| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On February 03 2013 22:09 Fatam wrote: Someone else's, I've been told it's a better version of my concept, truth be told I like it less and I'm a bit puzzled at what supposedly would make it 'better'. It seems to remove every bit of strategical complexity I planned for the map.what is the other map? just another potential template you made? or someone else's | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
e.g. your main is starting to mine out and you're able to get a 4th and 5th, with a 6th to be taken whenever you feel like it because the location is already secured.. or you're not able to expand, at all. @ the third being impossible, I don't know, it's sort of open but it's a bit closer to your nat compared to something like daybreak's third that I think it wouldn't be so hard to hold. It is 6m1hyg, but I think that slight lessening of gas can be worked around. As P if you're not 2 base all-inning a zerg you might do some warp prism zealot harass which is all minerals, or maybe a DT harass expand into zealot archon. Or some other mineral-heavy strat since it's HOTS and we don't know everything yet. You do also save a bit on workers b/c you need less of them for full saturation. | ||
|
Pucca
Taiwan1280 Posts
On February 02 2013 20:59 Unsane wrote: This is a very good point. I just think there can be a balanced version of 'new' and this stretches it. Now that imgur is working i can actually see that the third is a half node reducing its value by a bit. And for the FFE, i just dont like nexus walling, ill admit bias. EDIT: i also thought that was a ramp going from the XNT's platform down towards the nat, meaning i thought it was far more open. Then you'd hate BW hah | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
- I'd planned for the catch about the half base to be that the attacker has to walk around a really long way to attack it unless they can walk over the high ground that is your natural, meaning that ascertaining or denying that position in some way becomes really important. It also gives the half base natural a pretty unique sense of defensibility. - Half of the point of the design of the nat and that lowground area with the bushes is that you can run by an unsuspecting player who takes a bit too much of the forward natural position and feels too safe. - The full third/fourth is meant to be in a more forward position that puts some pressure on your opponent as well as being blinkable/reaperable from the main - The point of the top/bottom bases is that there's a lot of pressure on them depending on which bases are already taken by the opponent or allow you to put pressure on them - The centre half bases are in a very forward position and therefore half, it is very easy for the opponent however to sneak upon the high ground above it if you're not careful and put pressure upon it. - The removal of the CS means you aren't punished any more for not properly splitting up your army, you won't lose bases over it And in all, the majority amount of the positional thought in the map has been killed. It's just become another map where you park your army on one hotkey around your main/nat to respond to any thing and taking certain positions and decisions about which expansions to take and through what avenue to attack and anticipating that really doesn't matter any more. Everyone hates walling in BW... | ||
|
Unsane
Canada170 Posts
However, I think your opponent would often know whether you have your 3rd or not before he moves out, eliminating the large loop around because you hold that high ground area (labelled defensive position in that pic). Also i feel an opponent would be foolish to just run straight to your nat, passing under XNT range. If he were smart, he'd secure the XNT first, and then it wouldnt really be a choice to attack your nat or your 3rd. I guess that would punish brain dead players, to simply just try to attack underneath XNT range without checking it. Also presents the defender with some time to reassess what is coming towards his third if he holds the XNT. On that other map passing by the XNT isnt even a choice...thats something blizz would do | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On February 04 2013 07:39 lorestarcraft wrote: Lol, there is no such demonstration.Maybe if siskos showed up his replays and how awesome he is, then maybe we would see the revelation on how to play that contradicts everything demonstrated for years by GSL pros. I'm sorry, but if you think an open nat and far away third are viable in PvZ then you are a complete and utter idiot. As an example, XNC was PvZ favoured. Jungle Basin was also massively PvZ favoured, metalopolis also always had a slight PvZ bias. You're adroidly talking out of your proverbial butt, which is extremely common in the mapping scene, everyone is parroting maxims like 'Far away third bad for PvZ', 'Big maps are bad for Terran.', 'Chokes are good for Protoss' but not a single piece of evidence is ever offered. I'm willing to bet 90% of people here would've expected crossfire to be hell for Z, but it didn't turn out that way now did it? | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12047 Posts
On February 04 2013 07:39 lorestarcraft wrote: Maybe if siskos showed up his replays and how awesome he is, then maybe we would see the revelation on how to play that contradicts everything demonstrated for years by GSL pros. I'm sorry, but if you think an open nat and far away third are viable in PvZ then you are a complete and utter idiot. Cool, I didn't realise GSL pros had been playing HoTS for years :p That maps published in HoTS. Toss have a much better early game defense. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Timetwister22
United States538 Posts
On February 03 2013 20:13 SiskosGoatee wrote: Reliable sources have told me that: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RLZzkill.jpg) Is essentially a better version of my concept, thoughts? Would just like to clarify something real quick. I was essentially trying to demonstrate to Siskos how better proportions can lead to a stronger concept and better execution, and I was not really trying to fix this map itself. Secondly, I was working off of the first version of the map that he provided me with, as seen here: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iVWvPIF.jpg) He mentioned how the middle didn't work on the original version because it wast too cramped for Zerg. Thus, I thought it would be a good opportunity to demonstrate how good proportions can lead to a concept being stronger and more balanced, so I redid that layout instead of the layout posted in the OP. As you can see, my version is much more similar to the original layout he gave me than the current layout in the OP. Sorry for any confusion. With that said, my version and the current layout in the OP are different conceptually as Siskos has pointed out. However, if the proportions were better on the current layout, the concept would be much stronger, cleaner, and probably more balanced. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On February 04 2013 08:54 EatThePath wrote: What maps exist 'in this era' that don't follow the same trite template except Icarus? Supposedly people moved away from 'that era' because the maps wre imbalanced with little statistical evidence to back it up.You cite imbalance independent of maps in a former metagame era... and anyway XNC and Jungle Basin were just bad maps for zerg, it has nothing to do with the protoss natural or 3rd. It means everything, because according to the theory some people subscribe to a far away third would automatically make a map good for Zerg, apparently it doesn't work like that. Also, XNC was like 55% PvZ or something.Let's face it, this whole theory some people subscribe to is a bunch of theorycraft concocted by a bunch of people who never offered a shred of evidence to back it up. Add to this the fact that there is a definite Protoss bias going on, it's definitely time to re-asses a lot of the theorycraft people have come to believe in due to the parroting effect that was never proven. On February 04 2013 08:59 Timetwister22 wrote: Maybe, maybe not, I won't profess to be able to theorycraft balance to that extent before playtesting and I don't believe it is possible unless you're a wizard, ultimately we take a shot in the dark to some extent with balance. Personally though, I like the proportions of my version better and I feel they more set out to create the game I want to see. If you like yours more that's fine.I was the mysterious helper behind the second map Siskos posted here: Would just like to clarify something real quick. I was essentially trying to demonstrate to Siskos how better proportions can lead to a stronger concept and better execution, and I was not really trying to fix this map itself. Secondly, I was working off of the first version of the map that he provided me with, as seen here: + Show Spoiler + He mentioned how the middle didn't work on the original version because it wast too cramped for Zerg. Thus, I thought it would be a good opportunity to demonstrate how good proportions can lead to a concept being stronger and more balanced, so I redid that layout instead of the layout posted in the OP. As you can see, my version is much more similar to the original layout he gave me than the current layout in the OP. Sorry for any confusion. With that said, my version and the current layout in the OP are different conceptually as Siskos has pointed out. However, if the proportions were better on the current layout, the concept would be much stronger, cleaner, and probably more balanced. Like I iterated before I do not think the opinions of others are invalid, the only opinion I think is invalid is thinking that some opinions are invalid, as in, thinking there is such a thing as an objectively good or bad map.. If you think a map I absolutely dislike like Ohana is good or you like playing on it, that'sfine, that doesn 't mean you understand the game less or whatever, it just means you like to see different games. I personally like games that feature a lot of multi pronged aggression and slugfests with expansions dying left and right, Ohana doesn't offer me that, if you don't like those kinds of games. Your opinion is as valid as mine, but I do take offence if you claim that I, or anyone, does not 'understand' StarCraft just because they like to see different games than anyone else. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
Games that you play on ladder have little bearing on whether a map is good or not. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On February 04 2013 09:35 EatThePath wrote: Not even that is objectively bad, you can objectively say that that map is going to lead to ridiculous early aggression yes. But if ridiculous early aggression is a bad or good thing is subjective. Of course, 99% of people doesn't like those games. But that doesn't make the 1% that does like them any more wrong than the 1% people enjoying old B movies with horrible special effects are wrong.Objectively bad map: 64x64 flat ground with starting locations within creep of each other. Games that you play on ladder have little bearing on whether a map is good or not. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On February 04 2013 10:02 EatThePath wrote: You can argue that competition objectively requires fair balance of races yes. Balance can be argued to be objective, but that even balance or fair comeptition is a good thing is quite subjective.It is objectively bad for competition. Most tournaments disagree by the way, single elimination isn't fair, it's bad for competition in that sense. It doesn't take a brain to realize the fairest tournament will always be a round robin where you aren't told how well the other players are doing. But that's not good for spectatorship because viewers don't like to know it's over until the end of the tournament lest they switch off the stream. So in that sense tournaments care more about spectacle than the fair spirit of competition (candy handout charity foreigner seeds lol). So yes, in that sense, I would say that most people don't think, deep inside, that fair competition is the highest ideal as most people would hate to see a pure round robin tournament because of spectacle, and in that, their opinion isn't more right or wrong than people who like to see games on shrinkage purely for the spectacle of it even though shrinkage is probably heavily Terran favoured. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
I think part of the problem is that people, at times, let their personal feelings get in the way of reasoning in arguments or correctly judging maps. For instance, a lot of people on this forum don't like sisko (which I can understand, sometimes he likes the sight of his own writing too much :-P), so they go into his map threads determined not to like the map, or they put it under the microscope more than they might another person's map. It reminds me of all the stories where the town drunk foreshadows what is going to happen.. he's warning them inbetween drunken songs or mumbled ramblings but they all ignore him because he's the town drunk, so he must not have a clue what he's talking about :-P The moral of the story being: judge the arguments (or maps) by their merits, not by the person making them. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On February 04 2013 11:20 Fatam wrote: In this thread sisko has some good arguments. A lot of the jargon/reasoning thrown around this forum really is based on very little to no evidence, and once everyone hears someone "respected" say it, they perpetuate the myth by repeating it in all the relevant locations. I think part of the problem is that people, at times, let their personal feelings get in the way of reasoning in arguments or correctly judging maps. For instance, a lot of people on this forum don't like sisko (which I can understand, sometimes he likes the sight of his own writing too much :-P), so they go into his map threads determined not to like the map, or they put it under the microscope more than they might another person's map. It reminds me of all the stories where the town drunk foreshadows what is going to happen.. he's warning them inbetween drunken songs or mumbled ramblings but they all ignore him because he's the town drunk, so he must not have a clue what he's talking about :-P The moral of the story being: judge the arguments (or maps) by their merits, not by the person making them. I agree! I only argue when sisko is quite wrong.  | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
Anyhow, it's published now, managed to fix the editor. In case anyone wonders who still can't publish, in the editor preferences under 'general' you can change the region, set it to HotS beta and it works. Also, they just hate me because I'm beautiful. | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
On February 04 2013 08:52 Qikz wrote: Cool, I didn't realise GSL pros had been playing HoTS for years :p That maps published in HoTS. Toss have a much better early game defense. Because air units are made early and control space | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
OSC
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Hm
Bisu vs Shuttle
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Shinee
Action vs Shine
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Paralyze
Jaedong vs Speed
Kung Fu Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
