|
On May 10 2015 14:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2015 07:32 Rukis wrote:On May 10 2015 06:21 NewSunshine wrote:On May 10 2015 05:43 Semmo wrote:On May 09 2015 22:17 NasusAndDraven wrote:On May 09 2015 22:05 Plexa wrote:
The high ground around the main on Bridghead is not pathable. Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be. Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke? EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking. I owe you an apology. Thanks so much for pointing this out. Will be fixed ASAP. (small triangles are ok, but big triangles for pathing, apparently) Dude, just stretch the map out by like 8 units, that main ramp is awkward as shit. Its not awkward at all. Its perfectly able to be walled off. Not the walloff, just how you have minerals and a geyser sitting right in front of the ramp, getting in the way of stuff, it's unseemly. I liked most everything else about it, but I could never get behind that, it's just off.
also there's really not a lot of space to the sides of the town halls to place buildings. i agree that expanding the mains by a few squares to the sides would probably be a good change.
|
On May 10 2015 14:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2015 07:32 Rukis wrote:On May 10 2015 06:21 NewSunshine wrote:On May 10 2015 05:43 Semmo wrote:On May 09 2015 22:17 NasusAndDraven wrote:On May 09 2015 22:05 Plexa wrote:
The high ground around the main on Bridghead is not pathable. Yeah just tested and saw my self. Neither is the the high ground above the third. BUT THE HIGH GROUND INSIDE THE MAIN IS. All thou all of these high grounds are aestetically exactly the same, exept the high ground inside the main is much narrower making it seem that it might not be. Is this the case of mapper forgetting to put pathing blockers to the area or is this just somekind of joke? EDIT: speaking of of forgetting pathing blockers, i love how there are small pathable spots between these said highgrounds and doodas literally everywhere on the map (like 4-8 behind bases). Meaning you can drop small units like marines, sentries and marauders there. I know that the maps are subject to change but come on, i would expect them to be atleast somewhat mechanicly polished seeing how much time the mapper used on making the map good looking. I owe you an apology. Thanks so much for pointing this out. Will be fixed ASAP. (small triangles are ok, but big triangles for pathing, apparently) Dude, just stretch the map out by like 8 units, that main ramp is awkward as shit. Its not awkward at all. Its perfectly able to be walled off. Not the walloff, just how you have minerals and a geyser sitting right in front of the ramp, getting in the way of stuff, it's unseemly. I liked most everything else about it, but I could never get behind that, it's just off.
I completely agree with this. I would like to see the mains expanded 4-6 grid horizontally if nothing else.
Also, Hi NS. Miss your face 
|
Bridgehead looks like the best lotv siege tank drop map ever.
|
Mapmakers are so under appreciated. It is like pieces of art, well done guys.
|
On May 10 2015 18:39 Caihead wrote:
Bridgehead looks like the best lotv siege tank drop map ever.
although it doesn't look like it, all the manmade high grounds are unpathable.
|
Surprised to see no reaction from Uvantak and Iezael yet
|
On May 10 2015 19:07 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2015 18:39 Caihead wrote:
Bridgehead looks like the best lotv siege tank drop map ever. although it doesn't look like it, all the manmade high grounds are unpathable.
Yeah its very confusing since they really look pathable. Pretty sure the map author has played way too much BW where 3rd level isnt pathable, so he forgot that this is actually a map contest for sc2 maps.
That said the lotv tank drop would be extreamly potent in dash and terminal. Bring 2tanks with medvac and siege them both on lowground. Then micro the other tank with medvac around enemy main, while other tank gives lowground suppory. Shame the tourney is played on hots.
|
Great to see some off kilter maps, great to see Superouman back, great to see a tourney played on them. Just great work all round.
|
On May 10 2015 19:21 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2015 19:07 -NegativeZero- wrote:On May 10 2015 18:39 Caihead wrote:
Bridgehead looks like the best lotv siege tank drop map ever. although it doesn't look like it, all the manmade high grounds are unpathable. Yeah its very confusing since they really look pathable. Pretty sure the map author has played way too much BW where 3rd level isnt pathable, so he forgot that this is actually a map contest for sc2 maps. That said the lotv tank drop would be extreamly potent in dash and terminal. Bring 2tanks with medvac and siege them both on lowground. Then micro the other tank with medvac around enemy main, while other tank gives lowground suppory. Shame the tourney is played on hots.
A shame really I doubt these will ever become map pools for lotv as they both need separate maps
|
On May 10 2015 10:13 SidianTheBard wrote:
(there was a controversy recently in a prominent hearthstone tournament regarding this very thing, and the winner actually ended up being a different guy because of a rule that no one knew about).
Can you provide a link to that? The only things I found is no women allowed, someone allegedly streamcheating and someone receiving messages.
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/34nj0y/spoilers_congrats_to_the_winner_of_asus_play_it/
I don't think this was the main controversy post but it happened ~ a week ago so I'd have to dig a bit to find that, but you can read the top comments and get the picture. TLDR forsen would have won the race to highest rank (which is what the tourney was) but a weird and nonsensical rule that no one knew about til near the end ended up screwing him. (savjz won instead)
@ bridgehead the main mineral line / geyser should be changed; it's just needlessly awkward, but other than that I like the map.
|
|
|
beastyqt really mad about 4 of the maps having backdoor to main
|
Mostly far too non-standard for my taste. Will be interesting to see how those maps play out though.
|
2 more things :
1) Terraform is two classes ahead of the other maps if you ask me, conceptually and aesthetically.
2) I hate backdoors.
|
All the maps are good, I really feel sorry for the judges
|
On May 10 2015 15:04 Fatam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2015 10:13 SidianTheBard wrote:
Or maybe mappers shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket. Every TLMC I do 1 standard, 1 nonstandard & 1 remake of an old map, at least that's how I always try to do it. It's not my fault you decided to do 3 super standard maps or 3 super non-standard maps, that's your choice. Hmm I agree it's usually good to diversify with things like this which is why I submitted 1 standard-ish map and 2 weird, while also being different sizes. However, I think saying people should blindly do anything (whether it's to put eggs in one basket or diversify, or anything else) is a lame/faulty argument when talking about a contest where all rules should be explicitly stated. This TLMC there was clearly an invisible rule: " Map has to have at least one weird feature like a main backdoor, or it won't be considered." I think most people will agree that invisible rules are BS. (there was a controversy recently in a prominent hearthstone tournament regarding this very thing, and the winner actually ended up being a different guy because of a rule that no one knew about). If you were a suspicious person you might even think the invisible rule was created to make sure someone different won this time around, since several of the finalists last time around are extremely good at making excellent maps that deviate from standard a bit but not a ton. I am not one of those mapmakers so it didn't hurt me personally, but I feel for them cuz needlessly unfair things really suck. I say all this even though I am someone who loves unusual maps, and I certainly don't hate this map pool. I just think it should be mentioned that the invisible rule is actually a big deal and shouldn't be ignored or swept under the rug. Some mappers likely did get screwed, and then you throw a little money on the line just to rub salt in the wound, and whew. Be transparent next time, guys! 
I agree. The contest can be for any kind of maps (standard or otherwise), but, if nothing else, to provide more options for people to choose from, the criteria should be obvious. All we really knew about the TLMC is that we submit maps that we have made and liked, etc. but not what they will judged on. "Map has to have at least one weird feature like a main backdoor, or it won't be considered" - I also agree with that because I went for standard maps because my maps were rejected in the last contest for being too "non-standard' or having a main-back door.
Anyway, there are some really nice maps here, so good luck everyone!
|
What about the poll? Did I miss it or something?
|
Will there be a feedback thread again, so that we plebs didn`t just dump our (terrible) maps in the void?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
