Hi guys, writing a description while half-sleep is not a useful skill to have! So here we go again, Foxtrot is the culmination of several years of mapmaking, where i have been making standard maps and moving from there pushing the boundaries ever so slowly. The map the map is riddled with several sweet spots where players can take advantage of the map, but this works both ways as always, allowing smart players to counter with his own little annoyance. The complex layout of the map rewards the player that can recognize the terrain and take advantage of it, and the many spots where players can hide harassing units allows for heavy use of multi-pronged attacks.
◙ 3-in-1 map with vertical spawns disabled. ◙ The center of the map allows for a wide variety of attack routes and diverse positional challenges. ◙ Central gold bases are extremely exposed but they give a good income for those players that adapt to the map and are able to defend them. ◙ No Xel'naga watch towers.
♦ Version 1.3 Changed lighting of the map given the feedback.
♦ Version 1.2 Minor aesthetic changes, added pipes to the overlord pods around the map. Minor changes to the top right and bottom left natural bases to avoid a very very ugly cannon rush.
♦ Version 1.1 Expanded the unpathable area around the natural bases at NE and SW bases so siege tanks can't shell more than 1 mineral field and 1 Vespene geyser. Added destructible plates behind the mineral lines at NE and SW natural bases to avoid cannon rushes. Minor aesthetic updates. Minor pathing bug fixes.
♦ Version 1.0 Map Submitted to the TLMC#4.
This version can still be found and played under the name KTV Foxtrot Labs Not anymore, KTV Foxtrot Labs v1.0 was removed to avoid confusion, there is enough as it is with Blizz using a outdated version.
As always the newest and latest version can be found in the custom games section!
Freaking small changes - how is this worth a resubmit? Couldn't you just update your old thread? It's a good map - don't get me wrong about this - but the whole post shouts: look how good i'm or as the Twitch folk would say it: much love and kappa ...
the map's layout was discussed in other threads. so i want to focus my criticism on stylistic decisions and arts/crafts.
for me the stones with glowing cracks below a sand texture do not work. visually the effect looks like a bad photoshop layering of different textures.
craft-wise it looks like an unelaborated idea to make stuff look different, but it does not make that much sense really. the cracked stone with the greenish glowing cracks has the appearance of a flat surface- the details are in the lower cracks, the cracks present the big structure within that texture. on the other hand the the sand has an overall high detail degree, it is grainy everywhere and has a dune like structure - both do not mix very well when used on a large surface. they would work much better with sand in one region, a third texture for blending and then the cracks.
On May 25 2014 19:11 dezi wrote: Freaking small changes - how is this worth a resubmit? Couldn't you just update your old thread? It's a good map - don't get me wrong about this - but the whole post shouts: look how good i'm or as the Twitch folk would say it: much love and kappa ...
I never made a thread for this or Kamala in the first place, glad you liked the map Kappa.
lel, No in all seriousness, i'm sorry if it came that way, i was really tired yesterday when i made the thread, actually as you can see i even forgot to add the KTV tag twice (in Chau Sara Highlands and this thread, i need to PM a mod now to add it now), so sorry about that u.u;
On May 26 2014 01:23 Samro225am wrote: the map's layout was discussed in other threads. so i want to focus my criticism on stylistic decisions and arts/crafts.
for me the stones with glowing cracks below a sand texture do not work. visually the effect looks like a bad photoshop layering of different textures.
craft-wise it looks like an unelaborated idea to make stuff look different, but it does not make that much sense really. the cracked stone with the greenish glowing cracks has the appearance of a flat surface- the details are in the lower cracks, the cracks present the big structure within that texture. on the other hand the the sand has an overall high detail degree, it is grainy everywhere and has a dune like structure - both do not mix very well when used on a large surface. they would work much better with sand in one region, a third texture for blending and then the cracks.
I have talked to other plp about the texturing, and many did not liked either but there were others that did liked it, a lot, my original idea was to use a tileset similar to this one + Show Spoiler +
and to use custom textures to get those cracks to show without the need to use extra textures, but the TLMC arrived and i had to choose fast between, use another one or to use it with some tweaks b/c no custom textures are allowed in the TLMC, at the end i chose the later, and after seeing all the reactions i'm not sure if i did the right one, but i'm happy with how it came out given that at the time i was really pressured about studying for the exam period that was getting closer.
Now after the starbow map contest ends i'll have the time to revisit the texturing of this map, and i will (unlike i did with Crimson Forest) so do not worry :b
This map should have won TLMC. Hopefully it gets picked up and get some games played on it though, you definitely deserve it!
Only thing I somewhat dislike about it is the SW and NE naturals for Protoss. It seems you're pretty much forced to do a Ramp > Nexus walloff just because of how far forward the natural ramp is, plus having the double backdoor means walling off at the forward ramp would be even worse. At that point is it needed to have both of those ramps rocked off since you're already pretty much forced to wall in with your nexus? Maybe just having 1 rocked off? I guess it increases early game rush distance, but /shrug, just thinking out loud here.
The funny thing is that if you had submitted only Foxtrot , instead of Kamala + Foxtrot , this map would have won TLMC with more than 50% votes imo. Lazyness 1 - 0 hard work.
Can you try to export the zhakul'das texture ( the one with clowing cracks ) and modify the color from green to blue in photoshop ? Would be cool if you followed the color scheme of the pic you linked ^^.
@Sidian When i was working on the map my original idea was to make the NE-SW bases have these long diagonal set of rocks with much more HP than usual and LoS blockers below blocking the ramp to the third AND the path to the natural mostly b/c i have wanted to use these sets of rocks in a natural for a while now but a tester of the map made me enter in reason, so i changed the layout. Regarding the space in the nat yeah it's awkward i must agree but that's because of blink stalkers, i must leave a good amount of space around the mains to avoid them, and that distorts the rest of the map, that's one of the reason why the mains are oversized, the second is that if a player decides to attack the rocks, the defensive player needs enough space so he can build a concave inside the nat to fend off the attack. Now as far as the rocks go, you can place a single photon cannon between them and you are able to fend off lings chipping away at them, so i don't see it being a very big problem.
@IeZ My idea for the custom textures was/is to mix the zhakuldas cracks with the tarsonis rubble and change the color as you said to a more bluish glow. Actually the reason why i added all the green around the map (iPistol billboards with omni lights+Green Neon tubes) is to be consistent with the zhakuldas textures, if i change these textures i must change all the rest :b
And yeah, lots of people have said to me exactly that, the reason why i didn't won the TLMC is because my two maps made it to the finalists -.-; (And! because none of you guys submitted more standardish maps!)
What i feel is out of place is the green iPistol ads. First, they're ads aren't they? Second, you already have a lot of green on this map. Maybe a dark yellow or a blue instead?
Instead of the iPistol billboards at the start i was using cliff decals with high HDR multiplier and omni lights, but i changed in because i feel they fit better in the areas they are supposed to cover, but you're right about the amount of green tho, that's why the fog is of a dark greyish blue. Sadly i can't get the fog to show when taking overviews with the editor (some random bug)
IMO the green cracks don't look all that bad, that's why i settled for this tileset instead of using another one :b
Why are the asymmetric horizontal spawns allowed? Doesn't this give a clear imbalance? Bottom left has a small natural ramp to defend and bottom right has a similar ramp but it can be completely bypassed and the defender then cannot use a highground advantage. I really like every aspect of this map except this spawning possibility. It seems silly and an objectively wrong decision.
On July 01 2014 05:44 MuadDib752 wrote:Doesn't this give a clear imbalance?
Yes, the thing is that any rotational symmetric map is already imbalanced when spawning in horizontal or vertical positions, so if you have played in a 4p rotational symmetric map you have played in asymmetric map.
As long as the map is well designed there isn't a issue with playing in a rotational asymmetric map, and if the outcry is just too big because of this, blizzard always can disable the spawns easily and the map becomes a 2in1 instead of being a 4in1.
But i do agree with you, those spawns have been the focus of many players and discussions, at the end i decided to keep them because they are not particularly imbalanced or dull towards any race, but as i said i have no issues disabling them from the map, and as far as i know, blizzard is in the same train i'm.
I didn't realize this became non-vertical instead of cross-only. I am having trouble with this... the push distance nat2nat is quite short in horizontal spawns, with only one set of rocks required to break. Imagine immortal sentry in pvz...
The 3rd base is also so much farther by ground in the NW/SE positions than the opposite corner. I know there are tradeoffs, but it just doesn't seem necessary to include this spawn position for competitive play when the 2in1 version is quite good already.
On July 06 2014 08:26 EatThePath wrote: I didn't realize this became non-vertical instead of cross-only. I am having trouble with this... the push distance nat2nat is quite short in horizontal spawns, with only one set of rocks required to break. Imagine immortal sentry in pvz...
The 3rd base is also so much farther by ground in the NW/SE positions than the opposite corner. I know there are tradeoffs, but it just doesn't seem necessary to include this spawn position for competitive play when the 2in1 version is quite good already.
On July 06 2014 09:19 EatThePath wrote: well wtf mate
Ahahaha yeah, i have gotten into some very interesting discussions about those spawns, the agreement is that even when the spawns are possibly broken, it is worth it just to see a meta develop from those spawns, i mean we as mapmakers are always trying new maps that are weird and/or funky so we can have more data and test new waters/new layouts.
The thing here is that those spawns by design are quite weird (by my standards) and possibly imbalanced, and the old version that is uploaded by blizzard atm does not help stabilizing those spawns at all...
On July 06 2014 09:19 EatThePath wrote: well wtf mate
Ahahaha yeah, i have gotten into some very interesting discussions about those spawns, the agreement is that even when the spawns are possibly broken, it is worth it just to see a meta develop from those spawns, i mean we as mapmakers are always trying new maps that are weird and/or funky so we can have more data and test new waters/new layouts.
The thing here is that those spawns by design are quite weird (by my standards) and possibly imbalanced, and the old version that is uploaded by blizzard atm does not help stabilizing those spawns at all...
Yeah I'm sure, I was just totally surprised when I went to play it, like "did Blizzard eff up the spawns??" I haven't seen the new version so maybe it fixes the standout problems (mainly ZvX push distance, imo), but at least you have easy fallback plan of spawn limitation without really feeling like you're reducing the map's design. Usually I'm all for experimentation but my perfunctory imba detectors are lit up too much (on this version). We shall seeee.....
On July 06 2014 09:19 EatThePath wrote: well wtf mate
Ahahaha yeah, i have gotten into some very interesting discussions about those spawns, the agreement is that even when the spawns are possibly broken, it is worth it just to see a meta develop from those spawns, i mean we as mapmakers are always trying new maps that are weird and/or funky so we can have more data and test new waters/new layouts.
The thing here is that those spawns by design are quite weird (by my standards) and possibly imbalanced, and the old version that is uploaded by blizzard atm does not help stabilizing those spawns at all...
Yeah I'm sure, I was just totally surprised when I went to play it, like "did Blizzard eff up the spawns??" I haven't seen the new version so maybe it fixes the standout problems (mainly ZvX push distance, imo), but at least you have easy fallback plan of spawn limitation without really feeling like you're reducing the map's design. Usually I'm all for experimentation but my perfunctory imba detectors are lit up too much (on this version). We shall seeee.....
Yep, atm is wait and see, the horiz spawn is much more of an issue if Blizz does not publish the correct/actualized version of the map and i'm quite worried because of that :/ But yes, if the spawns proves to be imbalanced it can always be disabled and the map will not lose much because of it.
Minor things, that's why it pisses me off that they did not fixed it, things like the Stasis tubes at the top left/bottom right bases or the small ledge+doodads combo to keep siege tanks away at the top right/bottom left nats, also moving the mineral lines of those bases one hex so toss can't do pylon blocks are very small things that help the map A LOT, but oh well, now we are stuck with this for an entire season, i hope the outrage against this old version of foxtrot is not as big at the end of the season.
On July 08 2014 06:48 [PkF] Wire wrote: Opticians thank that map -at least its ladder version. Barely playable on anything other than low settings.
Blizzard is working on it, don't worry.
Changes the OP description to a less dickish and sleep deprived one, i also added in the changelog the change to the lighting of the map, i had forgotten to add that.
@Uvantak : thanks for telling us. Do you know if they intend to correct the little things that changed from their version to your latest too (and maybe make this map be cross spawns only ?), and if they're going to at last correct the descriptions of the maps in the veto list ? I still don't know if those "completely devoid of any desadcription whatsoever" and "sdsdsd" are pure trolling or sheer absent-mindedness.
On July 09 2014 01:24 [PkF] Wire wrote: @Uvantak : thanks for telling us. Do you know if they intend to correct the little things that changed from their version to your latest too, and if they're going to at last correct the descriptions of the maps in the veto list ? I still don't know if those "completely devoid of any desadcription whatsoever" and "sdsdsd" are pure trolling or sheer absent-mindedness.
Those things are being looked upon, the descriptions in Deadwing and Nimbus are a bug with the Locales of the maps, i have a good write up ready to be published about the future of Foxtrot, and i'm talking with Blizz about it.
Edit : just to be sure, the descriptions are buggish, but even the names are quite strange on the veto list (Zeromus Nimbus / [zeromus] dwing) whereas when you play the maps they're called as expected (Nimbus/Deadwing LE). This is unintended too and looked upon, right ?
Yep, that's the Locales, i have had faced before the same issues Blizz is having now, the thing is that the maps can have many names depending on the region they are published, one name/description in spanish, other in german and so on, the english locales are bugged it seems and they are displaying the old names and descriptions of when the maps where being tested for the TLMC, zeromus used those names to avoid getting the maps found in the custom games section, what it needs to be done is to reset the american-english (US-EN) and greatbritain-english (GB-EN) locales, but this means that you need to recheck every other locale for bugs, and remember that the locales are in different languages, so you need to have a person that's fluent in those languages checking for bugs or misspellings.
On July 09 2014 04:16 SatedSC2 wrote: Thought this map was okay until I spawned in the top left for a PvZ. That natural wall-off. Nopenopenopenopenope. Vetoed.
On July 09 2014 04:16 SatedSC2 wrote: Thought this map was okay until I spawned in the top left for a PvZ. That natural wall-off. Nopenopenopenopenope. Vetoed.
On July 09 2014 04:16 SatedSC2 wrote: Thought this map was okay until I spawned in the top left for a PvZ. That natural wall-off. Nopenopenopenopenope. Vetoed.
what's the problem?
Outside Photon Overcharge range. Nopenopenope
Oh dear.
The GW Expand builds that I use in PvZ are infinitely safer if I can use Photon Overcharge to defend my natural, especially against stuff like 14/14 Speedlings all-ins. Why wouldn't I veto a map were using Photon Overcharge to defend my wall-in isn't possible given that better maps are available..?
Blizzard already made this mistake with Daedulus. Repeating it is kinda =/
oh no, you mean you might actually have to tailor your build to better fit the map? oh the horror :O
Anyway the problem with Daedalus wasn't overcharge range, it was that the ramp was just too wide to be efficiently walled at all.
On July 09 2014 04:16 SatedSC2 wrote: Thought this map was okay until I spawned in the top left for a PvZ. That natural wall-off. Nopenopenopenopenope. Vetoed.
what's the problem?
Outside Photon Overcharge range. Nopenopenope
Oh dear.
The GW Expand builds that I use in PvZ are infinitely safer if I can use Photon Overcharge to defend my natural, especially against stuff like 14/14 Speedlings all-ins. Why wouldn't I veto a map were using Photon Overcharge to defend my wall-in isn't possible given that better maps are available..?
Blizzard already made this mistake with Daedulus. Repeating it is kinda =/
oh no, you mean you might actually have to tailor your build to better fit the map? oh the horror :O
Anyway the problem with Daedalus wasn't overcharge range, it was that the ramp was just too wide to be efficiently walled at all.
How can you adjust your build to a natural wall that is not protected by Photon Overcharge? It's basically the same, only weaker than normal. You're not going to cut the msc, or go for something like 3gate expo because of it.
This map feature will give Zerg players more options for aggression, but not all map features give/force new options on all races.
I'm not even mad, the games we will be able to see in these spawns will be of huge use in future maps where mapmakers may want to use more linear layouts where players can't get very strong surrounds, if they decide to keep them that mean that the Horizontal spawns were able to stabilize by themselves, in the other hand if they remove them nothing of value was lost, idem for Deadwing.
Anyway the problem with Daedalus wasn't overcharge range, it was that the ramp was just too wide to be efficiently walled at all.
They fixed the width of the ramp, or don't you remember? Overcharge range was still an issue after that happened.
As for tailoring my builds (plural - this affects all modern GW expands), why would I bother doing that when I can just take terrible maps like this out of the map pool by vetoing them?
You're providing an excellent example of why mapping has devolved to what it is now
The problem lies with the fact that you can put any map feature as "necessary" and say a map sucks if it doesn't have it. In my opinion having a map with a slightly harder natural does not make the map terrible, it just means you have to account for the fact that walls will be harder to defend as toss. Having only standard maps stagnates the meta, and eventually kills the game.
On July 09 2014 20:56 moskonia wrote: The problem lies with the fact that you can put any map feature as "necessary" and say a map sucks if it doesn't have it. In my opinion having a map with a slightly harder natural does not make the map terrible, it just means you have to account for the fact that walls will be harder to defend as toss. Having only standard maps stagnates the meta, and eventually kills the game.
Did Tal'Darim Altar help to expand the PvP meta by not having a ramp into the main..? Nope. Everybody 4 Gated. Some things are necessary for a reason =/
EDIT:
Moving the choke that far away from the Nexus forces Protoss players to either use ultra-safe 1GFE builds or to do a safe FFE. You restrict the meta-game by forcing a certain style of play. Essentially, having the choke that far away from the Nexus adds nothing to the game, it only takes things away.
I thought we already had maps in the mappool that didn't allow to PO to protect your wall, e.g. Whirlwind, fixed Deadalus or Alterzim (well, I guess the tiny choke helps here as well)? Has this actually been a balance issue of a map ever? Is it even possible on KSS, Merry-Go-Round and Nimbus to protect your wall with the PO?
I absolutly can't think of a timing where this would be a necessary feature, just like it is not necessary to have your 3rd in an open field for zerg, yet it's much more comfortable given forcefieldbased attacks.
On July 09 2014 20:56 moskonia wrote: The problem lies with the fact that you can put any map feature as "necessary" and say a map sucks if it doesn't have it. In my opinion having a map with a slightly harder natural does not make the map terrible, it just means you have to account for the fact that walls will be harder to defend as toss. Having only standard maps stagnates the meta, and eventually kills the game.
Did Tal'Darim Altar help to expand the PvP meta by not having a ramp into the main..? Nope. Everybody 4 Gated. Some things are necessary for a reason =/
EDIT:
Moving the choke that far away from the Nexus forces Protoss players to either use ultra-safe 1GFE builds or to do a safe FFE. You restrict the meta-game by forcing a certain style of play. Essentially, having the choke that far away from the Nexus adds nothing to the game, it only takes things away.
I thought we already had maps in the mappool that didn't allow to PO to protect your wall, e.g. Whirlwind, fixed Deadalus or Alterzim (well, I guess the tiny choke helps here as well)? Has this actually been a balance issue of a map ever? Is it even possible on KSS, Merry-Go-Round and Nimbus to protect your wall with the PO?
Whirlwind was too big, so I had it vetoed for that reason. Legitimately awful map. Daedulus was a terrible map for a whole load of reasons that I'm not even going to bother getting into; suffice to say that it was terrible for PvZ. It is possible on King Sejong. It's not on Merry Go Round, but the only reason I have that map unvetoed is because this map is worse (although MGR has a 60+% winrate for Zerg so I might have to rethink that). Nimbus has an in-base natural so I don't know why you're bringing that up...
EDIT:
In any case, there's no good reason not to put the natural choke within range, so why do it differently..? What are mapmakers trying to achieve..?
There is a lot of good reasons: for example when you want to create a backdoor at a certain location.
Or just because you don't want Protoss to be capable to defend like that since it is not needed, just like any other non-vital feature for another race is not going to be on every map.
On July 09 2014 22:48 SatedSC2 wrote: It's not really a back door when it's plainly visible from the wall-in. That adds nothing to the map whatsoever :S
Seeing =/= Protecting. You can still try to bust it (and people will try and some will succeed). If it isn't there, you can't even try. Call it a sidedoor, if it isn't back enough for you...
And without it the way between third and natural/main becomes awkwardly long by ground, e.g. for a Protoss trying to defend a Terran attacking into the third and then picking up and dropping in the main.
On July 09 2014 22:48 SatedSC2 wrote: It's not really a back door when it's plainly visible from the wall-in. That adds nothing to the map whatsoever :S
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about anymore.
I'm not trying to convince you of playing anything at all. I'm just arguing that your critics on the map do lack the balance background that you invoked. That for reasons of taste you may not like it is nothing I care about.
My only problem with this map is it's really hard on the eyes. I have a really hard time telling which is low ground, and which is high ground. I watched DeMusliM play it the other day and he was saying something similar.
On July 10 2014 01:41 Big J wrote: I'm not trying to convince you of playing anything at all. I'm just arguing that your critics on the map do lack the balance background that you invoked. That for reasons of taste you may not like it is nothing I care about.
Aside from bringing up win-rates on Merry Go Round, I'm pretty sure I didn't bring up balance :S
Hm, balance-background was probably not the right word here. The idea that a map is terrible just because it misses a feature you would want to have. I also want to have all maps not having walls in PO-range, so that Protoss have to put their tech into the wall if they don't want to be vulnurable with 1gate expo-->tech-->you-can't-scout-because-I-have-stalkers builds. Makes it much more comfortable for me when I go Zerg. Yet I wouldn't call a map without that feature terrible.
On July 10 2014 00:52 SatedSC2 wrote: You've replied to me twice in this thread, and both times you've made a needlessly defensive, snarky shit-post. If you don't have a point to make then don't bother replying to me :3
I dunno how you read that into my text, but try this on for size: you come into the thread saying the map is unreasonable for reason x. People then come in explaining why x is not as bad as you're making it out to be, and you proceed to explain why the map is - and this is your word here - terrible, and an auto-veto because of it. I'm not going to tell you which maps to veto and which not to, but your reasoning is ludicrous here. You're vetoing a map solely because you can't do the exact same build you do on every other map, there's an entitlement thing going on here.
On July 10 2014 00:52 SatedSC2 wrote: If I were someone who FFE'd then this wouldn't be as much of an issue but, given that I didn't FFE in WoL, I'm sure as shit not going to do it now just so that I can play this map.
This is my favorite part. What do you think is the purpose of having different maps? Don't ask us, ask yourself, what do you think mapmakers are trying to achieve? We put hours upon hours into creating each map we put out, and it sure as hell doesn't go into creating mere re-skins of maps. I find the outlook that you must have, to post something like that, simply appalling. Try putting thought into the game, that's the strategy part. If you only want to do one build ever, and chew out any map as terrible when you can't do that one build, then fine, I will gladly accept your veto, please don't play on my maps. I have no desire to put as much work as I do into my maps for them to be played on by people who think the way you clearly do.
On July 10 2014 14:49 EatThePath wrote: Unfortunately, I feel it becomes necessary at times like these to ask everyone what race they play and what their ladder rank is.
Even the noobs have the right to have fun. If they don't like a map, they can say it,say why, say what they would change etc. Their opinion matters just as much as the opinion of a good player.
On July 10 2014 23:10 SatedSC2 wrote: As for the, "I worked hard on this" stuff, I've heard the same reasoning plenty of times from game developers, writers, artists etc. and it's not an impressive argument. Thinking that I should like or respect your maps just because you put a lot of effort into them is far more entitled than me giving a reason why I don't personally like a map and why I'm personally choosing to veto it. I mean, you're reacting as if one person vetoing one map because they're trying to maximise the fun they have whilst playing is somehow a condemnation of all mappers/maps/this map in a global sense. It's not.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying you have to like what I make, or what anyone else makes. I'm saying we put a lot of work into this, but we don't have to do it. And so far, we've earned damn little in the way of compensation or recognition for what we've done. If it turns out that people couldn't care less about community maps then we can always just stop, it's not like we'd be losing anything at this point. So for you to find a map untenable for a minor reason is - to put it mildly - insulting.
On July 10 2014 14:49 EatThePath wrote: Unfortunately, I feel it becomes necessary at times like these to ask everyone what race they play and what their ladder rank is.
Even the noobs have the right to have fun. If they don't like a map, they can say it,say why, say what they would change etc. Their opinion matters just as much as the opinion of a good player.
No doubt a wide variety of opinions is always welcome. I just mean, when someone is being incredibly vocal and judgemental, the metric of ladder rank becomes actually useful in helping gauge how seriously to take their comments.
There is definitely something of a cultural divide though when it comes to how mapmakers think about map design and map pool selection which slants heavily towards having a robust competitive environment, at the expense of what less serious players sometimes favor.
Untenable compared to 6 other maps, three of which I get to veto. People will only ever play on what they think are the 4 best maps. Maybe pro players will play on all of them (they might remove one they really hate if they're always vetoing it in tournaments), but most people are going to use all their vetoes.
From my personal experience I find that most people don't veto all 3, if any, although I guess it doesn't mean much, just as much as your broad statement that has no backing. I would assume non-pro players would not veto most of the time, since winning matters less for them (I assume that it is true mostly, although not in all cases), and thus having more varied games would be better.
In general I find the most fun from having specific strategies on maps. I've tried to find a way to play on old Daedalus up until it was standardized. I really don't see how such a small different can make the map so bad. I personally believe that open naturals are possible, with the right map features to compliment it, I wonder how disgusted you will be if you saw such a map, in which you have to use a completely different build than currently being used.
I wonder, did the strategy you think is OP on this map was done to you at all? Or do you just theorycraft about it without any solid evidence that it actually forces you to FFE and not GFE?
On July 10 2014 23:10 SatedSC2 wrote: As for the, "I worked hard on this" stuff, I've heard the same reasoning plenty of times from game developers, writers, artists etc. and it's not an impressive argument. Thinking that I should like or respect your maps just because you put a lot of effort into them is far more entitled than me giving a reason why I don't personally like a map and why I'm personally choosing to veto it. I mean, you're reacting as if one person vetoing one map because they're trying to maximise the fun they have whilst playing is somehow a condemnation of all mappers/maps/this map in a global sense. It's not.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying you have to like what I make, or what anyone else makes. I'm saying we put a lot of work into this, but we don't have to do it. And so far, we've earned damn little in the way of compensation or recognition for what we've done. If it turns out that people couldn't care less about community maps then we can always just stop, it's not like we'd be losing anything at this point. So for you to find a map untenable for a minor reason is - to put it mildly - insulting.
Untenable compared to 6 other maps, three of which I get to veto. People will only ever play on what they think are the 4 best maps. Maybe pro players will play on all of them (they might remove one they really hate if they're always vetoing it in tournaments), but most people are going to use all their vetoes.
Well, like you, I am very much not a pro player. I only use vetoes on certain maps if I happen to want to play other maps on a given day. You're still glossing over the reason you're vetoing it - that you might have to use a different build to succeed on the map. Hence my initial response of "Oh dear." Your arguments don't convince me.
Foxtrot is one of my new favourite maps, i like it a lot vs all matchups (im terran - diamond). There are a lot of tactics possible, just think out of the box, seek for the siege positions, drops etc.
woooooaaaa... I just got flashed spawning horizontally... :O I didn't know this was possible and I don't think it should be, given that the bases are completely different.
Edit: Not a huge deal I guess (though I could see bottom right vs bottom left being pretty extreme for sentry/immortal), but something I do not really appreciate so far. It feels very weird when you have a completely different choke point than your opponent.
This map seriously was made by someone who hates zerg seriously just look at this map the mid is like zerg can't win any fight vs terran or zerg even with Flying adv . Anyways i appreciate work done for the map but it is awful... What came to your mind when you created that mid on this map If you corected it smh this map could be great but what you did at here destroyed it all.
On July 11 2014 21:43 Nephyr wrote: This map seriously was made by someone who hates zerg seriously just look at this map the mid is like zerg can't win any fight vs terran or zerg even with Flying adv . Anyways i appreciate work done for the map but it is awful... What came to your mind when you created that mid on this map If you corected it smh this map could be great but what you did at here destroyed it all.
For this map? To make positional games stronger, that's why the center is the way it is instead of it being a big wide open area like maps such as waystation where armies do not have to account for the terrain and roam freely as deathballs, in foxtrot you have to account for the terrain. Sadly Zerg gets the short straw out of this because well it is Zerg, none the less the endless harass that can be done and all those pathways (specially in cross spawns) make up and allow for some nasty surrounds, have other maps that steal ideas out of Foxtrot, Xel'naga Ashes and Chaac Marshes and improve some other things that i feel i missed in Foxtrot.
@subtlerevolution The point you're making is actually extremely important, because experimentation can be detrimental to a fair competitive environment while encouraging "standard" maps would surely limit mapmakers' creativity and probably make a lot of them quit. This is a complicated issue though I have to admit I'd prefer experimentation to be fairly limited as far as ladder and tournaments are concerned.
Why not make unranked ladder have a different map pool, with more "experimental" maps ? This way experimental maps could get some visibility and, if they turn out to be good and fair, would then get a chance to be used on ranked ladder and tournaments.
even if it should be, thats up to blizzard now, not the author, welcome to blizzdomination of the ladder.
On July 19 2014 00:51 [PkF] Wire wrote: @subtlerevolution The point you're making is actually extremely important, because experimentation can be detrimental to a fair competitive environment while encouraging "standard" maps would surely limit mapmakers' creativity and probably make a lot of them quit.
maDe, it allready happend
On July 19 2014 00:51 [PkF] Wire wrote: This is a complicated issue though I have to admit I'd prefer experimentation to be fairly limited as far as ladder and tournaments are concerned.
Why not make unranked ladder have a different map pool, with more "experimental" maps ? This way experimental maps could get some visibility and, if they turn out to be good and fair, would then get a chance to be used on ranked ladder and tournaments.
The map is really interesting and makes for good games. In the case of bottom left - top right spanws, I wonder which third would be the most suited for PvZ : the left one, the quickest and easiest to get but the closest to the Z, or the right one, which is a bit further from the Z but needs you to break rocks. I'm interested in your opinion on this matter guys, but I feel this kind of alternatives are what make this map good and not one-dimensional at all.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OTJAvw5.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/skEpuVA.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZpwKAb5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NYZon6G.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/63JNhbe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Yv4b1Ba.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KgglUDZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nMw3Zjr.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rGadz85.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u4u6mLg.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4UeU6Cv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zdfeeyD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HKOYY2n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CkEdPnA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ui2i2EZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eTXKHPM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l9LC8VV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ar0zknF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2PjGiN6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/05P6HAh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RNn2WS1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/87bUuJ1.jpg)
