|
On August 23 2013 18:53 IeZaeL wrote:
Sorry , but on Yeonsu i could not even see where the expansions/ramps were. Blizzard made a right step ahead in cleaning textures a lot , but they made a wrong step ahead changing a bit the layout.
In frost textures were ... blur ? Yes , they were. Still , i liked it more than this blizzard version , especially cuz the tundra feeling in mains/naturals.
The textures were already cleaned up waiting for blizzard to contact me, i did not have this thread updated but I'll show an overview here now I suppose..
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UtpWZ8P.jpg)
It was more than clear enough in this version and looks a hell of a lot nicer than what blizzard has done. Instead of being a stark contrasted two-tone monstrosity they have created...
If they had any changes to make it should have been a removal of the watchtowers. That's the only thing I would change from here-on.
|
And here is my 30 minute effort recreating what they have asked for, along with some new doodad-ing and retexturing.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NvWz3zZ.jpg)
|
The Clarity Gaming Masters Community was playign on Yeonsu during practice the past little while, and in game, the original textures weren't nearly as disorienting as they are in the overview. Still, you're last update with the cleaner aesthetics is MILES ahead of what Blizzard just put out.
|
On August 23 2013 20:33 InfCereal wrote:
The Clarity Gaming Masters Community was playign on Yeonsu during practice the past little while, and in game, the original textures weren't nearly as disorienting as they are in the overview. Still, you're last update with the cleaner aesthetics is MILES ahead of what Blizzard just put out.
I agree that the original was not clear at all. Thanks, that was my intention with the new version, just emailed Blizzard hopefully get somewhere.
|
It must be really frustrating to put hours and hours into a map and then have Blizzard come in and apply one or two textures and then be done with it.
That being said, I do understand WHY they did what they did. I've been playing on Yeonsu frequently the last 3 weeks and there definitely needed to be some change to the overall cleanliness of the terrain. But it didn't need to be so drastic, and I would like to play on your new one that is edited for cleanliness.
|
Man, that change to the island... reminds of MLG. Guess Blizzard has to do it now that MLG dropped SC2, right?
|
On August 24 2013 08:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Man, that change to the island... reminds of MLG. Guess Blizzard has to do it now that MLG dropped SC2, right?
Actually Blizzard been changing those kind of Semi-Island maps for a while now. Except their primary way of changing it have been to simply not implement maps with them at all. But this is a trend that dates back to Shattered temple. Hardly a new thing.
Metropolis was an exception, but i severely doupt that this helped their views on them.
|
On August 25 2013 07:37 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 08:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Man, that change to the island... reminds of MLG. Guess Blizzard has to do it now that MLG dropped SC2, right? Actually Blizzard been changing those kind of Semi-Island maps for a while now. Except their primary way of changing it have been to simply not implement maps with them at all. But this is a trend that dates back to Shattered temple. Hardly a new thing. Metropolis was an exception, but i severely doupt that this helped their views on them.
The joke is that MLG changed the islands on Metropolis without asking and now Blizzard is changing the islands without asking.
|
On August 25 2013 07:37 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 08:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Man, that change to the island... reminds of MLG. Guess Blizzard has to do it now that MLG dropped SC2, right? Actually Blizzard been changing those kind of Semi-Island maps for a while now. Except their primary way of changing it have been to simply not implement maps with them at all. But this is a trend that dates back to Shattered temple. Hardly a new thing. Metropolis was an exception, but i severely doupt that this helped their views on them.
The problem with that is the very goal we all had for TLMC 2 - to find maps that promise to change the metagame. The winners ended up being the 3 most standard maps of the lot, and what features they do have are being standardized. And we have Blizzard to thank for this duplicitous bastardization. I'm all for finding straight up good maps, but getting my hopes up for new and different maps only to smash them so completely is something I don't appreciate.
|
On August 25 2013 08:31 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2013 07:37 Sumadin wrote:On August 24 2013 08:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Man, that change to the island... reminds of MLG. Guess Blizzard has to do it now that MLG dropped SC2, right? Actually Blizzard been changing those kind of Semi-Island maps for a while now. Except their primary way of changing it have been to simply not implement maps with them at all. But this is a trend that dates back to Shattered temple. Hardly a new thing. Metropolis was an exception, but i severely doupt that this helped their views on them. The problem with that is the very goal we all had for TLMC 2 - to find maps that promise to change the metagame. The winners ended up being the 3 most standard maps of the lot, and what features they do have are being standardized. And we have Blizzard to thank for this duplicitous bastardization. I'm all for finding straight up good maps, but getting my hopes up for new and different maps only to smash them so completely is something I don't appreciate.
Well the changing of metagame added by islands, is that people on ladder can turtle up and drag the games needlessly long. As was also descriped in the original post for Shattered Temple: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2356440#best
This is really a ladder-world problem. Refusing to GG and turtling up like that in a tournement, would very soon cause you to lose your sponsors and your team. But there is no punishment for doing so on ladder. As such, the islands can't be there.
|
duplicitous bastardization
why do we even bother 
|
On August 25 2013 16:16 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2013 08:31 NewSunshine wrote:On August 25 2013 07:37 Sumadin wrote:On August 24 2013 08:19 NewSunshine wrote:
Man, that change to the island... reminds of MLG. Guess Blizzard has to do it now that MLG dropped SC2, right? Actually Blizzard been changing those kind of Semi-Island maps for a while now. Except their primary way of changing it have been to simply not implement maps with them at all. But this is a trend that dates back to Shattered temple. Hardly a new thing. Metropolis was an exception, but i severely doupt that this helped their views on them. The problem with that is the very goal we all had for TLMC 2 - to find maps that promise to change the metagame. The winners ended up being the 3 most standard maps of the lot, and what features they do have are being standardized. And we have Blizzard to thank for this duplicitous bastardization. I'm all for finding straight up good maps, but getting my hopes up for new and different maps only to smash them so completely is something I don't appreciate. Well the changing of metagame added by islands, is that people on ladder can turtle up and drag the games needlessly long. As was also descriped in the original post for Shattered Temple: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2356440#bestThis is really a ladder-world problem. Refusing to GG and turtling up like that in a tournement, would very soon cause you to lose your sponsors and your team. But there is no punishment for doing so on ladder. As such, the islands can't be there.
By the same logic there should never be any airspace on any ladder map that is more than 5-6 squares away from pathable land, yet we know there have been plenty of ladder maps where this isn't true (Akilon being an obvious, Blizzard-made example, Ohana being a community example). Terran can float to the corners just as easily as landing on an island to extend a lost game.
Another lulzy part of that Blizz post:
"(4) Lost Temple
Problems of Lost Temple:
If one side controls one of the center watch towers, there's no alternate ground-based route to half of the map, meaning it's too easy for the game to become a stalemate with each side taking half of the map."
*Blizzard later makes newkirk and zerus prime, puts them on ladder*
|
Except that flying Buildings burn off if damaged sufficiantly, and can never shoot back. Turtling on an island however can involve spamming it with Turrets making sure it requires a large air force to break it. It is true that flying off with buildings can extend the game a bit, but turtling on an island can actually take so much longer.
|
If the game gets to the point where someone is turtling on the island then you should have no problem, because that is the only part of the map they have. Just continue on to win lol...
|
If the situation is like that it's because nobody has 300/400 minerals left to build another base. That's why the terran flew his orbital there in the first place. So either you have a base left and you're long distance mining, or you have to only make units but you'll never make more cost effective than what a terran will make. Another problem in this situation is a turret or a spore is a lot cheaper than a canon or even a protoss unit. Base trades are always unfavoring protoss, because of the army immobility, the cost of buildings and the fact that you have to place them near a pylon. It's not just a problem of islands but it's the same with huge maps.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On August 25 2013 17:50 Sumadin wrote:
Except that flying Buildings burn off if damaged sufficiantly, and can never shoot back. Turtling on an island however can involve spamming it with Turrets making sure it requires a large air force to break it. It is true that flying off with buildings can extend the game a bit, but turtling on an island can actually take so much longer.
Zergs can just take two another non-island maps and outnumber fortified terran with broodlords / mutas / vipers (blind turrets)
|
On August 25 2013 21:56 Existor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2013 17:50 Sumadin wrote:
Except that flying Buildings burn off if damaged sufficiantly, and can never shoot back. Turtling on an island however can involve spamming it with Turrets making sure it requires a large air force to break it. It is true that flying off with buildings can extend the game a bit, but turtling on an island can actually take so much longer. Zergs can just take two another non-island maps and outnumber fortified terran with broodlords / mutas / vipers (blind turrets)
That is not the point. Yes you will lose once you are isolated to just an Island, but it takes way longer than it should do.
|
On August 25 2013 21:56 Existor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2013 17:50 Sumadin wrote:
Except that flying Buildings burn off if damaged sufficiantly, and can never shoot back. Turtling on an island however can involve spamming it with Turrets making sure it requires a large air force to break it. It is true that flying off with buildings can extend the game a bit, but turtling on an island can actually take so much longer. Zergs can just take two another non-island maps and outnumber fortified terran with broodlords / mutas / vipers (blind turrets)
Turtling on an island is different from floating buildings away as it is a valid tactic that still leaves chances for winning the game. I still remember the game in the IPL mapmaking tournament between Tails and Saladin (the guy people thought was Day[9]) on Sanshorn Mist, which Saladin (Protoss) won, because he was able to establish a base on one of the islands after a basetrade.
And even if some people abuse islands to needlessly prolong lost games, I don't see that as a reason to dismiss islands as a whole.
|
Easy fix to island abuse is putting rocks on the islands. Yet, by doing so they'll never get taken. Honestly, solo islands such as this don't work in sc2. However, islands that have an cliff behind them that is accessible from the rest of the map do work.
So something like this: + Show Spoiler +
On Yeonsu, would look like this: + Show Spoiler +
Though, I'm ok with Blizzard's change to make the islands semi islands. While this does change the map concept a bit, in a way it should actually make the map more interesting. Chances are the islands would have rarely seen use, but now they have the potential to be used with more than just air based compositions.
As for the aesthetic change, it's not worth complaining about. Yes, eTcetRa put some hard work into the aesthetics, but this map is being used in ladder and WCS. It is going to be played on by all the pros as well as thousands of ladder players. It will be played on millions of times, and potentially host some of the most historic and memorable games that fans will remember for a long time. Why on earth should anyone complain about a bit of texture changes. I do think eTcetRa's is better looking, but it's not like Blizzard made this map a complete eyesore. So yeah, nothing to really complain about.
In all, the changes Blizzard did to this map are not worth complaining. While the map may not look as good in my opinion, I feel it will play better with the island change. Thus, as long as Blizzard isn't shit-ifying the map like the natural change on Korhal Compound, then I'm ok with Blizzard making changes. Would be nice if they at least briefed the mapmaker though...
|
It looks like Blizzard changes the layout. Did they ask you guys first?
![[image loading]](https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/content_folder_media/E6AUZ37IV8TX1377035809955.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sPd6nsd.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jVwHe95.png)
