Main base cliff abuse (like natural cliff abuse on Tal'Darim, but worse) and ridiculously close air positions made this map imbalanced against Zerg. - Close ground spawns imbalanced; forced to be disabled. Honestly, all of the Blizzard 4p maps listed here have horrible imbalances that either force certain spawns to be disabled or have the map removed from tournament play. The community maps all have issues with deathball, for the reasons I already mentioned. There's a reason why I said current 4p tournament maps aren't very good. Not gonna comment on this too much, we basically disagree completly on what is a map feature and what is map flaw. Imo any map that is balanced and does produce interesting games is good, I don't care whether this is due to an abuseable cliff or a turtly position. -) The DRG game you are commenting on on Whirlwind, DRG switched out of an Ultralisk composition because he got destroyed in any attempt to engage. -) Nearly every 4p map has spawns disabled. That still makes them 4p maps, jus tthat you don't have to scout certain positions once you know your own starting location. Call them 3p or 2p maps if you like, but in that case I don't see the point of 4p maps to begin with, as it comes down to a difference in finding your opponent and that's it. | ||
|
Timmay
United States112 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 20 2012 09:06 kim9067 wrote: ........... Whirlwind= not much different from Taldarim??!?! They are completely different maps. Whirlwind alleviates any positional imbalances by making you have a choice of thirds Also 4 player maps essentially being a 3 player map is not true. In a 3 player map, there will be 1 neutral base left; in 4 player maps there will be 2 neutral bases, which completely changes gameplay. Noone came up with a perfect 4 player map, but whirlwind is the closest to it. taldarim obviously has problems, but it was made early in sc2 history. I think antiga isn't the worst map ever, because it's quite different from the other maps we've got. I know it's imbalanced. Sorry, when I say it's not much different from Tal'Darim, I'm only referring to the major points I've been bringing up regarding 4p community maps: large size and 3+ accessible bases per corner. Wasn't implying they're the same map, though you could argue there are some other similarities, like the vast, open centres, etc. Biggest point I was making is that it still has these issues, but without the positional imbalances of Tal'Darim Altar. In that regard, it's definitely a superior map to TDA. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 20 2012 09:24 Big J wrote: Not gonna comment on this too much, we basically disagree completly on what is a map feature and what is map flaw. Imo any map that is balanced and does produce interesting games is good, I don't care whether this is due to an abuseable cliff or a turtly position. -) The DRG game you are commenting on on Whirlwind, DRG switched out of an Ultralisk composition because he got destroyed in any attempt to engage. -) Nearly every 4p map has spawns disabled. That still makes them 4p maps, jus tthat you don't have to scout certain positions once you know your own starting location. Call them 3p or 2p maps if you like, but in that case I don't see the point of 4p maps to begin with, as it comes down to a difference in finding your opponent and that's it. - Actually, DRG almost took the game before committing heavily to Brood Lords. He even broke through the Terran's natural at one point just before switching into a full BL. All across community sites like TL and Reddit, general consensus was that the overcommitment in BL tech was a mistake and that DRG would have easily won otherwise. - Nearly every 4p map has spawns disabled because the maps themselves have imbalanced positions. That's not exactly a good standard to uphold. It's a band-aid solution to make broken maps viable for competitive play. You can argue that it's ok to build the disabled-spawn into the map as a feature (e.g. Metropolis), and I won't argue against that if it was the mapmaker's intent from the get-go, but when a map is designed to be 4p (Antiga Shipyard, Entombed Valley, Shattered Temple, etc.) and is forced into disabling spawns, then that's clearly a sign of poor mapmaking. Just look at Antiga and Entombed on the ladder; they still have those spawns enabled there despite the spawns being restricted in tournament play. It's straight-up band-aiding just to make the map playable on a professional level. - My argument against overly-turtley maps is for a couple of reasons: a.) TvP, even Blizzard has come out and admitted that the matchup is balanced based on Terran's ability to do mid-game damage, and Protoss has a significant advantage in the late-game if they're allowed to reach deathball status unhindered. b.) I dare you to find an example where people prefer the deathball style over multi-pronged harassment and multitask-heavy play, from a spectator standpoint. Just do a search on TL, and you'll find no shortage of threads complaining about the deathball. - Calling a map balanced because it has multiple imbalances that average out is completely flawed from a competitive standpoint. It's stupid to rely on favourable spawns (which is entirely random) to win in a tournament. - My original premise was that mapmakers don't know how to make decent 4p maps in SC2. If you're gonna go ahead and ask what the point of 4p maps are (i.e. imply they're not necessary), that's fine but has no relation to my statement. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 20 2012 09:37 Timmay wrote: As funny as it may be to see Back to Back get picked, it's an insult to everyone else who worked hard on their maps, but are unable to participate. Given the format of this MotM, there really should have been a way for the unselected amateurs and uninvited pros to participate. Although these people would be at a disadvantage for the competition, it's a hell of a lot better than sitting out. I dunno, I'm not too worried about it as someone who submitted a couple of 4p maps. If the pros only wanna focus on selecting 2p maps because that's what they're good at making, then that makes sense logically. What's the point of a pro picking a 4p map and then being just as unsure how balanced/well-designed/etc. the map is as the amateur? | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 20 2012 11:11 stormfoxSC wrote: I dunno, I'm not too worried about it as someone who submitted a couple of 4p maps. If the pros only wanna focus on selecting 2p maps because that's what they're good at making, then that makes sense logically. What's the point of a pro picking a 4p map and then being just as unsure how balanced/well-designed/etc. the map is as the amateur? 2p maps are easier to make in general and allow for more innovation, since the two halves of a map each have much more variety. That's its own topic however. Anyway, you guys are totally derailing the thread you're posting in. This thread was to announce the selected maps, and in general discuss the current state of the competition. The discussion you guys are having really belongs in its own thread. The decline of 4p maps compared to 2p has little to do with the contest, and should be taken elsewhere. Some people want to talk about the MotM, and it's being derailed. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 20 2012 11:18 NewSunshine wrote: 2p maps are easier to make in general and allow for more innovation, since the two halves of a map each have much more variety. That's its own topic however. Anyway, you guys are totally derailing the thread you're posting in. This thread was to announce the selected maps, and in general discuss the current state of the competition. The discussion you guys are having really belongs in its own thread. The decline of 4p maps compared to 2p has little to do with the contest, and should be taken elsewhere. Some people want to talk about the MotM, and it's being derailed. You're right, we're derailing. x_x Sorry 'bout that Plexa. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On another note - this one's sorta directed at Timmay, as well as all the other solid entrants who weren't picked - I can understand the frustration, I don't entirely know how the selection process for each of the pros worked either, since this isn't as straightforward as other MOTM's, and it's pretty much up to them, however, I definitely think that since this contest looks to be going pretty strong, there will probably be more events of this type, and the mappers who weren't picked this time will get their chance later on. | ||
|
GDR
Canada407 Posts
| ||
|
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
In my opinion, the skill difference between those who submitted the lowest quality of maps, and those who submitted the highest quality of maps, is actually quite minor. Learning things such as decent proportions, decent aesthetics, and the basic/standard rules of mapping is not all that difficult. By no means is this skill jump the hardest part of mapping. Rather, going from the highest quality of maps submitted here, to something like Cloud Kingdom or Daybreak is a much more significant and difficult leap in skill. The skill required to make something like Daybreak or Cloud Kingdom requires so much more than knowing how to place a texture, knowing that a nat choke should be ffe friendly, or knowing that a 2p map should at max have 12 bases. It requires a mapper to actually understand the game at a fairly high level, develop something entirely innovative, and to understand when the basic rules of mapping can and cannot be broken or changed. With that said, I find that this motm format actually encourages pros to help out those who need it most...the ones that already understand the basics and need a helping hand grasping the more complex side of mapping. I am not saying that a mapper that makes low quality maps does not understand the game or have good ideas. What I am saying is that not knowing the basics of mapping can severely hinder your ability to express your game knowledge and your creativity. In other words, how are you supposed to make a Cloud Kingdom when you can't understand how to make a Xel'naga Caverns? However, in this particular scenario of motm, I can promise you that not getting picked does not mean you don't understand the basics. There were only 12 pros after all, and there were many more submissions that showed a solid understanding in the basics. With so many nice submissions to choose from, I made my choice simply on personal preference on things such as map concept and ideas I had for improvement. In the end though, an understanding of the basics is the main reason why I choose one of the higher quality maps submitted instead of a lower quality map. Of course this may not exactly explain why many of the other pros picked a higher quality submission, since everyone has their own reasons. However, I am quite glad it turned out that way. | ||
| ||
