|
On November 06 2014 01:44 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:35 The_Templar wrote:On November 06 2014 01:33 Aquila- wrote:
Expedition Lost: Remove the backdoor rocks in the main, this is not wol beta with blistering sands, then it might actually be a decent map. Lol. So you want 2 entrances into the main from the start, or you want the center to be even more inaccessible than it is? No, he probably wants just a closed main. I had the opportunity to play that map in a competition but the backdoor rocks leading to the main were just a big no-no for me.
Why so? With pure theorycrafting I don't see why it would be so bad considering it is compensated by the narrowness of the space in front of the natural, but your experience playing on it would be helpful since nothing replaces playtesting
|
On November 06 2014 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:44 TheDwf wrote:On November 06 2014 01:35 The_Templar wrote:On November 06 2014 01:33 Aquila- wrote:
Expedition Lost: Remove the backdoor rocks in the main, this is not wol beta with blistering sands, then it might actually be a decent map. Lol. So you want 2 entrances into the main from the start, or you want the center to be even more inaccessible than it is? No, he probably wants just a closed main. I had the opportunity to play that map in a competition but the backdoor rocks leading to the main were just a big no-no for me. Why so? With pure theorycrafting I don't see why it would be so bad considering it is compensated by the narrowness of the space in front of the natural, but your experience playing on it would be helpful
Because it makes Protoss allins even more ridiculous to stop than they already are.
|
On November 06 2014 01:49 Aquila- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:On November 06 2014 01:44 TheDwf wrote:On November 06 2014 01:35 The_Templar wrote:On November 06 2014 01:33 Aquila- wrote:
Expedition Lost: Remove the backdoor rocks in the main, this is not wol beta with blistering sands, then it might actually be a decent map. Lol. So you want 2 entrances into the main from the start, or you want the center to be even more inaccessible than it is? No, he probably wants just a closed main. I had the opportunity to play that map in a competition but the backdoor rocks leading to the main were just a big no-no for me. Why so? With pure theorycrafting I don't see why it would be so bad considering it is compensated by the narrowness of the space in front of the natural, but your experience playing on it would be helpful Because it makes Protoss allins even more ridiculous to stop than they already are.
"Protoss allins" is a very broad category, you know, and that isn't much of an explanation tbh. And you can consider it gives you a path to counterattack too
|
On November 06 2014 01:46 Meavis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:43 OtherWorld wrote:On November 06 2014 01:37 Meavis wrote:On November 06 2014 01:27 OtherWorld wrote:On November 06 2014 01:24 Meavis wrote:
korea has bad mapmakers as well, just because you don't see them here on TL doesn't mean they don't exist.
Well obviously when talking about Koreans maps here we are talking about GSL/PL Korean maps, and I think most of them have been exceptional (at least in HotS). can we generalize the foreign mapmaing scene with just superouman and uvantak then? Come on, don't take it so strictly, what we were saying is that all the Korean maps that got on ladder/tournament weren't broken and were remembered as at least good solid maps and often as very good/exceptional maps, which isn't the case with non-Korean maps (afaik Yeonsu, Nimbus, etc aren't Korean ; although the foreign mapmaking scene has provided some exceptional maps too, from Habitation to CK). Obviously bad Korean mapmakers exist. heavy rain was korean, red city was korean, but I doubt many know that map because of how swiftly it got shifted.
Heavy Rain was bad the same way Yeonsu was bad, those maps just suffered from a metagame problem they couldn't really anticipate. I loved Red City, why do you think it's such a bad map ? (I agree it was so chokey, probably the reason why, as P, I loved it ^^)
|
On November 06 2014 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:44 TheDwf wrote:On November 06 2014 01:35 The_Templar wrote:On November 06 2014 01:33 Aquila- wrote:
Expedition Lost: Remove the backdoor rocks in the main, this is not wol beta with blistering sands, then it might actually be a decent map. Lol. So you want 2 entrances into the main from the start, or you want the center to be even more inaccessible than it is? No, he probably wants just a closed main. I had the opportunity to play that map in a competition but the backdoor rocks leading to the main were just a big no-no for me. Why so? With pure theorycrafting I don't see why it would be so bad considering it is compensated by the narrowness of the space in front of the natural, but your experience playing on it would be helpful since nothing replaces playtesting
Because some all-ins simply cannot be stopped if the attacker has the opportunity to use the backdoor entrance after he forced tons of defense in the natural. Imagine a Terran building 5 Bunkers in the natural to defend an Immortal all-in - then Protoss goes for the backdoor where Terran has no defence there, and has no time (nor resources left anyway!) to rebuild it. In the past, Icarus had something less favourable (the backdoor was in the natural), yet so many PvTs there featured a 2b Immortal to exploit that; it would be even worse here. Maybe there would be a way for all of this to stabilize in the long term with opening shifts and overall adaptation (but there's not an unlimited potential there), but I don't think backdoor rocks leading to the main is a good map feature. I can't say for sure because it would require weeks of testing anyway but it immediately raises a huge question mark for me.
|
On November 06 2014 01:59 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:On November 06 2014 01:44 TheDwf wrote:On November 06 2014 01:35 The_Templar wrote:On November 06 2014 01:33 Aquila- wrote:
Expedition Lost: Remove the backdoor rocks in the main, this is not wol beta with blistering sands, then it might actually be a decent map. Lol. So you want 2 entrances into the main from the start, or you want the center to be even more inaccessible than it is? No, he probably wants just a closed main. I had the opportunity to play that map in a competition but the backdoor rocks leading to the main were just a big no-no for me. Why so? With pure theorycrafting I don't see why it would be so bad considering it is compensated by the narrowness of the space in front of the natural, but your experience playing on it would be helpful since nothing replaces playtesting Because some all-ins simply cannot be stopped if the attacker has the opportunity to use the backdoor entrance after he forced tons of defense in the natural. Imagine a Terran building 5 Bunkers in the natural to defend an Immortal all-in - then Protoss goes for the backdoor where Terran has no defence there, and has no time (nor resources left anyway!) to rebuild it. In the past, Icarus had something less favourable (the backdoor was in the natural), yet so many PvTs there featured a 2b Immortal to exploit that; it would be even worse here. Maybe there would be a way for all of this to stabilize in the long term with opening shifts and overall adaptation (but there's not an unlimited potential there), but I don't think backdoor rocks leading to the main is a good map feature. I can't say for sure because it would require weeks of testing anyway but it immediately raises a huge question mark for me.
Have you considered those facts ? :
- On Expedition lost, the rotation time between the back door and the natural is shorter for the defender than for the attacker.
- On Icarus, the rotation time between the main and the natural is shorter for the attacker than for the defender.
- On expedition lost, the back door is only 1 force field wide
- On Icarus the back door is at least 3 force fields wide
- On expedition lost, the defender is on the high ground when defending his main or his natural
- On Icarus the defender is on the highground when defending his maim but on even ground when defending his natural
- On Expedition lost, breaking the back door offers a new counter attack path (rush distance shortened)
- On Icarus, an army standing at the bottom of the main's ramp denies any ground based counter attack.
- On Expedition Lost taking a third isn't impossible
- On Icarus taking a third (= not doing a 2 base all in encouraged by the gold minerals at the natural) was a huge risk for the protoss.
No play testing needed to make those statements.
Icarus was way more all in friendly than Expediton Lost. Same goes for Blistering Sands. On Blistering Sands, the defender had to fight the ennemy on even ground at the natural, the back door was 2 ff wide, the defender had to deal with the Line of Sight blockers at the top of the ramp, the rotation time from the back door to the natural's entrance was shorter for he attacker than for the defender and taking a third was impossible.
|
On November 06 2014 01:59 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:On November 06 2014 01:44 TheDwf wrote:On November 06 2014 01:35 The_Templar wrote:On November 06 2014 01:33 Aquila- wrote:
Expedition Lost: Remove the backdoor rocks in the main, this is not wol beta with blistering sands, then it might actually be a decent map. Lol. So you want 2 entrances into the main from the start, or you want the center to be even more inaccessible than it is? No, he probably wants just a closed main. I had the opportunity to play that map in a competition but the backdoor rocks leading to the main were just a big no-no for me. Why so? With pure theorycrafting I don't see why it would be so bad considering it is compensated by the narrowness of the space in front of the natural, but your experience playing on it would be helpful since nothing replaces playtesting Because some all-ins simply cannot be stopped if the attacker has the opportunity to use the backdoor entrance after he forced tons of defense in the natural. Imagine a Terran building 5 Bunkers in the natural to defend an Immortal all-in - then Protoss goes for the backdoor where Terran has no defence there, and has no time (nor resources left anyway!) to rebuild it. In the past, Icarus had something less favourable (the backdoor was in the natural), yet so many PvTs there featured a 2b Immortal to exploit that; it would be even worse here. Maybe there would be a way for all of this to stabilize in the long term with opening shifts and overall adaptation (but there's not an unlimited potential there), but I don't think backdoor rocks leading to the main is a good map feature. I can't say for sure because it would require weeks of testing anyway but it immediately raises a huge question mark for me.
Though on Icarus the backdoor entrance was much wider and on equal grounds. Shouldn't that make it much easier to hold on Expedition Lost?
Also given how little we saw of Icarus and that the Immortal allins went both ways as far as I remember and that it was WoL, that doesn't necessarily make them broken. Just stronger than usually, right?!
|
there's nothing wrong with the backdoor on expedition lost, just the mindset of some people.
the only things that bother me about expedition lost, is how little room there is at the 3rd and 4th base, if you were to expand along the map border.
|
On November 06 2014 02:21 algue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:59 TheDwf wrote:On November 06 2014 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:On November 06 2014 01:44 TheDwf wrote:On November 06 2014 01:35 The_Templar wrote:On November 06 2014 01:33 Aquila- wrote:
Expedition Lost: Remove the backdoor rocks in the main, this is not wol beta with blistering sands, then it might actually be a decent map. Lol. So you want 2 entrances into the main from the start, or you want the center to be even more inaccessible than it is? No, he probably wants just a closed main. I had the opportunity to play that map in a competition but the backdoor rocks leading to the main were just a big no-no for me. Why so? With pure theorycrafting I don't see why it would be so bad considering it is compensated by the narrowness of the space in front of the natural, but your experience playing on it would be helpful since nothing replaces playtesting Because some all-ins simply cannot be stopped if the attacker has the opportunity to use the backdoor entrance after he forced tons of defense in the natural. Imagine a Terran building 5 Bunkers in the natural to defend an Immortal all-in - then Protoss goes for the backdoor where Terran has no defence there, and has no time (nor resources left anyway!) to rebuild it. In the past, Icarus had something less favourable (the backdoor was in the natural), yet so many PvTs there featured a 2b Immortal to exploit that; it would be even worse here. Maybe there would be a way for all of this to stabilize in the long term with opening shifts and overall adaptation (but there's not an unlimited potential there), but I don't think backdoor rocks leading to the main is a good map feature. I can't say for sure because it would require weeks of testing anyway but it immediately raises a huge question mark for me. Have you considered those facts ? : + Show Spoiler +- On Expedition lost, the rotation time between the back door and the natural is shorter for the defender than for the attacker.
- On Icarus, the rotation time between the main and the natural is shorter for the attacker then for the defender.
- On expedition lost, the back door is only 1 force field wide
- On Icarus the back door is at least 3 force fields wide
- On expedition lost, the defender is on the high ground when defending his main or his natural
- On Icarus the defender is on the highground when defending his maim but on even ground when defending his natural
- On Expedition lost, breaking the back door offers a new counter attack path (rush distance shortened)
- On Icarus, an army standing at the bottom of the main's ramp denies any ground based counter attack.
- On Expedition Lost taking a third isn't impossible
- On Icarus taking a third (= not doing a 2 base all in encouraged by the gold minerals at the natural) was a huge risk for the protoss.
No play testing needed to make those statements.
Yes. Look, the best I can do is the following: I'll try to find some Protoss to test the map, or I'll offrace myself if I find some Terran opponent, and I'll come to your thread with comments and replays. 
|
On November 05 2014 23:17 CamoPillbox wrote:I like only Sputnik others are little weird and unbalanced done by rampaMQkvak everywhere ramp blindspots. no need mappool with 4 foxtrot labs no thank you........ Also who voted this one map of the month players or some clever guy behind scenes ?
Holy fuck that's hilarious, i'm not even mad.
But nonetheless, it is not very smart to judge all my work on a single map, anddddddddd Mujo Gardens has less ramps than sputnik.
On November 06 2014 01:38 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:37 Meavis wrote:On November 06 2014 01:27 OtherWorld wrote:On November 06 2014 01:24 Meavis wrote:
korea has bad mapmakers as well, just because you don't see them here on TL doesn't mean they don't exist.
Well obviously when talking about Koreans maps here we are talking about GSL/PL Korean maps, and I think most of them have been exceptional (at least in HotS). can we generalize the foreign mapmaing scene with just superouman and uvantak then? Most of the bad korean mapmakers never got a map on ladder though. And I'm not sure I'd rather have Superouman + Uvantak making every ladder map from now on or let's say EastWindy + Winpark.
I remember reading Semmo saying that EastWindy and Winpark were not making maps because irl things (windy got married iirc?). Can you clear it up Semmo?
Also n1º, I really would not enjoy stepping over other mapmakers, i'm really not that kind of guy, i would rather have the TLMC's and then steal ideas from them for future ones >: )
Also n2º, it seems that many on the thread are putting non-standard maps or less standarish maps in the same category as the standard ones, this must be done very carefully, mostly because they have different missions, a standard map tries to allow as many possible styles of play as possible, meanwhile a non-standard map will sacrifice some of the styles of play to allow more intricate layouts that give players other less explored tactics, strategies and gameplay that are map specific, so beware that.
Also n3º, Hmmmmmmmm i forgot what it was  I'll comment later if i remember it.
/edit, fixed the bold in the first quote.
|
I'd love to see these get used in tournaments. As much fun as the dreampool is gonna be, I've million games on metalopolis, and on xelnaga... new is probably better
|
On November 06 2014 03:06 Uvantak wrote:
I remember reading Semmo saying that EastWindy and Winpark were not making maps because irl things (windy got married iirc?). Can you clear it up Semmo?
Oh that would be a sad thing . And to be clear Uvantak, nobody is denying you're a great mapmaker.
|
On November 06 2014 03:04 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 02:21 algue wrote:On November 06 2014 01:59 TheDwf wrote:On November 06 2014 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:On November 06 2014 01:44 TheDwf wrote:On November 06 2014 01:35 The_Templar wrote:On November 06 2014 01:33 Aquila- wrote:
Expedition Lost: Remove the backdoor rocks in the main, this is not wol beta with blistering sands, then it might actually be a decent map. Lol. So you want 2 entrances into the main from the start, or you want the center to be even more inaccessible than it is? No, he probably wants just a closed main. I had the opportunity to play that map in a competition but the backdoor rocks leading to the main were just a big no-no for me. Why so? With pure theorycrafting I don't see why it would be so bad considering it is compensated by the narrowness of the space in front of the natural, but your experience playing on it would be helpful since nothing replaces playtesting Because some all-ins simply cannot be stopped if the attacker has the opportunity to use the backdoor entrance after he forced tons of defense in the natural. Imagine a Terran building 5 Bunkers in the natural to defend an Immortal all-in - then Protoss goes for the backdoor where Terran has no defence there, and has no time (nor resources left anyway!) to rebuild it. In the past, Icarus had something less favourable (the backdoor was in the natural), yet so many PvTs there featured a 2b Immortal to exploit that; it would be even worse here. Maybe there would be a way for all of this to stabilize in the long term with opening shifts and overall adaptation (but there's not an unlimited potential there), but I don't think backdoor rocks leading to the main is a good map feature. I can't say for sure because it would require weeks of testing anyway but it immediately raises a huge question mark for me. Have you considered those facts ? : + Show Spoiler +- On Expedition lost, the rotation time between the back door and the natural is shorter for the defender than for the attacker.
- On Icarus, the rotation time between the main and the natural is shorter for the attacker then for the defender.
- On expedition lost, the back door is only 1 force field wide
- On Icarus the back door is at least 3 force fields wide
- On expedition lost, the defender is on the high ground when defending his main or his natural
- On Icarus the defender is on the highground when defending his maim but on even ground when defending his natural
- On Expedition lost, breaking the back door offers a new counter attack path (rush distance shortened)
- On Icarus, an army standing at the bottom of the main's ramp denies any ground based counter attack.
- On Expedition Lost taking a third isn't impossible
- On Icarus taking a third (= not doing a 2 base all in encouraged by the gold minerals at the natural) was a huge risk for the protoss.
No play testing needed to make those statements. Yes. Look, the best I can do is the following: I'll try to find some Protoss to test the map, or I'll offrace myself if I find some Terran opponent, and I'll come to your thread with comments and replays.
Thank you for doing this tbh. The main thing the mapmaking scene needs right now is people playing the maps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a lot of respect for what this thread is trying to accomplish. #OccupyMappool
|
On November 06 2014 08:04 pure.Wasted wrote:
I have a lot of respect for what this thread is trying to accomplish. #OccupyMappool
only a small percentage of maps get almost all the plays #OccupyMappool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i4yo6bo.jpg)
