|
On September 05 2013 12:50 Timetwister22 wrote:
Because some how some random reddit thread represents a majority. My point is that your post was a completely worthless post. Give something meaningful to the conversation, like stats or individual replays or vods. Presenting the opinion of you and some random people in reddit are about as worthwhile to this thread as stating your opinion about the current weather outside. Please be more beneficial stuff to the threads you comment on. Yeh, I sometimes forget, when people post their opinion and they agree with you the post is meaningful but when people disagree it's 'Well, that's just like, your opinion man' and suddenly giving an opinion becomes worthless.
You didn't say that about the first post I made in this topic:
On January 25 2013 00:46 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Oblivion also has it doesn't it?
Anyway, I like this map, the layout is interesting, I like a good map that forces you to consider exactly through what path to engage and allows you to pull you opponent out of position with small attack squads. It's hard to do on a small map and usually I just make maps large to achieve this but you seem to have done an amicable job on a small map.
Why? Because you agreed with it. I've since rescinded my opinion after actually playing on it. It looked cool at first but this map is very hard to play on as Zerg.
|
No, because you didn't explain your opinion and the reasoning behind why you stated such an opinion. I do have a minor issue with simple "I like this map" posts, but those are fairly harmless and can actually encourage and brighten the mapmakers day. Meanwhile, saying "I don't like this map" without stating a reason as to why, is worse because it brings nothing with it. No feedback, no benefit. It is literally just waste. Saying "I think this map is hard for zerg because..." would have been much more appropriate and beneficial to the thread.
|
This map is bad for zerg probably because of the 3rd. Both choices are pretty hard to hold for Zerg, while Protoss and Terran can expand later after breaking the rocks so their rd will be easier to defend. I think this is the main reason for Zerg being bad on this map, although there might be other reasons.
|
On September 05 2013 13:31 Timetwister22 wrote:
No, because you didn't explain your opinion and the reasoning behind why you stated such an opinion. I do have a minor issue with simple "I like this map" posts, but those are fairly harmless and can actually encourage and brighten the mapmakers day. Meanwhile, saying "I don't like this map" without stating a reason as to why, is worse because it brings nothing with it. No feedback, no benefit. It is literally just waste. Saying "I think this map is hard for zerg because..." would have been much more appropriate and beneficial to the thread. Except of course when someone says 'I hate Blizzard map x', then you never demand arguments because again, you agree with it.
I believe I said in this thread already why by the way, I'm just re-affirming my opinion after I unvetoed the map racepicking Zerg a couple of games to see if I could find a way to deal with it. It's super rough. I have literally yet to win a non mirror ZvX on this map. This is hardly just my opinion by the way, wherever you go people say the map is very hard for Zerg.
On September 05 2013 13:34 moskonia wrote:
This map is bad for zerg probably because of the 3rd. Both choices are pretty hard to hold for Zerg, while Protoss and Terran can expand later after breaking the rocks so their rd will be easier to defend. I think this is the main reason for Zerg being bad on this map, although there might be other reasons.
Well, the forward third is also a meching or biomine pushing Terran's wet dream.
|
You're referring to a "someone" in a non-specified or real situation. You are literally making up random assumptions and examples in an attempt to put reason behind your trash post. Clever.
Just some wise words from the TL commandments:
On September 13 2004 22:42 mensrea wrote:
Finally, do not post for the sake of posting. While it is sometimes acceptable to support another person's view point, doing so by adding "+1", or quoting while adding nothing at all, is not an appropriate post.
Please add something to the discussion, especially if you're bumping a thread. That is all I ask.
|
is it intended that 1 of the 3rd bases can be sieged from the "island"?
this map is pretty cool but blink is problem
|
I vetoed this map really quickly as a Zerg. While it may be balanced, the amount of chokes and the position of the third means I would have to change my playstyle dramatically.
anyways, did anyone else see suppy's 6-pool vs demuslim's fast CC on high ground last night? I think this map does not allow terrans to go fast CC on bottom spawn. See sample images here: http://imgur.com/a/GdSNP
|
Yeah there are many mistakes in this map. Yesterday Tails canon rushed Babyknight in WCS, there's a spot to put a canon close to the Nexus, it doesn't hit the nexus but then the next canons hugging the edge do. It shouldn't be possible.
Then there's not enough area around the ramp so you can't really wall as you would as protoss or at least you have to be super careful because the pylon can block the cyber core. Also since there's not enough room it's easy to kill sentries trying to forcefield the ramp just with a mothership core and stalkers because they can't go far enough and still being able to forcefield. They're always in range from the low ground.
Also, same problem as Frost there's not enough room anywhere to put your buildings. It makes me feel like the map was made by a zerg because he'd never have to wall or to make a ton of buildings. I remember in my map back to back the elite mappers said I didn't put enough room in my main while actually I put a ton of room in the natural because it was safer. On this map there's no room anywhere.
About the siegable 3rds imo it's really bad and only helps the player already winning.
I didn't see all these problems from the overview before voting for the TLMC but considering that they had already been played I wonder why none of these problems were fixed.
|
On September 19 2013 07:07 chuky500 wrote:
Yeah there are many mistakes in this map. Yesterday Tails canon rushed Babyknight in WCS, there's a spot to put a canon close to the Nexus, it doesn't hit the nexus but then the next canons hugging the edge do. It shouldn't be possible.
Then there's not enough area around the ramp so you can't really wall as you would as protoss or at least you have to be super careful because the pylon can block the cyber core. Also since there's not enough room it's easy to kill sentries trying to forcefield the ramp just with a mothership core because they can't go far enough and still being able to forcefield.
Also, same problem as Frost there's not enough room anywhere to put your buildings. It makes me feel like the map was made by a zerg because he'd never have to wall or to make a ton of buildings. I remember in my map back to back the elite mappers said I didn't put enough room in my main while actually I put a ton of room in the natural because it was safer. On this map there's no room anywhere.
About the siegable 3rds imo it's really bad and only helps the player already winning.
I didn't see all these problems from the overview before voting for the TLMC but considering that they had already been played I wonder why none of these problems were fixed.
Your map shouldn't be compared to yeonsu in any fashion. The level of the maps are not even close. I play protoss and I don't have any trouble placing all the buildings I need. Walling off here is no more cramped than daybreak or any number of maps. This is just griping for the sake of griping.
|
I'm not arguing about the level of maps, I'm saying this map wasn't proof checked and that judges didn't take their time before judging. This map could have been improved a lot before ending on the ladder.
|
I agree that the nat is not easy to wall, but after some practice you shouldn't fail it. Its only complicated because the number of squares is a bit larger than the norm. There are 2 main ways to wall the entrance, the first with 2 3x3 buildings and 2 2x2 buildings, and the second is like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZN0EL0a.jpg)
It may seem like there is a 2 square opening between the forge and the pylon, but I assure you it's only one.
Overall the main imo has enough room, the more space you add to the main the harder it is to defend versus drops, so I think the current size is fine.
The map is slowly becoming one of my favorites, although it's still a bit weird from time to time since it is pretty different than other maps on certain aspects.
|
I'm talking about the ramp from the main to the nat. If you start wallking like this and it's useful for gate expands against zerg well you discover you can't put your cyber core anywhere while it's supposed to go to the left. If you put the gate at the bottom it defeats a bit of this wall because later you'll have to go all the way around to go back and defend. The other bad part of removing space at the top of this ramp is it's easy to assault and kill things because they're all in range, either sentries, depots or marines.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2c4o7wq.jpg)
|
Seriously? No one walls at the top of the ramp since a long time now, as a high master toss I can assure you the map is fine for toss. Anyways even if a main wall was needed it wouldn't be a problem, simply move the pylon a bit back and put the cyber core with its right top corner touching the point where the 2 red lines are crossing and you have a good wall with 1 square opening.
EDIT: if you look another time you will see you can actually wall with just a pylon and a gate, so I really don't get why are you whining.
About units being able to hit things at the top of ramp, have it occurred to you it is by design? Its the same way on Frost and was on Star Station. It gives more aggressive options and makes the defender to have to think more about unit and building placements.
|
Have it occured to you that by design sentries are made to hold ramps without being killed from the bottom ? It's not the same as Star Station and even less the same as Frost because of the small forward part at the top of the ramp which is lacking in Yeonsu.
That wall is old school but it's still a good way to be safe against early pools, mass speedlings and runbys. I didn't give my thoughts about your wall while mine is standard. And if you can't do standard on a standard map than there's a problem.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 19 2013 07:50 chuky500 wrote:I'm talking about the ramp from the main to the nat. If you start wallking like this and it's useful for gate expands against zerg well you discover you can't put your cyber core anywhere while it's supposed to go to the left. If you put the gate at the bottom it defeats a bit of this wall because later you'll have to go all the way around to go back and defend. The other bad part of removing space at the top of this ramp is it's easy to assault and kill things because they're all in range, either sentries, depots or marines.
If you can't adapt to something as small as your main ramp wall, then you're probably a bad player and deserve to lose. I have never, not once, messed up this wall. It is very similar to the old Backwater Gulch wall. A pylon has a 6 hex power radius. If you place your pylon 2 hexes away from the ramp/wall, you are really bad at counting.
However, because you're too lazy to adapt to alternate wall offs, and instead complain on the forums, here are 4 entirely plausible wall offs for the map.
+ Show Spoiler +
Please put some effort into learning from your mistakes rather than being lazy and making a useless complaint post.
|
So if the mapper makes mistakes it's good design and if I do it it's me being lazy and sucking, I think I get your point. Still there are other bad points I've mentionned but it's ok if you just want to use the first point to insult me. Not the first time you do this.
|
@chuky, I don't usually argue with you but all of the points you raised are all debatable or ridiculous. I'm not sure what you want to discuss.
@webhappy, please post more comprehensive pictures because that's a silly thing to suggest going by symmetry. also if you play with building placements in the editor I'm sure you can find some simple walloff solutions, since the choke is narrower than usual. if demu had trouble with a walloff I think it's safe to blame lack of preparation and not the map, if that was the insinuation...
|
If I posted my thoughts here it's because they are debatable. Yesterday this is what we had in WCS Eu. There are 3 canons and the first one is behind the cliff and behind the trees. Is Babyknight too lazy or plays bad because he put his buildings in range of the canons, or is there a problem with the fact that the canon can be so forward and protected from melee attacks ? You can say it's ridiculous if you want but at least you shouldn't need to move the camera to be able to see the canon and target it.
VOD is there, the game starts at 3:22:00
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Wzo890m.png)
|
On September 19 2013 09:17 chuky500 wrote:
If I posted my thoughts here it's because they are debatable. Yesterday this is what we had in WCS Eu. There are 3 canons and the first one is behind the cliff and behind the trees. Is Babyknight too lazy or plays bad because he put his buildings in range of the canons, or is there a problem with the fact that the canon can be so forward and protected from melee attacks ? You can say it's ridiculous if you want but at least you shouldn't need to move the camera to be able to see the canon and target it.
It's Babyknight (and Grubby's) fault for not scouting that spot. It's exactly like the spot on daybreak where you can cannon behind the main minerals. Prepare for it, don't let your opponent do it. Don't pretend that the map isn't viable because you can cheese on it, the players lost to the cheese because they chose not to scout it. That's just part of the game.
Also, re; your silly main ramp thing, you realise you can still put down the cyber core to make a full wall-off with a zealot hole right? You just put it in a slightly different spot. There's also plenty of room in the main.
tl;dr people shouldn't criticise map-makers if they couldn't do anywhere near as well. When the only criticisms of the map are that cheese can happen and wall-offs are slightly funky, it looks like it's a pretty good map. 
|
On September 19 2013 09:17 chuky500 wrote:
If I posted my thoughts here it's because they are debatable. Yesterday this is what we had in WCS Eu. There are 3 canons and the first one is behind the cliff and behind the trees. Is Babyknight too lazy or plays bad because he put his buildings in range of the canons, or is there a problem with the fact that the canon can be so forward and protected from melee attacks ? You can say it's ridiculous if you want but at least you shouldn't need to move the camera to be able to see the canon and target it.
Watch this:
http://www.twitch.tv/wcs_europe/b/460309568?t=154m40s
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dU6gnca.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2VAWGV9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G6k2CJU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xsGas7N.jpg)
