| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
Grats AVEX on all your spoils  Why isn't there already some armchair pro mapmaker stating all the reasons why these maps are terrible, the community is beyond retarded voting for these maps and flaming everyone around? People have work I think (about to head off there myself). Give people time to come home and settle in, you'll get your salt posts yet | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
On March 10 2017 23:29 Fatam wrote: Asteroid Barricade and Sequencer were robbed a bit IMO (Asteroid especially at #9 - WTF community). Winners are pretty solid maps though, so can't complain 100%. Grats AVEX on all your spoils People have work I think (about to head off there myself). Give people time to come home and settle in, you'll get your salt posts yet Agreed, Asteroid Barricade and Sequencer were my favorites too. | ||
|
StraKo
Germany96 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
Also, making buildings near the water flattens the terrain, hence changing the buildable area on Windwaker. It's quite strange and Blizzard should do something about it if either map is in the map pool. | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2475 Posts
Cheers to Blizzard for supporting the mapping community and a huge shout out to Team Liquid for all their hard work and their countless hours judging, setting up tournaments and organizing everything. Thank you!! =) | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
| ||
|
AshC
United States328 Posts
Top two are my top two favorites as wel! Yay. I was thinking ASCENSION TO AIUR to be #1 though but that is fine either way. Both maps are beautiful! | ||
|
terrafreako
28 Posts
Windwaker, Ascenscion to Aiur and Sequenzer are good choices. BUT Paradise Lost: Is an as said TURTLE HEAVY map, with less airspace and well defendable islands. A nice great macro map which i prefer but a map like pardisia would be way better cause of the available airspace. So this map is kinda unplayable to me. But an interessting design anyways appreciate that! Hwangsan: solid map yes, but a map for hots. So kinda the same to me as Paradise lost and not playable. Why? This map has only 6 mineral patches which is to me way less. Its like the same on belshir and belshir is a hots map, also sad we still have old maps in the pool but whatever. I cant see long games happening here cause there isnt even a chance to get in a stabile long game. Players are forced to end the game quickly without expanding 2 much. This maps seems to me just outdated and i really really hope blizzard is able to see that and dont let her pass into the Ladder pool. Overall a good mappool just Hwangsan is kinda fail at this point to me. Congrats to the winners awesome work anyways and thanks for the possibilty to vote. | ||
uThermal
Netherlands165 Posts
Oh well, congrats to the winners ^_^ | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
On March 11 2017 01:00 uThermal wrote: A bit sad people always just seem to vote for the big macro maps, almost all of these maps are too big for proper competitive play, only Hwangsan seems to be suited for the ladder. Oh well, congrats to the winners ^_^ What is 'proper competitive play'? | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16062 Posts
On March 11 2017 00:56 terrafreako wrote: Not really happy but not 2 suprised bout the Results. Windwaker, Ascenscion to Aiur and Sequenzer are good choices. BUT Paradise Lost: Is an as said TURTLE HEAVY map, with less airspace and well defendable islands. A nice great macro map which i prefer but a map like pardisia would be way better cause of the available airspace. So this map is kinda unplayable to me. But an interessting design anyways appreciate that! Hwangsan: solid map yes, but a map for hots. So kinda the same to me as Paradise lost and not playable. Why? This map has only 6 mineral patches which is to me way less. Its like the same on belshir and belshir is a hots map, also sad we still have old maps in the pool but whatever. I cant see long games happening here cause there isnt even a chance to get in a stabile long game. Players are forced to end the game quickly without expanding 2 much. This maps seems to me just outdated and i really really hope blizzard is able to see that and dont let her pass into the Ladder pool. Overall a good mappool just Hwangsan is kinda fail at this point to me. Congrats to the winners awesome work anyways and thanks for the possibilty to vote. Hwangsan has the same amount of bases as Daybreak and on Daybreak long macro games were the norm - even in LotV. 12 bases are more than enough to play long macro games. Also how many games do you see where players take more than 6 bases? it's a very small percentage. | ||
|
StraKo
Germany96 Posts
1. If you start bottom right, the base LEFT to the mainbase has 11 mineral patches and you can't properly place a base there, because of misplaced mineral patches. 2. The equivalent base in the top has only 10 mineral patches. 3. Both gold bases have the same placement issue, mineralpatches need to get readjusted. Personal request: Please remove the water. You can't build anything there and makes burrowed units impossible to spot if you play on low settings. This is a strong tactical disadvantage for players with weaker PC's or who like to play on low settings for improved performance. For some reason you're able to build on Hwangsan's water. Also the map is medium sized, but there's actually very little space to place macro CC's etc... So please, remove the water and just make it flat terrain. It would be nice to be able to place turrets/cannons/PF's/etc everywhere the player wants to do. If i want to play mech, i'd like to be able to wall off my possible 4th with macro CC's for example. I think most proffessional players would agree with me, so maybe you could take this into consideration. | ||
|
StraKo
Germany96 Posts
I think except for pocket naturals, there shouldn't be any maps in a ladder/tournament mappool who feature bases that can't get attacked directly. I think it's terrible map design and restricts strategic and tactical options, it also favors races over others. Even though new gettysburg was zerg favored, i still had some really good games on it, except when someone got the island bases. This just killed the map for me. Air blockers shouldn't exist in competetive maps and especially no excessive amount of island bases. | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2475 Posts
On March 11 2017 01:00 uThermal wrote: A bit sad people always just seem to vote for the big macro maps, almost all of these maps are too big for proper competitive play, only Hwangsan seems to be suited for the ladder. Oh well, congrats to the winners ^_^ It is true the public will usually always vote for the bigger standard macro maps for the most part. It's why one of my submissions was a fairly safe, standard macro map. With that said, I'd love to hear your thoughts on why Ascension to Aiur isn't suited for ladder though, even a PM if you'd prefer. | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
Maps small enough for 3 rax reaper | ||
|
Youngrustler
United States70 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On March 11 2017 01:00 uThermal wrote: A bit sad people always just seem to vote for the big macro maps, almost all of these maps are too big for proper competitive play, only Hwangsan seems to be suited for the ladder. Oh well, congrats to the winners ^_^ It's also because of how the categories are set-up. Due to the category being macro (and the initial requirements for the category to almost require a pocket base) all the maps tend to be very large. There isn't a good category for mid-sized standard maps which is why you see so few of them in the TLMC. Results were a bit unexpected. I'd be interesting to get the numbers. | ||
|
CrayonPopChoa
Canada761 Posts
| ||
|
Latias4Ever
Portugal11 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On March 11 2017 02:07 CrayonPopChoa wrote: People just like playing on maps with sandy beaches And who can blame them  | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
