- GENERAL Bounds increased to 132x132 (from 124x132). Texturing in mains simplified. Texturing on islands fixed.
- MIDFIELD & FIFTHS Area between towers enlarged. Small chasm added to midfield between both towers. Area in front of fifth bases enlarged. Small hole added to enlarged area near fifth.
- BUG FIXES Fixed some pathing issues near cliffs. Fixed unit clipping on some doodads. Forced occlusion on overlord spots. Forced occlusion on large trees around map border. Fixed some line of sight blockers. Refined some texture work on map border and dead space. Removed no fly zones that were attached to "HotS - Iceworld - Ice Rock Giant: doodads. Removed duplicated Xel'Naga Towers. Placed pathing blockers on lower cliff level between island and pathable area. Mirrored some doodads so that pathing is equal to both spawns.
- GAMEPLAY Ramp widths with rock towers increased by 1 unit.
- Main bases enlarged slightly. - Main ramp changed to require standard wall-of. - Added overlord hiding spot to top natural to match bottom natural. - Low ground third moved away from natural slightly (4-5 squares). - Low ground third minerals and gas reoriented. - High-ground path above low-ground third widened slightly. - Ramp from low-ground third to high-ground path moved backward slightly. - Cliffs surrounding the low-ground paths (3 oclock and 9 oclock) changed to match each other (for overlord purposes).
On January 24 2013 23:53 neptunusfisk wrote: Wow.. never seen that rock block of minerals before.. are you able to fit a base there before they're gone?
edit: on the islands I mean, perhaps not the most important question, but whatever
It was used on Testbug before, but since then it was never seen I think.
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.
This has its problems, but they're all within the envelope of what a small map has to deal with anyway, and you succeeded mightily in what you set out to do, and these problems are all minimal unlike most small maps which set aside one problem to have in spades while fixing the others. Still, I don't like how much the towers poach on lategame maneuvering. By that I mean, the bases get close together and the towers cover all the rest of the space on the map, making army movements de facto knowledge. And it decreases the stability by decreasing uncertainty, imo, when it is already plenty unstable by short distance and connectivity. I would love if they were destructible or smaller radius or gone.
I love the islands on this map, some of the best fitting-in corner islands. And that style of rocks definitely needs to be used more.
Sick. This is the kind of map that I would call fresh. It's not different enough to make everyone never play it but it explores small things that make it different. Even the aesthetics aren't over the top crazy shit. It's a nice, subtle, gentlemens map. =D Love it. So far you are my favourite map maker on this forum. <3
Pretty cool. XNTs need to be destructible/time-limited or removed, I agree. Aesthetics are really good. I like the optional 3rds. Neither is too safe. The left and right LOS blockers don't make any sense to me, but w/e that is like the tiniest of nitpicks. gj
This macro map has a pretty solid layout, yo! I like the texturing and the theme. One small nitpick/suggestion:
Actually, after looking at it some more, I changed my mind! I like the clean look of the snow.
Since the towers are in the middle it still leaves a lot of room to maneuver around them (which I like). However, I question the need for towers at all! I bet you could make a strong map that has no XNTs. Just something to consider.
I also question the need for rocks on the island. If T were to take the island early then they would have to build workers separately anyhow. I think closing off the rocks like that removes some crazy little strats that might occur.
Be sure to post the reason why you used the rocks on the island, as I'm really curious.
I REALLY like this map. The natural plays out differently, the third is different, and late game islands sound awesome. However, if the islands don't work out, semi-islands by using rocks or collapse rocks come hots would be very interesting.
Can you perform a standard terran 2depot 1 rax wall at the main ramp? It is hard to tell but it looks like you dont have enough space up top for them to be flush with the edge of the ramp. The whole shape of that ramp seems tough to defend. I do like the jagged cliffs around the map however.
Both the 3rd and 4ths seem hard to defend as Z, siege tanks look quite strong. Then again there are plenty of lanes for counterattacks and runbys so it may just be a matter of playing out differently, which is good.
Love the aesthetics! It really has that frozen mountain feel to it, like it gets colder as you go north on the map.
On January 25 2013 01:26 digmouse wrote: My first thought: Dual Sight.
Do you mean the aesthetics with the two tone set? Or some layout similarity?
On January 25 2013 02:15 EatThePath wrote: Still, I don't like how much the towers poach on lategame maneuvering. By that I mean, the bases get close together and the towers cover all the rest of the space on the map, making army movements de facto knowledge. And it decreases the stability by decreasing uncertainty, imo, when it is already plenty unstable by short distance and connectivity.
Towers were one of my major concerns with the map, I've played with tower radius in previous maps and people didnt like it (don't know why, tower radius should be different for lots of maps) so might make them destructible after 7-10 minutes or some similar setup. If you want your tower, defend it! :D
On January 25 2013 02:27 InfCereal wrote: Sadly I don't have a SEA account to try it out though.
It will be on NA and EU soon, hopefully.
On January 25 2013 03:39 Qwyn wrote: I also question the need for rocks on the island. If T were to take the island early then they would have to build workers separately anyhow. I think closing off the rocks like that removes some crazy little strats that might occur.
Be sure to post the reason why you used the rocks on the island, as I'm really curious.
Very solid map.
The rocks are there in that because if a Terran is to land they still can't flood the relatively safe expansion with mules without destroying those rocks, and I adjusted the armour and health of the rocks on a personal preference, I'd like to see air play (void rays, muta, and banshees) not be disadvantaged in taking down rocks compared to those hard-hitting ground units which would take down rocks normally.
I will further adjust the health and armour depending on how long it would take a PF, spine crawler, and nexus attack (hots) to take them down.
On January 25 2013 04:09 Timetwister22 wrote: I REALLY like this map. The natural plays out differently, the third is different, and late game islands sound awesome. However, if the islands don't work out, semi-islands by using rocks or collapse rocks come hots would be very interesting.
It is my personal belief that air play will become more prevalent in the various match ups, and that islands might play out more Interestingly than they do now, and I hope we will see some competitive island maps come because of it.
On January 25 2013 09:19 TheFish7 wrote: Can you perform a standard terran 2depot 1 rax wall at the main ramp? It is hard to tell but it looks like you dont have enough space up top for them to be flush with the edge of the ramp. The whole shape of that ramp seems tough to defend. I do like the jagged cliffs around the map however.
Love the aesthetics! It really has that frozen mountain feel to it, like it gets colder as you go north on the map.
The main is easier to wall than normal, one supply depot and barracks, and can be walled cleanly even if u want to place an addon there, I will post some pictures after work!
The aesthetics were really fun to do, and with a surprisingly low doodad count (less than 500, maybe less than 400 I can't remember the exact amount).
Thanks for all the feedback!
Edit: I'd be sorely tempted to push those towers further out towards the edge of the map, to keep that central path out of tower vision.
I think that the way that those rocks are set up is the best way to balance island expansions in the game. Players can still expand there, but the bases are more or less useless until the rocks are taken down. I especially like how Stalkers can blink up to the islands with sight. It will make games very interesting. Maybe part of the islands could be extended so that it connects to the mainland, allowing Reapers/Colossi to traverse the ledge, and still preventing Siege Tanks from cliffing the expansion because you'd be extending the high ground not the low ground.
It is a little difficult for me to tell based on the images, but it looks like the main ramp can be walled off with just a Barracks and Supply Depot (or the equivalent of such buildings) because of how close the cliff edges are to the building placement. I have to admit that I do not know how it would affect balance, if at all.
The main looks like it is more vulnerable to drops than on other maps due to the distance between the mineral line and the edge of the main. It leaves less space for Stalkers/Hydras/Marines to fend off drops. I'd consider extending the main out a bit to counter-act that if drop play winds up being too powerful.
Regarding the towers, I feel that moving them away from covering the central path would be a poor decision because this map has a shorter attack path than the trend. However, in there current location they reveal a lot of information. You might want to consider either having just one in the center of the map (boring, I know) or play around with decreasing their sight radius.
If you are stressing air play, I'd be very curious as to how late game scenarios would unfold between the island expansions and the low ground ones near them. Taking air play into a larger account than other maps, it's tough to determine which player the low ground expansions belong to. They could go either way. I imagine Tempests from the islands preventing the opposing player from expanding there, but it could happen from both directions. They are just in a rather precarious position and would really force combat between players in the late game.
Overall, I really like Yeonsu and hope it gets into some tournaments for further testing. Maps that stress air play are very important right now because HotS is young, and if they don't catch on early, they'll not do any better than they did in WoL.
The main is easier to wall than normal, one supply depot and barracks
I think this could be a problem because a probe scouting on 9 won't get in :-\ But shifting the ramp a bit shouldn't be very difficult
If it does come to it I will change it to be more standard, as it is currently it is easier to wall of but more difficult to position units on the high ground to defend.
On January 25 2013 11:05 Antares777 wrote:
I think that the way that those rocks are set up is the best way to balance island expansions in the game. Players can still expand there, but the bases are more or less useless until the rocks are taken down. I especially like how Stalkers can blink up to the islands with sight. It will make games very interesting. Maybe part of the islands could be extended so that it connects to the mainland, allowing Reapers/Colossi to traverse the ledge, and still preventing Siege Tanks from cliffing the expansion because you'd be extending the high ground not the low ground.
The main looks like it is more vulnerable to drops than on other maps due to the distance between the mineral line and the edge of the main. It leaves less space for Stalkers/Hydras/Marines to fend off drops. I'd consider extending the main out a bit to counter-act that if drop play winds up being too powerful.
That was exactly my thoughts with the rocks, though not entirely useless the rocks don't block the gas. I like the idea of adding a reaper path to the islands but I'm not sure I'd like colossus to be readily available on an island expansion, I think blink stalker access would be enough for Protoss.
In regards to moving the towers toward the edge of the map, I will likely not do that anymore, seeing as they might provide vision to the island expansions, and would make blink harrass too easy.
The mains minerals have been moved further into the main since I took these pictures, for creep purposes. So that should already be solved :D
Thanks for the feedback everyone! Much appreciated!
I don't think reaper path to island is necessary since terran will have the easiest way to get armies to the island anyway (medivacs). But yeah good map
Shift the ramp. it seems a little off, but otherwise... I HOPE TOURNAMENTS USE THIS MAP... ONly because the paths in the middle are much more interesting than the map pool we have
I love the dynamic of the fourth, how it's quite hard to take because one player has better positioning for the fourth but the other can cliff it so easily. And how these harder fourths really make the islands necessary and not just a fun gimmick on top (hello Metropolis).
The aesthetics are great, I normally don't like 2 different themes but this is so sublte and well done. The texturing is really clean and the different levels are also different in a nice way.
Overall just a phenomenal map.
I would remove the towers, I think they are just too strong and reduce need for good scouting. Maybe the middle could be a bit more interesting as monitor said, but I don't mind an open middle like this at all.
A little thought: The third base is really close. The highground thing is really nice for it but I feel like it's just very easy, close and thus rather boring. Considering you can just camp on 3 bases in SC2 and this is one of the main criticisms with maps, I would personally use a half base here, just to give more incentive to take a fourth and not let games end on 3 bases too much cos people didn't see the need to expand further.
Btw the word half base is kinda stupid since it's a 3/4 base really
On January 25 2013 19:06 Ragoo wrote: Brilliant map!
I love the dynamic of the fourth, how it's quite hard to take because one player has better positioning for the fourth but the other can cliff it so easily. And how these harder fourths really make the islands necessary and not just a fun gimmick on top (hello Metropolis).
The aesthetics are great, I normally don't like 2 different themes but this is so sublte and well done. The texturing is really clean and the different levels are also different in a nice way.
Overall just a phenomenal map.
I would remove the towers, I think they are just too strong and reduce need for good scouting. Maybe the middle could be a bit more interesting as monitor said, but I don't mind an open middle like this at all.
A little thought: The third base is really close. The highground thing is really nice for it but I feel like it's just very easy, close and thus rather boring. Considering you can just camp on 3 bases in SC2 and this is one of the main criticisms with maps, I would personally use a half base here, just to give more incentive to take a fourth and not let games end on 3 bases too much cos people didn't see the need to expand further.
Btw the word half base is kinda stupid since it's a 3/4 base really
Haha, indeed. I couldn't decide if I disliked the lowground 3rd to say something about it, but I sort of like the idea of a 3/4 base. NEW TREND INC This would give players the option to extend themselves to the peninsula for a full 3rd base, which drastically opens the map if both players choose to go that way. The current low ground 3rd is pretty vulnerable to the high ground position next to it, so even though it's very close, it might be deceptively not-turtley.
A 3/4 low 3rd would also put a little more incentive on going to the island, which already looks like a legitimate 4th base anyway, so that'd be cool.
Had a chance to make a few updates today, nothing major so far though.
List of changes in v1.1: - Texturing Refinement. - Main choke fixed. - Path to high ground third widened slightly. (2-4 squares).
List of changes in v1.2: - Low ground third moved away from natural slightly (4-5 squares). - Low ground third minerals and gas reoriented. - Added overlord hiding spot to top natural to match bottom natural. - High-ground path above low-ground third widened slightly, and ramp moved backward slightly also.
Trying to work on a fix for the towers, but haven't figured out what I want to do for them yet.
List of changes in v1.3: THIS VERSION IS YET TO BE UPLOADED AND UPDATED. - Many texturing and foliage refinement. - Separate towers removed and singular tower added to middle. This allows for scouting the short rush distance but allows for sneaky army movement around the edges of the map out of the tower's vision. :D
Edit:
***SNIPPET, bad design, scrapped and thrown down the longdrop***
On January 28 2013 23:52 SiskosGoatee wrote: I still want to know if you can wall of your main with a single depot and rax because it looks like it.
main does not work anyway
Hmm, you mean you can't wall your main with a single depot and rax?
Edit: Well, you can:
this is a tight wall, scv can't leave.
Not sure if I like it if T has the ability to wall tight at 12 pop and on top of that have a high ground. No way to know if T took gas or is 2raxing or is going 1 rax CC etc.
Well, I'm sure that I don't like it. Something like this is pretty much a dealbreaker for me. Map has to be really good to compensate for this. I like my scouting.
Not sure if I like it if T has the ability to wall tight at 12 pop and on top of that have a high ground. No way to know if T took gas or is 2raxing or is going 1 rax CC etc.
Well, I'm sure that I don't like it. Something like this is pretty much a dealbreaker for me. Map has to be really good to compensate for this. I like my scouting.
The current thread version has fixed this. I just need to update it on the servers, unfortunately my internet is on the fritz at the moment and uploading anything is an exhausting process.
Not sure if I like it if T has the ability to wall tight at 12 pop and on top of that have a high ground. No way to know if T took gas or is 2raxing or is going 1 rax CC etc.
Well, I'm sure that I don't like it. Something like this is pretty much a dealbreaker for me. Map has to be really good to compensate for this. I like my scouting.
The current thread version has fixed this. I just need to update it on the servers, unfortunately my internet is on the fritz at the moment and uploading anything is an exhausting process.
Cool, it's the only real flaw with the map I can think of I guess.
Not sure if I like it if T has the ability to wall tight at 12 pop and on top of that have a high ground. No way to know if T took gas or is 2raxing or is going 1 rax CC etc.
Well, I'm sure that I don't like it. Something like this is pretty much a dealbreaker for me. Map has to be really good to compensate for this. I like my scouting.
The current thread version has fixed this. I just need to update it on the servers, unfortunately my internet is on the fritz at the moment and uploading anything is an exhausting process.
it works, but it is too small in my opinion. there is a lot of space covered by siegetanks. not a balance issue really, but a good indicator that your main is small.
Okay, version 1.2 officially uploaded to [SEA][NA] [EU] [HOTS] [KR]
List of changes in v1.2 from v1.0 (which is currently uploaded):
- Main bases enlarged slightly. - Main ramp changed to require standard wall-of. - Added overlord hiding spot to top natural to match bottom natural. - Low ground third moved away from natural slightly (4-5 squares). - Low ground third minerals and gas reoriented. - High-ground path above low-ground third widened slightly. - Ramp from low-ground third to high-ground path moved backward slightly. - Cliffs surrounding the low-ground paths (3 oclock and 9 oclock) changed to match each other (for overlord purposes).
On February 15 2013 12:32 eTcetRa wrote: Also minor update to the rocks on the islands, which now have 750 health and 1 armour, up from 500 health and 1 armour.
All good changes*! This better be on everyone's shortlist for tlmc.
*I think the new rock towers should cover 2/3 of a 3ramp. In other words, a 5ramp with a rock tower on one end of it. So even with the rocks knocked down, there's still a one-forcefield gap on the ramp. Lategame, I think minimum there needs to be a 3ramp there for traffic and vulnerability.
On April 30 2013 17:37 EatThePath wrote: All good changes*! This better be on everyone's shortlist for tlmc.
*I think the new rock towers should cover 2/3 of a 3ramp. In other words, a 5ramp with a rock tower on one end of it. So even with the rocks knocked down, there's still a one-forcefield gap on the ramp. Lategame, I think minimum there needs to be a 3ramp there for traffic and vulnerability.
Thanks kind words! That's a good idea for the middle ramps, I didn't think of that. Thanks! Shall implement.
Do you like the removal of the rocks on the island? I know most people wouldn't agree with the change, but I figure that Protoss and Zerg air play is a lot stronger than in Wings of Liberty so rocks might be too much of a hindrance on an island base now.
The danger with islands is terran abusing them too early in the game. Any early game island exploit should be scouted and punished relatively well by either P or Z, so I think it's totally fine without rocks. I don't even like rocks as a solution most of the time because terran generally has the easiest time killing them anyway. They're going to make medivacs so...
Islands that are far away from the main/nat don't need rocks, imo. The time it takes to float a CC that far is penalty enough (probably ~3 SCVs' produced worth of time floating in the air, not to mention the time lost mining if it had been floated/built at a closer expansion location). Maaaybe an unbuildable rocks, just so you can't pick up 1 SCV w your first medivac and drop him there + build a CC. Even then I don't know if that's super broken.
For this layout i don't really agree to have island expos, i would transform these island into paths so instead of having only three you would have five and two of them wouldn't be exposed by the xel'nagas, since i feel the map lacks movility in the center in lategame scenarios
Quite a few bug fixes and a minor game play change, but an update nonetheless.
Version 2.1
Change log:
- BUG FIXES Fixed some pathing issues near cliffs. Fixed unit clipping on some doodads. Forced occlusion on overlord spots. Forced occlusion on large trees around map border. Fixed some line of sight blockers. Refined some texture work on map border and dead space. Removed no fly zones that were attached to "HotS - Iceworld - Ice Rock Giant: doodads. Removed duplicated Xel'Naga Towers. Placed pathing blockers on lower cliff level between island and pathable area. Mirrored some doodads so that pathing is equal to both spawns.
- GAMEPLAY Ramp widths with rock towers increased by 1 unit.
This map is beautiful, but if I were to change one thing I would make the main bases a more plain texture. There's too much clutter in it methinks; not clear enough. I can't even see the bottom left main ramp into the natural.
In an effort to increase the N2N rush distance I have made the following changes to the map. Note that I have kept the overall theme and concept of the map intact.
Version 2.2
Change log:
- GENERAL Bounds increased to 132x132 (from 124x132). Texturing in mains simplified.
- MIDFIELD & FIFTHS Area between towers enlarged. Small chasm added to midfield between both towers. Area in front of fifth bases enlarged. Small hole added to enlarged area near fifth.
I just played Yeonsu, and I have to say I love it! That said, one small issue noticed—and this might be related to the version I found on Battle Net—is that there is a small enough hole between the left side of the ramp and the collapsable rocks near 3rd/4th to sneak a zergling or marine sized unit by. I'm not sure if that's working as intended, but I would imagine that's a slight oversight. Otherwise, great map and good luck in the finals! I hope the map wins and gets added to the ladder pool.
On May 21 2013 04:03 Kodachrome wrote: Hi eTcetRa,
I just played Yeonsu, and I have to say I love it! That said, one small issue noticed—and this might be related to the version I found on Battle Net—is that there is a small enough hole between the left side of the ramp and the collapsable rocks near 3rd/4th to sneak a zergling or marine sized unit by. I'm not sure if that's working as intended, but I would imagine that's a slight oversight. Otherwise, great map and good luck in the finals! I hope the map wins and gets added to the ladder pool.
Hey there, thanks for playing! I just tested the rock towers with some zerglings while the tower was both intact and fallen and couldn't get the zerglings to run in any small crack. Which server did you find this on and was the rock up or down?
On January 25 2013 02:15 EatThePath wrote: Straight to ladder please. ;D
This has its problems, but they're all within the envelope of what a small map has to deal with anyway, and you succeeded mightily in what you set out to do, and these problems are all minimal unlike most small maps which set aside one problem to have in spades while fixing the others. Still, I don't like how much the towers poach on lategame maneuvering. By that I mean, the bases get close together and the towers cover all the rest of the space on the map, making army movements de facto knowledge. And it decreases the stability by decreasing uncertainty, imo, when it is already plenty unstable by short distance and connectivity. I would love if they were destructible or smaller radius or gone.
I love the islands on this map, some of the best fitting-in corner islands. And that style of rocks definitely needs to be used more.
This is awesome!! congratulations etcetra! Has it been announced somewhere officially? *edit: I am blind! Ive only just seen the announcement here now!
On August 16 2013 03:36 Silvare wrote: congrats! it must feel great to see yeonsu pop up in the ladder map pool, which means it is now in the map pool of many tournaments, Chicago included
Thanks! But it's not really my map anymore. Blizzard has had their way with it..
On August 16 2013 03:36 Silvare wrote: congrats! it must feel great to see yeonsu pop up in the ladder map pool, which means it is now in the map pool of many tournaments, Chicago included
Thanks! But it's not really my map anymore. Blizzard has had their way with it..
I mean, I'm not gonna lie, I think the altered blizz aesthetics for this and Frost look a bit better than the originals.. but I don't like that they changed the island.
Yeah, not a fan of the rocked ramp where the island use to be. Just need to remove the ramp and it'd be fine imo. Cliff walking units going up there would be good i think.
On August 23 2013 12:30 Fatam wrote: I mean, I'm not gonna lie, I think the altered blizz aesthetics for this and Frost look a bit better than the originals.. but I don't like that they changed the island.
Are you kidding? Both Yeonsu and Frost looked miles cleaner before. Now it looks like it was rushed in 30 minutes to be finished. Really sad that they removed the islands as well.
They basically butchered the maps, and gave no respect to the mapmakers.
The aesthetics are cleaner / more readable on yeonsu and the new lighting is definitely an improvement on frost. I'm not endorsing that they ninja changed them on you or anything, that's definitely a little F'ed up, and I'm especially not for them changing anything about the layout (such as the island and the ramp to one of the thirds). But you are probably a little biased here lol
On August 23 2013 12:30 Fatam wrote: I mean, I'm not gonna lie, I think the altered blizz aesthetics for this and Frost look a bit better than the originals.. but I don't like that they changed the island.
Are you kidding? Both Yeonsu and Frost looked miles cleaner before. Now it looks like it was rushed in 30 minutes to be finished. Really sad that they removed the islands as well.
They basically butchered the maps, and gave no respect to the mapmakers.
Honestly would have vetoed Yeonsu 100% for the sole reason that textures made it so hard to distinguish path/ground levels. And i don't think it's just me, lots were complaining on forums. Frost was in a much better spot in this regard but still had the feeling that some textures were off place, and i think blizzard went in the right direction. I don't argue about the layout/xel naga add tho. That's a different story.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 +
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...
On August 26 2013 03:06 Timetwister22 wrote: 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 +
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'll play better? Because now you can defend 4 bases on ~32 squares wide of ground access to control?
I'm not saying you're flat wrong about islands, but the point was to have a map with something different, to provide the opportunity for players to create new strategies. Heaven forbid, apparently.
I honestly never really got this 'clarity' argument, a ramp looks vastly different from anything you can create with textures. I didn't think the first version was unclear and I think it looked the best of all versions truth be told.
On August 26 2013 18:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I honestly never really got this 'clarity' argument, a ramp looks vastly different from anything you can create with textures. I didn't think the first version was unclear and I think it looked the best of all versions truth be told.
I love the map layout, but the bottom half of the map suffered a bit from the ramps not being particularly clear. Basically, anywhere a ramp was going downhill from north to south was tougher to see than it should be.
Still though, I'm pretty annoyed about what Blizzard did, because the map looked good other than that.
You guys bitch way too damn much. The texturing isn't "that" awful. Hell, it probably made it better for 80% of the player base with their piece of shit computers. You should be grateful you actually got a map on the ladder, which is basically what every mapmaker dreams of. Instead, you guys just bitch constantly.
Changing between an island to a semi-island isn't the end of the world either. It doesn't change up much at all and it just gives zerg a safer fourth, which honestly is good considering TvZ is very strong for terran atm if they can just bio-mine push you and keep you stuck on 3 base to 3 base.
I swear Timetwister is one of the only map makers left (okay and ETP) who actually has some common sense. Everybody else is Ragoo Jr and just bitches to bitch. It's getting awfully annoying.
On August 27 2013 13:00 SidianTheBard wrote: You guys bitch way too damn much. The texturing isn't "that" awful. Hell, it probably made it better for 80% of the player base with their piece of shit computers. You should be grateful you actually got a map on the ladder, which is basically what every mapmaker dreams of. Instead, you guys just bitch constantly.
Changing between an island to a semi-island isn't the end of the world either. It doesn't change up much at all and it just gives zerg a safer fourth, which honestly is good considering TvZ is very strong for terran atm if they can just bio-mine push you and keep you stuck on 3 base to 3 base.
I swear Timetwister is one of the only map makers left (okay and ETP) who actually has some common sense. Everybody else is Ragoo Jr and just bitches to bitch. It's getting awfully annoying.
Honestly dude? It probably wouldn't have changed anything having the terrain be green instead of snow...what the hell is WW, then?
Why do you think they bitch? Hell man most of them are gone, so your words are falling on deaf ears. It should be very fucking obvious that there was no reason for the change and he probably spent like 20 hours working on aesthetics. If you can't understand mapmaking and the people who pour their time into a dead art, then why do you feel the need to make such a harsh comment about it and them?
Perhaps you don't know that aesthetics are a large part of what separates good maps from the best (no matter how little you might care about them) and in switching the terrain to snow Blizzard eradicated a lot of work and a lot of beauty.
On August 27 2013 13:00 SidianTheBard wrote: You guys bitch way too damn much. The texturing isn't "that" awful. Hell, it probably made it better for 80% of the player base with their piece of shit computers. You should be grateful you actually got a map on the ladder, which is basically what every mapmaker dreams of. Instead, you guys just bitch constantly.
Changing between an island to a semi-island isn't the end of the world either. It doesn't change up much at all and it just gives zerg a safer fourth, which honestly is good considering TvZ is very strong for terran atm if they can just bio-mine push you and keep you stuck on 3 base to 3 base.
I swear Timetwister is one of the only map makers left (okay and ETP) who actually has some common sense. Everybody else is Ragoo Jr and just bitches to bitch. It's getting awfully annoying.
It may have made it better for older computers compared to my older version, but not the newer version.
Honestly, I think I am being more than fair with my complaints, but you are Mostly misunderstanding them. I am complaining that they changed it without even contacting me.
That, and the horrible job they did with it, is why I am annoyed. While I grant you the texturing could be a while lot worse, but it's hardly good right now too. And their island fix was incredibly inelegant. That's all the complaining is about really..
And I'd hardly call most people a "ragoo jr" so don't know who you are trying to refer to here, because Lefix doesn't complain, WRL doesn't complain, I don't think I have seen Meltage do anything bad either. That's TPW. I'm the only really vocal person who was in DF and I didn't complain about every little thing. Ironman is fine, NewSunshine is fine. Honestly who are you talking about lol. Nice try though?...
On August 27 2013 15:16 eTcetRa wrote: It may have made it better for older computers compared to my older version, but not the newer version.
Honestly, I think I am being more than fair with my complaints, but you are Mostly misunderstanding them. I am complaining that they changed it without even contacting me.
That, and the horrible job they did with it, is why I am annoyed. While I grant you the texturing could be a while lot worse, but it's hardly good right now too. And their island fix was incredibly inelegant. That's all the complaining is about really..
And I'd hardly call most people a "ragoo jr" so don't know who you are trying to refer to here, because Lefix doesn't complain, WRL doesn't complain, I don't think I have seen Meltage do anything bad either. That's TPW. I'm the only really vocal person who was in DF and I didn't complain about every little thing. Ironman is fine, NewSunshine is fine. Honestly who are you talking about lol. Nice try though?...
Fuck phone messaging too.
I agree, your newest version is pretty solid. But looking at the version that they edited it had many more doodads and texturing so I guess it makes sense why they "lowered" the overall aesthetic quality. Obviously according to map makers I think they did a horrible job as well but when you have to factor in the millions of people that play it on ladder you probably have to do a pretty crappy job to make sure it suits everybody that plays. When you look at the long run of the map, do you support visibility or playability? It easily should be playability.
As for your second part about Ragoo Jr. Look at this thread. Look at everybody bitching about aesthetics or layout or whatever. Now what does Ragoo does 24/7? Yeah...Bitch constantly. Looking at this map the only thing to bitch about besides the Aesthetic overall is the fact they changed it from an island to a semi-island. Which honestly, if you watch or play sc2 at the moment isn't a huge change at all. Instead we get people in this thread going "fuck blizzard" just because let's bitch about blizzard.
On August 27 2013 15:16 eTcetRa wrote: It may have made it better for older computers compared to my older version, but not the newer version.
Honestly, I think I am being more than fair with my complaints, but you are Mostly misunderstanding them. I am complaining that they changed it without even contacting me.
That, and the horrible job they did with it, is why I am annoyed. While I grant you the texturing could be a while lot worse, but it's hardly good right now too. And their island fix was incredibly inelegant. That's all the complaining is about really..
And I'd hardly call most people a "ragoo jr" so don't know who you are trying to refer to here, because Lefix doesn't complain, WRL doesn't complain, I don't think I have seen Meltage do anything bad either. That's TPW. I'm the only really vocal person who was in DF and I didn't complain about every little thing. Ironman is fine, NewSunshine is fine. Honestly who are you talking about lol. Nice try though?...
Fuck phone messaging too.
I agree, your newest version is pretty solid. But looking at the version that they edited it had many more doodads and texturing so I guess it makes sense why they "lowered" the overall aesthetic quality. Obviously according to map makers I think they did a horrible job as well but when you have to factor in the millions of people that play it on ladder you probably have to do a pretty crappy job to make sure it suits everybody that plays. When you look at the long run of the map, do you support visibility or playability? It easily should be playability.
As for your second part about Ragoo Jr. Look at this thread. Look at everybody bitching about aesthetics or layout or whatever. Now what does Ragoo does 24/7? Yeah...Bitch constantly. Looking at this map the only thing to bitch about besides the Aesthetic overall is the fact they changed it from an island to a semi-island. Which honestly, if you watch or play sc2 at the moment isn't a huge change at all. Instead we get people in this thread going "fuck blizzard" just because let's bitch about blizzard.
Yeah that's true. I may have responded in a little too broad of a manner.
This thread is a bit much bitching but that'll be my fault for rallying the troops as it were.
The changes really aren't major I agree. I just wish I had the chance to make the changes (as I have done) because I think they are better made by myself than the Blizzard mapmaker.
Edit: I may have responded a bit narkier than I intended earlier. Bad day at work here!
I think the map is too hard for terran to secure their natural vs a blink stalker allin, I saw some terran streams those struggle vs blink allin on that map which is unbelievably strong. Also the third is very vulnerable to counter attacks (which is really good imo) but hard to decide where should I put my rally point. Sorry but I had to veto this map as I saw it, better luck next time.
About the edit, I think it's fair that if a tournament or whatever uses your map, they can edit it to suit their tournament as they see fit, this happens with everything. If you created anything and some company uses it, expect it to be edited. The ladder is effectively a tournament but with very unique requirements, players from the absolute bottom to highest level play in it and maps have to take concessions to be viable for all levels of play. The ToS says that Blizzard owns anything you make with the editor anyway, you accepted that provision the moment you pressed ctrl+s in the editor for the first time.
Tournaments have also long made edits to Blizzard maps to suit their own need and no one bitched about that so give me a break.
It also has to run on pretty low end hardware so yeah, in the end some doodads are going to be removed and some aesthetics are going to be smplified.
"Ragoo Jr." is by the way the finest term in the history of mankind. You people are seriously bitching at Blizzard for the sake of bitching at Blizzard, no one ever Bitches if the GSL makes edits to maps. .
Yeah that's true. I may have responded in a little too broad of a manner.
This thread is a bit much bitching but that'll be my fault for rallying the troops as it were.
The changes really aren't major I agree. I just wish I had the chance to make the changes (as I have done) because I think they are better made by myself than the Blizzard mapmaker.
Edit: I may have responded a bit narkier than I intended earlier. Bad day at work here!
Yeah...I've been drinking a bit as well so my post may be extra rude...but at least when I'm drinking I speak how I feel, right?
On August 27 2013 16:36 SiskosGoatee wrote:
"Ragoo Jr." is by the way the finest term in the history of mankind. You people are seriously bitching at Blizzard for the sake of bitching at Blizzard, no one ever Bitches if the GSL makes edits to maps. .
Agreed. Look at Anaconda and Gwangali...both maps are imba as fuck and at least in my opinion god awful to watch. I hope they are gone next season. Then again, if I was Ragoo I'd be pushing Anaconda to be in more map tournaments just because it's a new map even though it's imba as shit and boring as fuck to watch.
On August 27 2013 15:34 SidianTheBard wrote: Now what does Ragoo does 24/7? Yeah...Bitch constantly.
First of all I wasn't even complaining about this so much, altho I'm quite disappointed with the removal of the islands cos I think they could have been used (much more so than on something like Metropolis where the islands were redundant).
Secondly you make it sound like there is nothing to complain about in mapmaking. Yes because everything is goin soo well, foreign mapmakers totally have the same chances as Koreans, map pools are really well thought out by tournaments, map rotation is really good, Blizzard has gotten really good at mapmaking and I'm glad they are still introducing new maps and every good mapmaker who has put in hundreds of hours into mapmaking has gotten what he deserves so far.
Clearly, I shouldn't have anythin to complain about in mapmaking.
Do you think it's feasible for Blizzard to include a tool to determine if a map is viable for ladder (e.g. the number or type of doodads exceeds a certain value, number of textures, light levels etc)? Or is this too difficult to automate?
On August 27 2013 15:34 SidianTheBard wrote: Now what does Ragoo does 24/7? Yeah...Bitch constantly.
First of all I wasn't even complaining about this so much, altho I'm quite disappointed with the removal of the islands cos I think they could have been used (much more so than on something like Metropolis where the islands were redundant).
Secondly you make it sound like there is nothing to complain about in mapmaking. Yes because everything is goin soo well, foreign mapmakers totally have the same chances as Koreans, map pools are really well thought out by tournaments, map rotation is really good, Blizzard has gotten really good at mapmaking and I'm glad they are still introducing new maps and every good mapmaker who has put in hundreds of hours into mapmaking has gotten what he deserves so far.
Clearly, I shouldn't have anythin to complain about in mapmaking.
The issue is the dual standard people in this community hold Blizzard to. If someone came here and posted Condemned Ridge and Blizzard never made it the reception would be a lot warmer than the 'omfg, terrible map against from Blizzard' that people like to put up with. People have decided that everything Blizzard makes is shit before they see it and it colours their perception. I'm pretty sure that if it would go blindly and people wouldn't know the author then rating of maps would go in supremely different directions.
On August 27 2013 17:35 iHirO wrote: Do you think it's feasible for Blizzard to include a tool to determine if a map is viable for ladder (e.g. the number or type of doodads exceeds a certain value, number of textures, light levels etc)? Or is this too difficult to automate?
I doupt it. Different doodads taxes the PC different. I have heard for example that fire could easily cause lag if overused. I would just recomend mappers to test their maps permformance if possible, and also mind your limits!
Seriously we do not need another Metropolis. That is what happens when Blizzard just sends community maps into the ladder without any testing or adjustments. Which is why i am happy that they clearly bothers to adjust this one.
On August 27 2013 17:42 Sumadin wrote: Seriously we do not need another Metropolis. That is what happens when Blizzard just sends community maps into the ladder without any testing or adjustments. Which is why i am happy that they clearly bothers to adjust this one.
Yeh, imagine what happens if Blizz just put Atlas in the ladder because the entire community hyped it with its (thusfar) massive PvZ and TvZ imbalance.
Seriously, the mapping community has hyped maps before which turned out supremely imbalanced such as Korhal Compound.
On August 27 2013 17:42 Sumadin wrote: Seriously we do not need another Metropolis. That is what happens when Blizzard just sends community maps into the ladder without any testing or adjustments. Which is why i am happy that they clearly bothers to adjust this one.
Yeh, imagine what happens if Blizz just put Atlas in the ladder because the entire community hyped it with its (thusfar) massive PvZ and TvZ imbalance.
Seriously, the mapping community has hyped maps before which turned out supremely imbalanced such as Korhal Compound.
Are you talking about the fact that Korhal Compound was number 1 in the staff vote and only 7th in the community vote? Becuase if we relied on the community, we'd be playing on Haven's Lagoon instead.
I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
On August 27 2013 18:25 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
Both maps got the ~same amount of testing (by the judges) before being put for vote. The fact that Korhal Compoud (ladder edition with Blizzard changes) showed a 62% PvZ (actually 19-7 in favor of Zerg in tournaments) after thousands of ladder games (Cloud Kingdom had a 70% PvT winrate) doesn't tell us that any of the other map submissions would have been any better.
Your whole argument is based on the possibilty that one of the other hundreds of maps could be more balanced. But unless the map gets on ladder / in tournaments, it will never be extensively tested. Why can't you say anything about Haven's Lagoon? Because it was never in ladder. So does it rightfully belong in the top 8 to be voted for? And why would Korhal Compound not? Both the judges and the community made their votes obviously before Korhal Compound got into ladder.
I was actually referring to the performance of Metropolis, even through it was quite terribly balanced aswell.
This is not something that tournaments will test for us, as they run on High class PCs only. But every ladder map needs to run smoothly on every level of machine down to the minimum Hardware requirements (With fitting Graphic settings ofc). As you might remember Metropolis didn't quite fit that requirement, and caused lag on every level of machine, which spawned a ton of controversies including MLG renmoving its islands and its depots getting accidently removed during one of the countless attempts to fix the lag issues. Worst POS map ever and this got a Ladder spot, because Blizzard didn't test their stuff.
Well now they do, and demand adjustments for the sake of performance and balance it would seem. I don't want it any other way really.
I haven't checked the LE (which should be even easier on machines), but on my version there are only ~1000 doodads compared to Cloud Kingdoms ~2000. If you could run CK then Yeonsu should be more than easy.
Edit: comparing to metropolis there are like one hundredth of the amount of lights...
The problem with Metro is that it used thousands of doodads that had lights and moving parts attached. That's not the same thing as having thousands of rocks and trees. Honestly there have only been a couple things that really set community map making back Metro was one of them and the other was probably Vicious both of which were unfortunate and mostly unforseeable. The rest of what has been holding the community back has just been the environment where players want to stick to the familiar and the fact that Blizzard set up the ladder and custom games in such a way that you have no choice of maps to play on. People are suggesting that the quality of maps is the problem and that just shows what a huge lack of understanding still exists about melee maps.
On August 27 2013 15:34 SidianTheBard wrote: Now what does Ragoo does 24/7? Yeah...Bitch constantly.
First of all I wasn't even complaining about this so much, altho I'm quite disappointed with the removal of the islands cos I think they could have been used (much more so than on something like Metropolis where the islands were redundant).
Secondly you make it sound like there is nothing to complain about in mapmaking. Yes because everything is goin soo well, foreign mapmakers totally have the same chances as Koreans, map pools are really well thought out by tournaments, map rotation is really good, Blizzard has gotten really good at mapmaking and I'm glad they are still introducing new maps and every good mapmaker who has put in hundreds of hours into mapmaking has gotten what he deserves so far.
Clearly, I shouldn't have anythin to complain about in mapmaking.
The issue is the dual standard people in this community hold Blizzard to. If someone came here and posted Condemned Ridge and Blizzard never made it the reception would be a lot warmer than the 'omfg, terrible map against from Blizzard' that people like to put up with. People have decided that everything Blizzard makes is shit before they see it and it colours their perception. I'm pretty sure that if it would go blindly and people wouldn't know the author then rating of maps would go in supremely different directions.
Pretty sure the reaction would be something like "Too big, and too hard for a toss to take a 3rd, but nice map tho! "
On August 27 2013 18:25 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
I would be hesitant to use Korhal Compound as evidence given that the version that was voted had some significant changes made which made the map nearly unplayable. The heavy design of the natural being a significant part of that.
I'm sorry Etcetra, your map was better than Blizzard's, more novel at any rate, and I really love the revised textures you produced (I had trouble with the textures before, but I think your revisions would have been just fine). Now Blizzard made less pretty and less unique. I guess the only thing you can do is be happy with the recognition you received from having a version of your map put on the ladder, and hopefully that will make it more likely that your maps will find themselves on the ladder or used in tournaments in the future.
On August 27 2013 18:25 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
Both maps got the ~same amount of testing (by the judges) before being put for vote. The fact that Korhal Compoud (ladder edition with Blizzard changes) showed a 62% PvZ (actually 19-7 in favor of Zerg in tournaments) after thousands of ladder games (Cloud Kingdom had a 70% PvT winrate) doesn't tell us that any of the other map submissions would have been any better.
Your whole argument is based on the possibilty that one of the other hundreds of maps could be more balanced. But unless the map gets on ladder / in tournaments, it will never be extensively tested. Why can't you say anything about Haven's Lagoon? Because it was never in ladder. So does it rightfully belong in the top 8 to be voted for? And why would Korhal Compound not? Both the judges and the community made their votes obviously before Korhal Compound got into ladder.
I am completely not following you and what you are trying to say in relation to my point and I'm not sure you get what my point is.
My point is simple, the community often hypes things without testing them (even mods like OneGoal, it was hyped by everyone as being awesome without a single balance test being done) and Blizzard can't just implement that stuff without testing it. There was a lot of hype behind KC and Atlas and both of them turned out to have a fair share of problems.
On August 27 2013 18:25 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
I would be hesitant to use Korhal Compound as evidence given that the version that was voted had some significant changes made which made the map nearly unplayable. The heavy design of the natural being a significant part of that.
Didn't the tournament edition come after the vote?
As far as I know this is the version that won and this is the version that was used in the ladder, the only differences seem the natural and centre being slightly less chocked and rocks on one entrance path to the 4/5 base.
On August 27 2013 21:41 eTcetRa wrote: I haven't checked the LE (which should be even easier on machines), but on my version there are only ~1000 doodads compared to Cloud Kingdoms ~2000. If you could run CK then Yeonsu should be more than easy.
Edit: comparing to metropolis there are like one hundredth of the amount of lights...
Depends on what doodats are used of course, CK doodats were mostly rocks. That said, Yeonsu doesn't seem to have particularly complicated doodats as well. Maybe the textures looked unclear at certain texture qualities though.
I doubt Blizzard makes these modifications just to troll people. Surely they have their reasons whatever they are. Ohana's water apparently also caused FPS drops or something like that.
It might just be pure clarity, you have to understand that people from the lowest depths of Bronze are going to play on these maps.
On August 27 2013 22:57 TheFish7 wrote: The problem with Metro is that it used thousands of doodads that had lights and moving parts attached. That's not the same thing as having thousands of rocks and trees. Honestly there have only been a couple things that really set community map making back Metro was one of them and the other was probably Vicious both of which were unfortunate and mostly unforseeable. The rest of what has been holding the community back has just been the environment where players want to stick to the familiar and the fact that Blizzard set up the ladder and custom games in such a way that you have no choice of maps to play on. People are suggesting that the quality of maps is the problem and that just shows what a huge lack of understanding still exists about melee maps.
I actually think it is the opposite. I think you are the one that underestimate how much damage those maps did.
Vicious was unfortunate but unacceptable. Dreamhack was brave. In a time of huge Map stagnation, they went ahead and had the courage to force new maps into the pool. And got punished massively for doing so. A crucial error was present and wasn't found until the final. After that Dreamhack went into line and had only standard maps for following events. Countless apologies from ESV asside, the damage was done.
And then we got Metropolis. HOTS was in full production, Blizzards own mapteam was mostly occupied with the campaign maps(Presumingly). At this time Blizzard "finally" decide to try the easy way out and just have the community decide the map changes from the GSL pool. The entire community was instantly drawn to Metropolis because "Oh shiny". And soon it would turn out to be the most broken map to ever reach ladder. Blizzard themself couldn't have designed it worse if they tried. That was the last time we saw community votes on the ladder map pool aswell as the last time for a good while we saw community maps implemented on Ladder.
And we see the effects now. DF and TPW didn't dispand because of the current situration. We just got 3 new community maps on ladder, that is unheard off. It should be a time of joy and hope for mapmakers, regardless of alterations. No, they dispanded because the stagnation of 2012 broke them, and now they have finally bleed out. And those 2 maps (Mostly metropolis) boosted that stagnation.
On August 28 2013 00:32 Sumadin wrote: And we see the effects now. DF and TPW didn't dispand because of the current situration. We just got 3 new community maps on ladder, that is unheard off. It should be a time of joy and hope for mapmakers, regardless of alterations. No, they dispanded because the stagnation of 2012 broke them, and now they have finally bleed out. And those 2 maps (Mostly metropolis) boosted that stagnation.
To clear it up, DF did not disband due to the stagnation of 2012. We formed our organization at the height of the map pool stagnation crisis, and over the course of the next year we overcame that. We disbanded due to, as I stated, tightening of schedules for all members and decreased interest in Starcraft 2 in lieu of other activities.
We are happy and proud that our hard work culminated in a map deviation of one of our own placing on the ladder. This made the effort and time worthwhile. However, even with such a success we could not ignore our members' clear decreasing interest and movement towards other, more personal, goals in life. As was a core part of our mission statement, we support these changes for personal development.
On August 27 2013 18:25 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
Both maps got the ~same amount of testing (by the judges) before being put for vote. The fact that Korhal Compoud (ladder edition with Blizzard changes) showed a 62% PvZ (actually 19-7 in favor of Zerg in tournaments) after thousands of ladder games (Cloud Kingdom had a 70% PvT winrate) doesn't tell us that any of the other map submissions would have been any better.
Your whole argument is based on the possibilty that one of the other hundreds of maps could be more balanced. But unless the map gets on ladder / in tournaments, it will never be extensively tested. Why can't you say anything about Haven's Lagoon? Because it was never in ladder. So does it rightfully belong in the top 8 to be voted for? And why would Korhal Compound not? Both the judges and the community made their votes obviously before Korhal Compound got into ladder.
I am completely not following you and what you are trying to say in relation to my point and I'm not sure you get what my point is.
My point is simple, the community often hypes things without testing them (even mods like OneGoal, it was hyped by everyone as being awesome without a single balance test being done) and Blizzard can't just implement that stuff without testing it. There was a lot of hype behind KC and Atlas and both of them turned out to have a fair share of problems.
On August 27 2013 18:25 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
I would be hesitant to use Korhal Compound as evidence given that the version that was voted had some significant changes made which made the map nearly unplayable. The heavy design of the natural being a significant part of that.
Didn't the tournament edition come after the vote?
As far as I know this is the version that won and this is the version that was used in the ladder, the only differences seem the natural and centre being slightly less chocked and rocks on one entrance path to the 4/5 base.
On August 27 2013 21:41 eTcetRa wrote: I haven't checked the LE (which should be even easier on machines), but on my version there are only ~1000 doodads compared to Cloud Kingdoms ~2000. If you could run CK then Yeonsu should be more than easy.
Edit: comparing to metropolis there are like one hundredth of the amount of lights...
Depends on what doodats are used of course, CK doodats were mostly rocks. That said, Yeonsu doesn't seem to have particularly complicated doodats as well. Maybe the textures looked unclear at certain texture qualities though.
I doubt Blizzard makes these modifications just to troll people. Surely they have their reasons whatever they are. Ohana's water apparently also caused FPS drops or something like that.
It might just be pure clarity, you have to understand that people from the lowest depths of Bronze are going to play on these maps.
I think you should just stop using the word "community" because you're always talking about vocal minorites. And I can't even remember any "hype" for KC or Atlas. What do you even mean by "hype"?
On August 27 2013 18:25 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
Both maps got the ~same amount of testing (by the judges) before being put for vote. The fact that Korhal Compoud (ladder edition with Blizzard changes) showed a 62% PvZ (actually 19-7 in favor of Zerg in tournaments) after thousands of ladder games (Cloud Kingdom had a 70% PvT winrate) doesn't tell us that any of the other map submissions would have been any better.
Your whole argument is based on the possibilty that one of the other hundreds of maps could be more balanced. But unless the map gets on ladder / in tournaments, it will never be extensively tested. Why can't you say anything about Haven's Lagoon? Because it was never in ladder. So does it rightfully belong in the top 8 to be voted for? And why would Korhal Compound not? Both the judges and the community made their votes obviously before Korhal Compound got into ladder.
I am completely not following you and what you are trying to say in relation to my point and I'm not sure you get what my point is.
My point is simple, the community often hypes things without testing them (even mods like OneGoal, it was hyped by everyone as being awesome without a single balance test being done) and Blizzard can't just implement that stuff without testing it. There was a lot of hype behind KC and Atlas and both of them turned out to have a fair share of problems.
On August 27 2013 23:11 Plexa wrote:
On August 27 2013 18:25 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
I would be hesitant to use Korhal Compound as evidence given that the version that was voted had some significant changes made which made the map nearly unplayable. The heavy design of the natural being a significant part of that.
Didn't the tournament edition come after the vote?
As far as I know this is the version that won and this is the version that was used in the ladder, the only differences seem the natural and centre being slightly less chocked and rocks on one entrance path to the 4/5 base.
On August 27 2013 21:41 eTcetRa wrote: I haven't checked the LE (which should be even easier on machines), but on my version there are only ~1000 doodads compared to Cloud Kingdoms ~2000. If you could run CK then Yeonsu should be more than easy.
Edit: comparing to metropolis there are like one hundredth of the amount of lights...
Depends on what doodats are used of course, CK doodats were mostly rocks. That said, Yeonsu doesn't seem to have particularly complicated doodats as well. Maybe the textures looked unclear at certain texture qualities though.
I doubt Blizzard makes these modifications just to troll people. Surely they have their reasons whatever they are. Ohana's water apparently also caused FPS drops or something like that.
It might just be pure clarity, you have to understand that people from the lowest depths of Bronze are going to play on these maps.
I think you should just stop using the word "community" because you're always talking about vocal minorites. And I can't even remember any "hype" for KC or Atlas. What do you even mean by "hype"?
How am I talking about vocal minorities when Metropolis was voted into the ladder by popular poll?
KC won the staff vote of the TLMC and placed highly in the public vote. Atlas was I suppose only pushed by the mapping community only, not the entire SC2 community.. Well, some people did point out long before it was apparent that the map was bad for Zerg, and it turned out to be.
On August 27 2013 18:25 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
Both maps got the ~same amount of testing (by the judges) before being put for vote. The fact that Korhal Compoud (ladder edition with Blizzard changes) showed a 62% PvZ (actually 19-7 in favor of Zerg in tournaments) after thousands of ladder games (Cloud Kingdom had a 70% PvT winrate) doesn't tell us that any of the other map submissions would have been any better.
Your whole argument is based on the possibilty that one of the other hundreds of maps could be more balanced. But unless the map gets on ladder / in tournaments, it will never be extensively tested. Why can't you say anything about Haven's Lagoon? Because it was never in ladder. So does it rightfully belong in the top 8 to be voted for? And why would Korhal Compound not? Both the judges and the community made their votes obviously before Korhal Compound got into ladder.
I am completely not following you and what you are trying to say in relation to my point and I'm not sure you get what my point is.
My point is simple, the community often hypes things without testing them (even mods like OneGoal, it was hyped by everyone as being awesome without a single balance test being done) and Blizzard can't just implement that stuff without testing it. There was a lot of hype behind KC and Atlas and both of them turned out to have a fair share of problems.
On August 27 2013 23:11 Plexa wrote:
On August 27 2013 18:25 SiskosGoatee wrote: I'm relying on the fact that it got in the top 8 at all to be voted on even though it turned out to be a balance disaster in PvZ.
I have no idea about Heaven's lagoon, the map is untested, it's hard to say anything about its balance. KC however was quickly dropped from tournament and ladder play due to its pretty dismal PvZ winrates.
I would be hesitant to use Korhal Compound as evidence given that the version that was voted had some significant changes made which made the map nearly unplayable. The heavy design of the natural being a significant part of that.
Didn't the tournament edition come after the vote?
As far as I know this is the version that won and this is the version that was used in the ladder, the only differences seem the natural and centre being slightly less chocked and rocks on one entrance path to the 4/5 base.
On August 27 2013 21:41 eTcetRa wrote: I haven't checked the LE (which should be even easier on machines), but on my version there are only ~1000 doodads compared to Cloud Kingdoms ~2000. If you could run CK then Yeonsu should be more than easy.
Edit: comparing to metropolis there are like one hundredth of the amount of lights...
Depends on what doodats are used of course, CK doodats were mostly rocks. That said, Yeonsu doesn't seem to have particularly complicated doodats as well. Maybe the textures looked unclear at certain texture qualities though.
I doubt Blizzard makes these modifications just to troll people. Surely they have their reasons whatever they are. Ohana's water apparently also caused FPS drops or something like that.
It might just be pure clarity, you have to understand that people from the lowest depths of Bronze are going to play on these maps.
I think you should just stop using the word "community" because you're always talking about vocal minorites. And I can't even remember any "hype" for KC or Atlas. What do you even mean by "hype"?
How am I talking about vocal minorities when Metropolis was voted into the ladder by popular poll?
KC won the staff vote of the TLMC and placed highly in the public vote. Atlas was I suppose only pushed by the mapping community only, not the entire SC2 community.. Well, some people did point out long before it was apparent that the map was bad for Zerg, and it turned out to be.
Actually, KC got last place in the public vote: Rank Staff - Public 1st Korhal Compound - Ohana 2nd Cloud Kingdom - Cloud Kingdom 3rd Burning Altas - Haven's Lagoon 4th Sanctuary - Twilight Peaks 5th Ohana - Sanctuary 6th Haven's Lagoon - Burning Altar 7th Twilight Peaks - Korhal Compound
About Metroplis, the other choices weren't that great either. These are the maps you could vote on:
Daybreak obviously won (also one of the best maps used in tournaments/ladder so far) Bel'shir Winter got slightly more votes than Metropolis, followed by Dual Sight.
Atlas was merely one of like 7 or so maps that were sent to IPL for consideration. It was only used because GSL specifically asked to use it after they saw it being tested by IPL.
Metropolis was put against other shit maps in the poll afaik. But whatever these other maps were, it was a public poll and thus almost useless.
Korhal Compound wasn't ever hyped by the mapmaking community what are you talking about lol. It was hyped by TL staff/judges who at the time had 0 mapmakers judging.
At least back then judges could decide shit tho... would have loved that right to prevent the Frost/Ravage/Yeonsu top 3.
Doubt it, Blizz announced a unified map pool for the ladder and all WCS Regions, which honestly blows. Means that these 7 maps are basically the only maps we are going to see the following month or two.
I really like this map after having actually play on it. The forward 3rd is really bad versus Protoss since you can easily siege it with Colossi, but I don't think it's broken, just cool.
About the new looks, I think that while they should have really talked about them with you, they give much better story, since the difference between the sides is clear.
On August 30 2013 00:03 SiskosGoatee wrote: This map is by the way seriously difficult to play on for Z.
In which matchup? I think this map will be broken in ZvP in the lategame in favor of Zerg, because Swarmhosts will probably just siege the middle 3rd/4th from the 3rd/4th. But from the (very) few games I have played on it up to now it felt quite interesting. I also have to say I don't dislike the "new look".
On August 30 2013 00:03 SiskosGoatee wrote: This map is by the way seriously difficult to play on for Z.
In which matchup? I think this map will be broken in ZvP in the lategame in favor of Zerg, because Swarmhosts will probably just siege the middle 3rd/4th from the 3rd/4th. But from the (very) few games I have played on it up to now it felt quite interesting. I also have to say I don't dislike the "new look".
Both matchups actually, it's super hard to secure a fourth and the natural is very hard to defend against gateway expand timings because the chocked space goes on for so long. Usually to hold gateway expand timings you actually want to move your spines a bit forward outside of the natural chokce to make forcefields less effective but the choke here is more of a corridor it has a side entrance so even if you have creep all the way to there which is unlikely if your spines were forward they could just bipass them. The ramp is also super close to the choke and it's very hard to deny that dreaded forcefield on it.
On August 28 2013 18:52 SiskosGoatee wrote: Doubt it, Blizz announced a unified map pool for the ladder and all WCS Regions, which honestly blows. Means that these 7 maps are basically the only maps we are going to see the following month or two.
Blizzard can't do anything right by you, can they? After promoting two map contest winners in a way they have never done before and removing their often criticized own creations you still find something to complain about. SMH
On August 28 2013 18:52 SiskosGoatee wrote: Doubt it, Blizz announced a unified map pool for the ladder and all WCS Regions, which honestly blows. Means that these 7 maps are basically the only maps we are going to see the following month or two.
Blizzard can't do anything right by you, can they? After promoting two map contest winners in a way they have never done before and removing their often criticized own creations you still find something to complain about. SMH
I don't understand how 7 maps for the next couple months is bad. Yeah you want variety but that variety should be relatively stagnant for a period of time that allows the pros to actually practice and develop strategies for each map if necessary.
Having a unified map pool is awesome, and having that map pool stick around for a reasonable amount of time is beneficial.
On August 28 2013 18:52 SiskosGoatee wrote: Doubt it, Blizz announced a unified map pool for the ladder and all WCS Regions, which honestly blows. Means that these 7 maps are basically the only maps we are going to see the following month or two.
Seriously....how is this bad? A month or two is a very short amount of time. Any shorter, and it would be a strain on the pros. As long as we see new stuff every two months, it's a good thing. Much better than a year of Daybreak.
I would be happy if we would see 7 maps in the next months. But I doubt pros will change their system of only using 3 maps in bo3s. Hope the tournaments will change up the veto system a little, maybe with a start map rotation or only 1 veto per player in a 7 map pool for a bo3 and then losers choice. (would get rid of the most imba maps for that matchup atleast)
and I thought it was 10ish maps and each region can take the 7 they want.
And Koreans holding true to their standards, new map ! cheese it !
Because those 7 maps everywhere basically, of any tournament of note and the ladder. Apart from that if they continue this system it's death to any remotely experimental maps with cool features like Icarus because they can't be on the ladder.
I wouldn't mind at all if every WCS Region had its own completely unique map pool.
I also doubt they are going to refresh the map pool entirely after these 2 months or half, so expect the year of Frost or something now.
About the map, and changes Blizzard made, by reducing the size of the ramp with the rock tower, I think they might have made it more interesting, actually. Now that the tower blocks the whole ramp, it encourages taking that middle base as a 3rd, and as a 3rd base it's very different to other maps, and fun to try and defend. Adds a bit of variety I think, which is cool.
Yes, if the majority of players of one race don't want to play on a map that's kind of important because that means it never sees any play in any tournament which has vetos.
Typically the reason they don't want to play on itis the wrinate their race has on it so if a tournament doesn't have vetos it makes it even more troublesome. Some shocking revelations here.
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.
This map has one central area where zergs can spine up and hold 5 bases, similar to the way they did it on daybreak. Zergs simply need to adjust their style due to the map. They are too used to the wide open expanses of akilon and derelict
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Babyknight did not scout in time so he got punished, big whoop. In order to counter it you simply have to remember to scout that specific location and if you see a pylon down there you should make a forge.
Many maps have unique cannon placements which differ levels of cannon rushers, it is not bad, you just have to learn the map. Whining will do you no good, actually learning how to play on different maps will. Your answers are irritating since you do not admit that you are wrong when faced with valid answers.
Scouting is one thing but defending is something else. On most maps you can defend as fast as you scout but here you have to get out of your base and go all around the main from outside, and the canon is almost walled by the pylon so you wouldn't even be able to do damage. Unless you manage to kill the probe before it gets on top which is hard with mineral walking that canon will do its job. Plus the fact that you can't even see the canon if you don't play with bars on (remember every kind of player can play it on the ladder).
I seems easier to criticize me rather than judging the map itself. I raise valid points but you talk about me saying I'm a bad mapper and bad player. What about the point Morrow raised ? Is he a bad mapper and a bad player too ? Or maybe can we finally talk about a map in the map section of the forum ?
edit : Yonnua no you can't put a cyber core anymore and wall on my example because there are 2 open spots.
On September 19 2013 08:32 chuky500 wrote: 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.
Also not the first time you criticize something you don't happen to like, pointing out that it must be a
mistake
Because, clearly, you know something nobody else does.
Somehow I like this map more than frost! Lots of interresting attack paths and ways to outplay your opponent. Im sorry about the islands being redesigned, but the map is plenty interresting anyway IMO. GJ!
On September 19 2013 07:15 chuky500 wrote: 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.
Meh, you just can't check for all of this, which is why such things only become apparent once maps are on the ladder, the point is it can be easily 'fixed' if need be. A lot of maps had such things. Polar Night's mineral line could be walled with 2 pylons. You could still do a 3 pylon wallin on Neo Planet S even with the plate. You just don't ever think to check for this ever and it takes a map being on the ladder for someone to discover these things eventually. This will always happen, the difference is that when it happens with a blizzard map everyone goes apeshit over blizz' incompetence.
On September 19 2013 09:49 Yonnua wrote: tl;dr people shouldn't criticise map-makers if they couldn't do anywhere near as well.
Really dislike this argument, it's also technically an ad-hominem. Your criticism on someone or something can be valid if you can't do it as well.
On September 20 2013 02:41 TotalBiscuit wrote: This map is pretty horrible. That expansion with a cliff, towards the Terran player, with the mineral line in range of marines on the low ground? Good lord, welcome back to Desert Oasis.
Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't like the map. Totalbiscuit said that in the Acer Teamstory cup thread after Axiom lost to Complexity on Yeonsu. I suggest you reply there that he can't complain if he's not a good mapper
On September 20 2013 02:41 TotalBiscuit wrote: This map is pretty horrible. That expansion with a cliff, towards the Terran player, with the mineral line in range of marines on the low ground? Good lord, welcome back to Desert Oasis.
Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't like the map. Totalbiscuit said that in the Acer Teamstory cup thread after Axiom lost to Complexity on Yeonsu. I suggest you reply there that he can't complain if he's not a good mapper
TB does not know shit, just because he is a public figure does not mean his words has any value. He is about silver or gold level and is a play-byplay caster, the fact that you are looking for people who has the same views as you instead of giving any actual real arguments just shows how wrong are you.
And what are you trying to prove anyways? That the map is bad? That it should be removed from ladder? If you were looking for help you have gotten it already, detailed and from many people, so please stop whining.
On September 20 2013 02:41 TotalBiscuit wrote: This map is pretty horrible. That expansion with a cliff, towards the Terran player, with the mineral line in range of marines on the low ground? Good lord, welcome back to Desert Oasis.
Totalbiscuit said that in the Acer Teamstory cup thread after Axiom lost to Complexity on Yeonsu. I suggest you reply there that he can't complain if he's not a good mapper
On September 20 2013 02:41 TotalBiscuit wrote: This map is pretty horrible. That expansion with a cliff, towards the Terran player, with the mineral line in range of marines on the low ground? Good lord, welcome back to Desert Oasis.
Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't like the map. Totalbiscuit said that in the Acer Teamstory cup thread after Axiom lost to Complexity on Yeonsu. I suggest you reply there that he can't complain if he's not a good mapper
Citing TB doesn't exactly further your case, he's like what, gold or plat?
That said, he's right in this case, it does favour Terran. Each of the features these map has can exist without them hampering Zerg, but them all together is just too much:
- Super easy to defend natural and third that is very chocked up. - Low expansion count - Being forced to expand towards your opponent - third/fourth that is highly siegable
- Super easy to defend natural and third that is very chocked up. - Low expansion count
How are these true? The nat entrance is not a ramp, is 10 square wide and has a backdoor, thus more hard to defend than any other map on the ladder. The 3rd is not that easy as well, although after you break the rocks it's not that hard, but it's not super easy like entombed or something alike. Six expansions is a low number? I agree that the map forces you to expand towards your opponent, but the number of expansions is pretty standard.
On September 20 2013 02:41 TotalBiscuit wrote: This map is pretty horrible. That expansion with a cliff, towards the Terran player, with the mineral line in range of marines on the low ground? Good lord, welcome back to Desert Oasis.
Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't like the map. Totalbiscuit said that in the Acer Teamstory cup thread after Axiom lost to Complexity on Yeonsu. I suggest you reply there that he can't complain if he's not a good mapper
Citing TB doesn't exactly further your case, he's like what, gold or plat?
That said, he's right in this case, it does favour Terran. Each of the features these map has can exist without them hampering Zerg, but them all together is just too much:
- Super easy to defend natural and third that is very chocked up. - Low expansion count - Being forced to expand towards your opponent - third/fourth that is highly siegable
TB wasn't complaining about the map being bad for zerg, he was saying it was bad for protoss.
Unlike every TL poster who are minimum high masters with several years experience in progaming and map-making
I am actually high master on EU and have been playing since the game launched, can link my profile if you want proof, also I made quite a few maps, not as much as other map makers, but still enough to understand more about maps than most people. I am sorry but while I like your casting imo you really aren't at a sufficient level to talk about balance.
Unlike every TL poster who are minimum high masters with several years experience in progaming and map-making
I am actually high master on EU and have been playing since the game launched, can link my profile if you want proof, also I made quite a few maps, not as much as other map makers, but still enough to understand more about maps than most people. I am sorry but while I like your casting imo you really aren't at a sufficient level to talk about balance.
Here's the thing, because apparently casting thousands of matches is not adequate qualification to talk about fairly obvious map balance issues (I get it, I'm not too good at Starcraft, but I do know a thing or two), I also have access to the opinions of a lot of pros. I asked a few tonight and made sure they weren't from my team just so the "bias" accusation can't be thrown out. Here are the opinions of 3 pros. Taken their names out because if they wanna make an official statement on the map they're welcome to do so and I trust that people are not going to stoop as low as to accuse me of making these quotes up. I can get more if you like.
yeah man super good map for terran i feel super chokey kind of feels good for toss too vs zerg >_<
[9/20/2013 11:42:05 PM] I don't like it [12:05:37 AM] also I vetoed it right away so sorry I can't be any more insightful XD [12:05:45 AM] but its definetly not a good zerg map [12:05:46 AM] imo [12:05:51 AM] not for zvt or zvp [12:05:54 AM] too many chokes [12:05:59 AM] : vs p
[9/20/2013 10:36:45 PM] TotalBiscuit: do you reckon Yeonsu is any good? That expansion with the cliffs seems awfully easy to exploit hard as Terran [9/20/2013 10:53:19 PM] : i agree and its happened to me before a few times [9/20/2013 10:53:26 PM] : terrans have set up marine drops with widow mines below the cliff [9/20/2013 10:53:37 PM] : the widow mines are also within range of the mineral line and its a pain in the ass to deal with [9/20/2013 10:53:41 PM] : but i like that map zvp and zvz [9/20/2013 10:53:49 PM] : its a really good swarm host map [9/20/2013 10:54:07 PM] : ZvT all comes down to getting ahead early and denying a 3rd, if you can do that its a good map for ZvT [9/20/2013 10:54:13 PM] : the game gets decided early thoguh imo [9/20/2013 10:54:20 PM] : if the terran is allowed to pressure and get ahead, ur fucked as zerg [9/20/2013 10:54:21 PM] : its hard to come back
So next time, I'd appreciate it if people didn't immediately dismiss my argument just because I don't ladder much. Most casters don't ladder much, I'm part time, I got other things I have to do, sorry. I have however still cast thousands of professional games at the highest level and that has given me some idea of what's going on when it comes to maps and positioning.
I think it would be a mistake to say one cannot judge a map due to their ladder rank. A large portion of Starcraft is about micro, macro, and great decision making. No matter one's game knowledge, without such mechanics it would be very hard to get past gold. Yet, such mechanics are not necessary at looking or designing a map.
Instead, it's all about game knowledge, and knowing what pro players are capable of. One must understand what each race can and cannot do with their units and timings, and how terrain affects those. Then, one must be able to identify that a pro may be able to take advantage of a map much more than the average ladder player due to much higher apm and better decision making. It just comes down to understanding how the game works and how well one can theory craft, not how well one can play. Though, playing certainly helps one understand what it's like to be dropped in three places at once, or fight a Protoss through a tiny choke. But yeah, not all that important. It just so happens that the majority who commit to learning how the game works also commit to learning micro, macro, and mechanics.
Between casting many games and being involved directly with pros, I think the opinion of TB certainly suffices as a worthy one to take note of.
I'm curious as to what race those players and having a little more detail, if you could pm me and we could talk I would be very Interested to hear from you.
As to the quotes themselves if your question was "do you reckon Yeonsu is any good? That expansion with the cliffs seems awfully easy to exploit hard as Terran" then that's already pushing your opinion on them and skewing the answers. A better question to ask would have been "what do you think about Yeonsu in regards to balance?". But alas even asking that question to the same three players would be pointless considering that multiple pros of the same race can have vastly different views.
As much as I'll respect your opinion and feel that it is worth considering (even if I believe in this case it is biased) complaining about it amounts to the same as complaining about drops being powerful on Akilon and Polar because of air space.. There are other factors that play a role in the map. Protoss have a lot of blink harrass power on Yeonsu and Zerg have a lot of flanking and run-by opportunities.
Again, I would like to hear from you and have a discussion if you would like to pm me!
Edit: probably a lot of fuck ups in this post. On phone.....
No Totalbiscuit Post on Frost... Please post on my map too. Thanks.
Also, I mean obviously there are some map flaws to Yeonsu, which gives advantage to certain races. And I don't know if the map makes those map flaws in delibration or whatever. But the map is different from the rest of the map pool, which isn't so bad. And it's too late to change it, since Blizzard really didn't test it or consult anyone.
My suggestions:
- Remove towers: Makes hard for come back - Add another pathway on the sides of map: Gives more options for zerg, so that zerg feels less constricted. - Fix main ramp - Fix Main, make map bigger or something
P.S. Also, Mr. Totalbiscuit, it'd be nice if you could have more talks like this for maps! Can lead to good discussion and also good suggestions.
I find it funny that you would post these quotes to support your argument that the map is bad, but you bring only Zerg quotes and they counter each other somewhat (the 1st and 2nd say that it's bad vs toss, and the 3rd says it's good vs toss). Since I am a toss player I cannot really comment on the TvZ aspect, although the 3rd player actually seems to support the argument that you just need to play the map differently.
If people would stop getting mad on slightly different maps than the norm maybe we will someday have actual map variance, and that would be great.
This issue is, for me, that having chokes and cliffs can actually work in the favor of zerg or anyone else if they adjust their play style accordingly. Spines in chokes, not to mention swarm hosts, BLs, infestors, etc. are very good! Also, a lot of cliffs mean a lot of of winding ground distance and short air distance. This helps mutas, etc. In general I think the best zergs are proactive about not letting their opponents get primo positioning. That said, I still think it's okay for zerg to have to play 1 map in the map pool without VAST open areas like derelict watcher, akilon wastes, star station, frost, etc. Maps this season are FAR better than last season and I personally feel that the game should change from every build the exact same every time to thinking more about each map individually. In these circumstances, truly the best players will separate themselves from the pack.
- Super easy to defend natural and third that is very chocked up. - Low expansion count
How are these true? The nat entrance is not a ramp, is 10 square wide and has a backdoor, thus more hard to defend than any other map on the ladder.
The point is that the choke extends outward making it hard for Z to form a good concave on the other side of it. On most maps you can form a concave outside of the natural, even if it's a ramp some roaches poke up and get vision and the roaches on the lowground can still fire at the wall. Typically if you attack into the natural here your entire army gets forcefielded up badly.
The 3rd is not that easy as well, although after you break the rocks it's not that hard, but it's not super easy like entombed or something alike.
I find it in fact in practice easier for T/P to defend the third than on Entombed, if the rocks are closed there is only a super tiny entrance into it and P/T don't have to break rocks to get access to it themselves. I played a lot of ZvT games against mech on this map (terrans actually go mech on this map, should say something, it's very rare) and it's super hard to put pressure on it, the third is extremely cloe and super close to your base.
Six expansions is a low number? I agree that the map forces you to expand towards your opponent, but the number of expansions is pretty standard.
The only map currently in the pool with less bases is Bel'Shir with Polar Night and Derelict having the same amount. Also considerng that one base is Island of course. It's not low low like Jung Basin with four per player but it's definitely lower than average.
I also feel that the original half base that Bel'shir should be added back in. 5 bases per player is waaay too few I feel. Especially on a map with such high CS. High CS maps need 6 bases at a minimum I feel.
Also, TB is right that he shouldn't be discredited just because of his ladder rank. More than enough people of high rank agree. The point is that many people of high rank will also have differing opinions on issues. Note how MorroW likes the map. But then again, Morrow might be speaking from a Terran perspective.
My own opinion as a random player is that this map is pretty darn imbalanced against Z. I have actually racepicked Z for a while to try and find an answer to ply on this map but it's really tough, it's certainly not hard to win, but damn is it tough and ZvT is tough enough for Zerg as it is.
On September 21 2013 16:44 eTcetRa wrote: I'm curious as to what race those players and having a little more detail, if you could pm me and we could talk I would be very Interested to hear from you.
As to the quotes themselves if your question was "do you reckon Yeonsu is any good? That expansion with the cliffs seems awfully easy to exploit hard as Terran" then that's already pushing your opinion on them and skewing the answers. A better question to ask would have been "what do you think about Yeonsu in regards to balance?". But alas even asking that question to the same three players would be pointless considering that multiple pros of the same race can have vastly different views.
As much as I'll respect your opinion and feel that it is worth considering (even if I believe in this case it is biased) complaining about it amounts to the same as complaining about drops being powerful on Akilon and Polar because of air space.. There are other factors that play a role in the map. Protoss have a lot of blink harrass power on Yeonsu and Zerg have a lot of flanking and run-by opportunities.
Again, I would like to hear from you and have a discussion if you would like to pm me!
Edit: probably a lot of fuck ups in this post. On phone.....
His question was no doubt leading, but the opinion that Yeonsu is a nightmare for Z is very common.
Revisiting the balance discussion, it should be pointed out that according to TLPD we have 64%, 44% and 58% on a decent sample size. ZvP is not as bad as I thought it would be and ZvT is worse. By any stretch, the map is certainly not a balance wonder and arguably the second most imbalanced map in the pool right now after Deadalus which has recently undergone a change.