|
Bisutopia19262 Posts
On September 03 2015 01:25 NonY wrote:
What is your stance on 1v1 maps with four spawn locations?
I hate the chance involved in scouting, especially for PvP, though it's significant for many PvT and PvZ strategies as well. I also hate that many of the maps with four spawn locations are intended to be the plain macro map choices of the pool, even though it's not possible to get to that stage of the game without first dealing with the luck involved in scouting. As I see it, the apparent purpose of the map is undermined in the very first stages of every game played on it.
Personally I don't see the value in this map feature at all. I don't think players get satisfaction from winning because they got lucky with their scouting direction. They don't enjoy choosing their strategy from a limited selection, having crossed off any strategy that gets screwed by unlucky scouting (whether getting scouted first or scouting the opponent last). And similarly viewers aren't entertained by this facet of randomness. SC2 already forces players to take enough guesses in the dark. And while it's somewhat interesting to go into a map not knowing which way you'll have to play it, because you don't know which way the players will be oriented on it, I think map pools as big as 7 maps already give players enough opportunity to find different ways to play.
Do you like maps with four spawn locations? How frequently do you think they should appear in map pools? Am I correct in thinking that they're at cross purposes with macro maps? Do you think the current four spawn maps, Iron Fortress and Cactus Valley, would instantly be improved by making them three spawn or two spawn maps? If no, then why not?
Having complained so much about them, I still wouldn't mind a four spawn map making its way into the pool every once in a while. But I think the default should be none and I think a reasonable compromise is allowing 1-2 three spawn maps into every map pool.
Is this your stance for a map like fighting spirit in Brood War? Or is this just an SC2 feeling? I ask because you've played both at a high level and wonder if it's a feeling that has been carried on from those many years ago or if because SC2 is entirely different makes it a more punishing game for maps with 4 spawns.
|
On September 03 2015 01:25 NonY wrote:
What is your stance on 1v1 maps with four spawn locations?
I hate the chance involved in scouting, especially for PvP, though it's significant for many PvT and PvZ strategies as well. I also hate that many of the maps with four spawn locations are intended to be the plain macro map choices of the pool, even though it's not possible to get to that stage of the game without first dealing with the luck involved in scouting. As I see it, the apparent purpose of the map is undermined in the very first stages of every game played on it.
Personally I don't see the value in this map feature at all. I don't think players get satisfaction from winning because they got lucky with their scouting direction. They don't enjoy choosing their strategy from a limited selection, having crossed off any strategy that gets screwed by unlucky scouting (whether getting scouted first or scouting the opponent last). And similarly viewers aren't entertained by this facet of randomness. SC2 already forces players to take enough guesses in the dark. And while it's somewhat interesting to go into a map not knowing which way you'll have to play it, because you don't know which way the players will be oriented on it, I think map pools as big as 7 maps already give players enough opportunity to find different ways to play.
Do you like maps with four spawn locations? How frequently do you think they should appear in map pools? Am I correct in thinking that they're at cross purposes with macro maps? Do you think the current four spawn maps, Iron Fortress and Cactus Valley, would instantly be improved by making them three spawn or two spawn maps? If no, then why not?
Having complained so much about them, I still wouldn't mind a four spawn map making its way into the pool every once in a while. But I think the default should be none and I think a reasonable compromise is allowing 1-2 three spawn maps into every map pool.
I don't think you can get the same answer from everyone on this, people have different views, and yours is probably represented under mapmakers as well.
personaly I don't view them as interesting in sc2, but not for the same reasons you do, 4players spawn symmetry and balance puts huge restrictions on what is done, making interesting 4players hard to pull off.
I find the randomness of scouts to be somewhat interesting, in the way that it makes you harder to get cheesed and therefor matches on 2players are somewhat more distinct in their more macro heavy setting, though I find this to be not that visible in current sc2 and don't see much reason to opt for 4p maps atm but variety.
|
On September 03 2015 02:38 Meavis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2015 01:25 NonY wrote:
What is your stance on 1v1 maps with four spawn locations?
I hate the chance involved in scouting, especially for PvP, though it's significant for many PvT and PvZ strategies as well. I also hate that many of the maps with four spawn locations are intended to be the plain macro map choices of the pool, even though it's not possible to get to that stage of the game without first dealing with the luck involved in scouting. As I see it, the apparent purpose of the map is undermined in the very first stages of every game played on it.
Personally I don't see the value in this map feature at all. I don't think players get satisfaction from winning because they got lucky with their scouting direction. They don't enjoy choosing their strategy from a limited selection, having crossed off any strategy that gets screwed by unlucky scouting (whether getting scouted first or scouting the opponent last). And similarly viewers aren't entertained by this facet of randomness. SC2 already forces players to take enough guesses in the dark. And while it's somewhat interesting to go into a map not knowing which way you'll have to play it, because you don't know which way the players will be oriented on it, I think map pools as big as 7 maps already give players enough opportunity to find different ways to play.
Do you like maps with four spawn locations? How frequently do you think they should appear in map pools? Am I correct in thinking that they're at cross purposes with macro maps? Do you think the current four spawn maps, Iron Fortress and Cactus Valley, would instantly be improved by making them three spawn or two spawn maps? If no, then why not?
Having complained so much about them, I still wouldn't mind a four spawn map making its way into the pool every once in a while. But I think the default should be none and I think a reasonable compromise is allowing 1-2 three spawn maps into every map pool. I don't think you can get the same answer from everyone on this, people have different views, and yours is probably represented under mapmakers as well. personaly I don't view them as interesting in sc2, but not for the same reasons you do, 4players spawn symmetry and balance puts huge restrictions on what is done, making interesting 4players hard to pull off. I find the randomness of scouts to be somewhat interesting, in the way that it makes you harder to get cheesed and therefor matches on 2players are somewhat more distinct in their more macro heavy setting, though I find this to be not that visible in current sc2 and don't see much reason to opt for 4p maps atm but variety.
you're more likely to get cheesed on 4p maps at least in ZvZ (PvP and PvT probably too) because you are likely simply not to scout in time.
|
On September 03 2015 02:41 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2015 02:38 Meavis wrote:On September 03 2015 01:25 NonY wrote:
What is your stance on 1v1 maps with four spawn locations?
I hate the chance involved in scouting, especially for PvP, though it's significant for many PvT and PvZ strategies as well. I also hate that many of the maps with four spawn locations are intended to be the plain macro map choices of the pool, even though it's not possible to get to that stage of the game without first dealing with the luck involved in scouting. As I see it, the apparent purpose of the map is undermined in the very first stages of every game played on it.
Personally I don't see the value in this map feature at all. I don't think players get satisfaction from winning because they got lucky with their scouting direction. They don't enjoy choosing their strategy from a limited selection, having crossed off any strategy that gets screwed by unlucky scouting (whether getting scouted first or scouting the opponent last). And similarly viewers aren't entertained by this facet of randomness. SC2 already forces players to take enough guesses in the dark. And while it's somewhat interesting to go into a map not knowing which way you'll have to play it, because you don't know which way the players will be oriented on it, I think map pools as big as 7 maps already give players enough opportunity to find different ways to play.
Do you like maps with four spawn locations? How frequently do you think they should appear in map pools? Am I correct in thinking that they're at cross purposes with macro maps? Do you think the current four spawn maps, Iron Fortress and Cactus Valley, would instantly be improved by making them three spawn or two spawn maps? If no, then why not?
Having complained so much about them, I still wouldn't mind a four spawn map making its way into the pool every once in a while. But I think the default should be none and I think a reasonable compromise is allowing 1-2 three spawn maps into every map pool. I don't think you can get the same answer from everyone on this, people have different views, and yours is probably represented under mapmakers as well. personaly I don't view them as interesting in sc2, but not for the same reasons you do, 4players spawn symmetry and balance puts huge restrictions on what is done, making interesting 4players hard to pull off. I find the randomness of scouts to be somewhat interesting, in the way that it makes you harder to get cheesed and therefor matches on 2players are somewhat more distinct in their more macro heavy setting, though I find this to be not that visible in current sc2 and don't see much reason to opt for 4p maps atm but variety. you're more likely to get cheesed on 4p maps at least in ZvZ (PvP and PvT probably too) because you are likely simply not to scout in time.
Just to pin point I wouldn't say that it is more likely for one to get cheesed, I would say that it is more like to die to cheese on 4p maps than otherwise because of the scout problem as you say.
|
On September 03 2015 02:41 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2015 02:38 Meavis wrote:On September 03 2015 01:25 NonY wrote:
What is your stance on 1v1 maps with four spawn locations?
I hate the chance involved in scouting, especially for PvP, though it's significant for many PvT and PvZ strategies as well. I also hate that many of the maps with four spawn locations are intended to be the plain macro map choices of the pool, even though it's not possible to get to that stage of the game without first dealing with the luck involved in scouting. As I see it, the apparent purpose of the map is undermined in the very first stages of every game played on it.
Personally I don't see the value in this map feature at all. I don't think players get satisfaction from winning because they got lucky with their scouting direction. They don't enjoy choosing their strategy from a limited selection, having crossed off any strategy that gets screwed by unlucky scouting (whether getting scouted first or scouting the opponent last). And similarly viewers aren't entertained by this facet of randomness. SC2 already forces players to take enough guesses in the dark. And while it's somewhat interesting to go into a map not knowing which way you'll have to play it, because you don't know which way the players will be oriented on it, I think map pools as big as 7 maps already give players enough opportunity to find different ways to play.
Do you like maps with four spawn locations? How frequently do you think they should appear in map pools? Am I correct in thinking that they're at cross purposes with macro maps? Do you think the current four spawn maps, Iron Fortress and Cactus Valley, would instantly be improved by making them three spawn or two spawn maps? If no, then why not?
Having complained so much about them, I still wouldn't mind a four spawn map making its way into the pool every once in a while. But I think the default should be none and I think a reasonable compromise is allowing 1-2 three spawn maps into every map pool. I don't think you can get the same answer from everyone on this, people have different views, and yours is probably represented under mapmakers as well. personaly I don't view them as interesting in sc2, but not for the same reasons you do, 4players spawn symmetry and balance puts huge restrictions on what is done, making interesting 4players hard to pull off. I find the randomness of scouts to be somewhat interesting, in the way that it makes you harder to get cheesed and therefor matches on 2players are somewhat more distinct in their more macro heavy setting, though I find this to be not that visible in current sc2 and don't see much reason to opt for 4p maps atm but variety. you're more likely to get cheesed on 4p maps at least in ZvZ (PvP and PvT probably too) because you are likely simply not to scout in time.
well yeah it depends a bit on what builds, some builds really need to be scouted in time, but theres also a large ammount of builds that suffer heavily under not being able to find the opponent straight away.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On September 03 2015 02:15 GGzerG wrote:
Cool! Templar you are an amateur mapper now? GL people
I've been an amateur mapmaker since 2010 
|
Regarding 4p maps: I think the only real advantage is the simplicity of them. It's much easier to look at a 4p map and get the idea of what's going on, so if you have a larger map it makes in much "easier to learn". A very large 2p map with many bases can take a while to absorb from an overview, which is tougher for players or viewers when the map is new to them.
I'm not sure it's actually worth doing them just for that though. It's just fun to make 4p maps. And generally it's not fun to make 3p maps. But I'd be fine with all 2p maps at this point.
|
The problem isn't the four spawn locations, but the fact that you don't know where the opponent is. What about having 4-player maps where you know your opponents start location? Map makers can make their 4-player macro maps, and some luck is eliminated from the game. Also some of the random-haters over in the other thread will be happy.
You could get a ping at the start or something.
|
8748 Posts
On September 03 2015 02:25 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2015 01:25 NonY wrote:
What is your stance on 1v1 maps with four spawn locations?
I hate the chance involved in scouting, especially for PvP, though it's significant for many PvT and PvZ strategies as well. I also hate that many of the maps with four spawn locations are intended to be the plain macro map choices of the pool, even though it's not possible to get to that stage of the game without first dealing with the luck involved in scouting. As I see it, the apparent purpose of the map is undermined in the very first stages of every game played on it.
Personally I don't see the value in this map feature at all. I don't think players get satisfaction from winning because they got lucky with their scouting direction. They don't enjoy choosing their strategy from a limited selection, having crossed off any strategy that gets screwed by unlucky scouting (whether getting scouted first or scouting the opponent last). And similarly viewers aren't entertained by this facet of randomness. SC2 already forces players to take enough guesses in the dark. And while it's somewhat interesting to go into a map not knowing which way you'll have to play it, because you don't know which way the players will be oriented on it, I think map pools as big as 7 maps already give players enough opportunity to find different ways to play.
Do you like maps with four spawn locations? How frequently do you think they should appear in map pools? Am I correct in thinking that they're at cross purposes with macro maps? Do you think the current four spawn maps, Iron Fortress and Cactus Valley, would instantly be improved by making them three spawn or two spawn maps? If no, then why not?
Having complained so much about them, I still wouldn't mind a four spawn map making its way into the pool every once in a while. But I think the default should be none and I think a reasonable compromise is allowing 1-2 three spawn maps into every map pool. Is this your stance for a map like fighting spirit in Brood War? Or is this just an SC2 feeling? I ask because you've played both at a high level and wonder if it's a feeling that has been carried on from those many years ago or if because SC2 is entirely different makes it a more punishing game for maps with 4 spawns.
Honestly can't remember how important I felt it was in BW. Personally in BW, in the most important tournaments I played (WCG USA, the TSL's, Courage, except vs idra and mondragon) I felt like I could open safe and outplay my opponents later on, even if they got an advantage from the openings. And actually for Courage, most players were aggressive-cheesy so playing super safe was actually winning the rock-paper-scissors. For SC2 my mechanics never have been good enough to put me in that position. So I'm not sure I can fairly evaluate it. But if I had to guess, I think it's a bigger issue in HotS than in BW. And it is impossible to tell how big of an issue it is in LotV until the final major changes go in and pros settle on standard strategies and we know how predictable openings are and how much they influence the rest of the game.
Mainly I posted about it here just to bring it to the front of mapmakers' attention. I don't know how much of a "given" it is that there are gonna be four spawn maps in the pool and I wanted to make sure that it's a variable being looked at like all other variables in maps and map pools. Historically, maps have been changed from four spawn to cross spawn only or three spawn only after discovering that there are racial imbalances with some spawn orientations. Either no one has cared enough or no one has thought to say maybe four spawn maps are a bit wacky in general and shouldn't be so common. So I jotted it down so the people who matter can mull it over. Maybe we'll actually want more four spawn maps in LotV for players to feel like they have an opportunity to play risky, if builds are so boring and predictable otherwise.
|
On September 03 2015 05:33 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2015 02:25 BisuDagger wrote:On September 03 2015 01:25 NonY wrote:
What is your stance on 1v1 maps with four spawn locations?
I hate the chance involved in scouting, especially for PvP, though it's significant for many PvT and PvZ strategies as well. I also hate that many of the maps with four spawn locations are intended to be the plain macro map choices of the pool, even though it's not possible to get to that stage of the game without first dealing with the luck involved in scouting. As I see it, the apparent purpose of the map is undermined in the very first stages of every game played on it.
Personally I don't see the value in this map feature at all. I don't think players get satisfaction from winning because they got lucky with their scouting direction. They don't enjoy choosing their strategy from a limited selection, having crossed off any strategy that gets screwed by unlucky scouting (whether getting scouted first or scouting the opponent last). And similarly viewers aren't entertained by this facet of randomness. SC2 already forces players to take enough guesses in the dark. And while it's somewhat interesting to go into a map not knowing which way you'll have to play it, because you don't know which way the players will be oriented on it, I think map pools as big as 7 maps already give players enough opportunity to find different ways to play.
Do you like maps with four spawn locations? How frequently do you think they should appear in map pools? Am I correct in thinking that they're at cross purposes with macro maps? Do you think the current four spawn maps, Iron Fortress and Cactus Valley, would instantly be improved by making them three spawn or two spawn maps? If no, then why not?
Having complained so much about them, I still wouldn't mind a four spawn map making its way into the pool every once in a while. But I think the default should be none and I think a reasonable compromise is allowing 1-2 three spawn maps into every map pool. Is this your stance for a map like fighting spirit in Brood War? Or is this just an SC2 feeling? I ask because you've played both at a high level and wonder if it's a feeling that has been carried on from those many years ago or if because SC2 is entirely different makes it a more punishing game for maps with 4 spawns. Honestly can't remember how important I felt it was in BW. Personally in BW, in the most important tournaments I played (WCG USA, the TSL's, Courage, except vs idra and mondragon) I felt like I could open safe and outplay my opponents later on, even if they got an advantage from the openings. And actually for Courage, most players were aggressive-cheesy so playing super safe was actually winning the rock-paper-scissors. For SC2 my mechanics never have been good enough to put me in that position. So I'm not sure I can fairly evaluate it. But if I had to guess, I think it's a bigger issue in HotS than in BW. And it is impossible to tell how big of an issue it is in LotV until the final major changes go in and pros settle on standard strategies and we know how predictable openings are and how much they influence the rest of the game. Mainly I posted about it here just to bring it to the front of mapmakers' attention. I don't know how much of a "given" it is that there are gonna be four spawn maps in the pool and I wanted to make sure that it's a variable being looked at like all other variables in maps and map pools. Historically, maps have been changed from four spawn to cross spawn only or three spawn only after discovering that there are racial imbalances with some spawn orientations. Either no one has cared enough or no one has thought to say maybe four spawn maps are a bit wacky in general and shouldn't be so common. So I jotted it down so the people who matter can mull it over. Maybe we'll actually want more four spawn maps in LotV for players to feel like they have an opportunity to play risky, if builds are so boring and predictable otherwise.
The thing Nony is that we don't have control of the WCS map pool, Blizzard developers are the one in charge of cherry picking the maps they think will be interesting for the WCS pool, and the point of SMA is to aid and advice Blizzard and other organizations into thinking amount maps not as an after thought but as an asset that can really help improve the quality of games.
Blizzard has steadily been moving forward regarding maps, and it is very clear that there are conflicts of opinions regarding how the WCS map pool and the maps that go into it should be handled, but because before SMA there was no real organism that could serve as a beacon for Mapmakers to speak up, the map pools would be handled by players and tournament organizers, which both not only have conflict of interests but these interests at the same time also collide with the ones Blizzard has, and as I said SMA hopes to alleviate these problems by delivering maps and ideas that can help all parties involved.
But yeah Nony, if you have ideas or concerns regarding maps we will be more that happy to discuss them, we make the maps you play on, but sadly atm we don't choose which these maps are, still your and the other guys (pros) feedback is more than welcome as always has been.
|
At first I misread it as "Announcing the starcraft maphacking association", which left me very confused by the positive reponses.
|
On September 03 2015 05:33 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2015 02:25 BisuDagger wrote:On September 03 2015 01:25 NonY wrote:
What is your stance on 1v1 maps with four spawn locations?
I hate the chance involved in scouting, especially for PvP, though it's significant for many PvT and PvZ strategies as well. I also hate that many of the maps with four spawn locations are intended to be the plain macro map choices of the pool, even though it's not possible to get to that stage of the game without first dealing with the luck involved in scouting. As I see it, the apparent purpose of the map is undermined in the very first stages of every game played on it.
Personally I don't see the value in this map feature at all. I don't think players get satisfaction from winning because they got lucky with their scouting direction. They don't enjoy choosing their strategy from a limited selection, having crossed off any strategy that gets screwed by unlucky scouting (whether getting scouted first or scouting the opponent last). And similarly viewers aren't entertained by this facet of randomness. SC2 already forces players to take enough guesses in the dark. And while it's somewhat interesting to go into a map not knowing which way you'll have to play it, because you don't know which way the players will be oriented on it, I think map pools as big as 7 maps already give players enough opportunity to find different ways to play.
Do you like maps with four spawn locations? How frequently do you think they should appear in map pools? Am I correct in thinking that they're at cross purposes with macro maps? Do you think the current four spawn maps, Iron Fortress and Cactus Valley, would instantly be improved by making them three spawn or two spawn maps? If no, then why not?
Having complained so much about them, I still wouldn't mind a four spawn map making its way into the pool every once in a while. But I think the default should be none and I think a reasonable compromise is allowing 1-2 three spawn maps into every map pool. Is this your stance for a map like fighting spirit in Brood War? Or is this just an SC2 feeling? I ask because you've played both at a high level and wonder if it's a feeling that has been carried on from those many years ago or if because SC2 is entirely different makes it a more punishing game for maps with 4 spawns. Honestly can't remember how important I felt it was in BW. Personally in BW, in the most important tournaments I played (WCG USA, the TSL's, Courage, except vs idra and mondragon) I felt like I could open safe and outplay my opponents later on, even if they got an advantage from the openings. And actually for Courage, most players were aggressive-cheesy so playing super safe was actually winning the rock-paper-scissors. For SC2 my mechanics never have been good enough to put me in that position. So I'm not sure I can fairly evaluate it. But if I had to guess, I think it's a bigger issue in HotS than in BW. And it is impossible to tell how big of an issue it is in LotV until the final major changes go in and pros settle on standard strategies and we know how predictable openings are and how much they influence the rest of the game. Mainly I posted about it here just to bring it to the front of mapmakers' attention. I don't know how much of a "given" it is that there are gonna be four spawn maps in the pool and I wanted to make sure that it's a variable being looked at like all other variables in maps and map pools. Historically, maps have been changed from four spawn to cross spawn only or three spawn only after discovering that there are racial imbalances with some spawn orientations. Either no one has cared enough or no one has thought to say maybe four spawn maps are a bit wacky in general and shouldn't be so common. So I jotted it down so the people who matter can mull it over. Maybe we'll actually want more four spawn maps in LotV for players to feel like they have an opportunity to play risky, if builds are so boring and predictable otherwise.
For the record i completely agree with you, not only from the perspective of spawn randomness but in terms of the actual layout as well - design-wise, 4p maps are very limited in what you can do. For rotational 4p maps, in order to keep rush distances high enough while keeping 3rds close enough, 16 bases are necessary, which automatically relegates 4p maps to the role of "big macro map". To ensure positional balance, there must be a viable, symmetrical 3rd in either direction, which severely limits the choices of base placement. And at this point, you've used up all 16 bases, so unless you want to add 4 more (hint: this is generally a bad idea, 20 base maps have a history of being turtlefests) then this is pretty much your fixed base pattern for every map. A basic ring of expansions around the map with the possibility of maybe a little bit of creative stuff in the middle - which, although definitely possible, is harder to do when you have to mirror it 4 ways.
Things are a little better with reflectional 4p, 4p with disabled spawns, or 2 in 1 forced cross spawn 4p, but generally they're still a lot more restricted in layout design than 2p maps, and they still tend to have too many bases.
edit: oh and
On September 02 2015 17:28 Jenia6109 wrote:
I thought that Foxtrot Labs and Terraform were made by the same author (Uvantak)...
last time i checked i am not uvantak
|
I like this idea. Good luck guys, will be looking out for your stuff.
|
Good luck guys! Maps do not get enough attention for balancing the game in sc2. I have two questions for you:
1) Have you tried to make maps with un-creepable/un-forcefieldable areas? Do you think Blizzard would ever allow those kinds of maps into the map pool?
2) What do you think about the liberators ability to snipe workers from the dead space behind bases. Do you see this causing a problem in map making?
|
On September 04 2015 04:43 Raistlin141 wrote:
Good luck guys! Maps do not get enough attention for balancing the game in sc2. I have two questions for you:
1) Have you tried to make maps with un-creepable/un-forcefieldable areas? Do you think Blizzard would ever allow those kinds of maps into the map pool?
2) What do you think about the liberators ability to snipe workers from the dead space behind bases. Do you see this causing a problem in map making?
1) no, this is to confusing for casual players, blizzard is against anything that requires knowing the map before playing on it.
2) this will likely be something to account for in LotV, main bases tend to usualy positioned in corners however so it's not to tough to balance around, the problem here would be cutting down on possible main spawn locations on a map.
|
On September 04 2015 04:43 Raistlin141 wrote:
Good luck guys! Maps do not get enough attention for balancing the game in sc2. I have two questions for you:
On September 04 2015 04:43 Raistlin141 wrote:
1) Have you tried to make maps with un-creepable/un-forcefieldable areas? Do you think Blizzard would ever allow those kinds of maps into the map pool?
Don't listen to Meavis,! Yes, Superouman and other guys (Crux) have messed around with unforcefieldable areas, specially unforcefieldable choke points and ramps, I have also toyed around with the idea, but never published a full map with it, they are very very fun to play around with and open a good amount of designs, the bad thing as Meavis said is that Blizzard does not want things like areas where you can't Force Field on because by Blizzard design normatives maps should be very simple to play on without needing to learn different custom things for each map.
On September 04 2015 04:43 Raistlin141 wrote:
2) What do you think about the liberators ability to snipe workers from the dead space behind bases. Do you see this causing a problem in map making?
I think that it will be a pretty big concern, Liberators can hit very very very early, and because they had 15 range as you know they can park in areas where ground units simply can't reach them, to me atm they are a considerable concern regarding map design, diagonally symmetric maps which are relatively unseen by the community in general (Dash and Terminal and Scrap Stations are bad examples of solid standard diagonal maps but I think they are the only examples you will be familiar with) could suffer greatly from liberators, also I'm worried about certain 4P mirrored symmetry (Like Frost) maps and some certain 4P rotational symmetry ones.
Other LotV interesting thoughts and concerns of mine include faster mid game Medivacs (TvP), Ravager Speedling allins (ZvT), Natural size to help stabilize ZvZ early game, Open airspace near main bases (2 Second Warp Prisms/Disruptor drops (?)), maybe it is possible for open nats to be slightly viable under certain circumstances (2P maps with cannonable mineral lines), there are other things, but these are the ones at the top of my head atm.
|
|
|
United States7483 Posts
Let me know if I can help you guys out with anything when you need it, this seems like a great initiative.
|
Thanks for the offer Whitewing, atm we are finishing some coordination things, and soon we will start actively working on SMA maps and start publishing them alongside some other cool things, so look forward to that! :3
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Legitimate question, what steps have you taken to ensure this doesn't just end up as another all-talk no-action map making team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
