|
On October 08 2017 01:50 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 01:10 Avexyli wrote:On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote:
Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants. wat Did you play on Eremita, Blood Boil, Invader? It's true, there are also some bad but inspired and unforgettable non-standard maps in his resume as well. 
I don't think Eremita was inspired by much except the desire to get a fourth map done for the TLMC.
|
On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote:
the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants.
I've been trying to figure out how to say this without sounding overly negative. There were some really exciting maps, just disappointed that excitement is not what people like.
|
I think Catalyst will have some interesting matches, but the rest seem designed around the late game.
I'm most disappointed with Neon Violet Square. People seem to be ga-ga over the cool center, but the layout is extremely turtle-heavy. This is even worse than Acolyte.
The other three would be okay except there are choke points everywhere which will also discourage main army engagements. The maps will probably be reasonably balanced, but lead to boring games.
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On October 08 2017 01:10 Avexyli wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 00:09 Ingvar wrote:
Didn't have time to take a look properly so didn't vote but the results are disappointing. I guess Avex is the symbol of current TLMC-s: he is a talented mapmaker but he settles for making good but uninspired and forgettable standard maps - because that's what everyone wants. wat Did you play on Eremita, Blood Boil, Invader?
Blood Boil - by your own admission it was initially a standard map that you tried sneak into experimental resource category by tweaking it.
Eremita - never liked it. Didn't play on it. I guess it was designed specifically for Rush category in TLMC8.
Invader - I generally suppress memories of early LoTV maps but that was an experimental map.
However, you did submit 2 standard and 2 macro maps this time and all your TLMC winners are macro and/or standard maps. Getting 1st and 4th place is a huge success - I congratulate you. In context of TLMC-s you're a superstar macro mapmaker and Invader or Blood Boil making ladder doesn't really affect it. In my opinion your maps become less interesting with each iteration despite probably getting better from abstract mapmaking viewpoint - I'm not good enough to judge it. You yet again designed 2 winners meaning your choices are right and my taste is wrong.
|
he did play it ultra-safe this time around but the 2 that made it are pretty solid. I agree they could be more interesting, but at the same time not every high placing TLMC map or eventual ladder map can be really crazy. You definitely need some standard maps even if they aren't the most interesting.
p.s. yes eremita was a clownfiesta but we all have had bad maps, me probably more than most. Sometimes your judgment is better than other times 
|
United States1907 Posts
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
|
On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand.
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
|
On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising.
Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
|
United States1907 Posts
On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though.
I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only think of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
|
On October 08 2017 06:59 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though. I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero.
King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard.
What maps do you thing are great?
|
United States1907 Posts
On October 08 2017 07:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 06:59 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though. I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero. King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard. What maps do you thing are great?
The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots).
Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
|
On October 08 2017 07:18 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 07:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:59 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though. I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero. King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard. What maps do you thing are great? The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots). Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
Fair enough. Coda and Overgrowth are both very standard maps (though personally I'm not a huge fan of Overgrowth).
|
On October 08 2017 07:18 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 07:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:59 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though. I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero. King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard. What maps do you thing are great? The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots). Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible).
What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
|
On October 08 2017 07:31 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 07:18 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 07:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:59 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though. I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero. King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard. What maps do you thing are great? The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots). Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible). What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
You're being disingenuous. Being standard does not equate to being the same as existing maps--even small differences do cause things to play out differently.
|
What blasphemy is this? Given the number of absolutely incredible games that have taken place on Abyssal Reef, I can't understand how you would think it isn't one of the greatest maps.
Just off the top of my head, we had:
Inno vs Dark at Katowice
Inno vs aLive at Katowice
TY vs Stats at Katowice
Inno vs TY at GSL vs the World
Dark vs Inno in GSL Season 3
|
United States1907 Posts
On October 08 2017 07:31 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 07:18 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 07:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:59 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though. I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero. King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard. What maps do you thing are great? The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots). Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible). What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now?
Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there.
It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth.
On October 08 2017 07:56 pvsnp wrote:
What blasphemy is this? Given the number of absolutely incredible games that have taken place on Abyssal Reef, I can't understand how you would think it isn't one of the greatest maps.
Just off the top of my head, we had:
Inno vs Dark at Katowice
Inno vs aLive at Katowice
TY vs Stats at Katowice
Inno vs TY at GSL vs the World
Dark vs Inno in GSL Season 3
Abyssal would make it if I had to make a dream pool, although that would be due in equal parts to its merit and the fact that I think most maps are barely tolerable.
And I must have slept through most of those games while doing the recaps because I remember none of them.
|
On October 08 2017 07:56 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 07:31 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 07:18 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 07:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:59 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though. I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero. King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard. What maps do you thing are great? The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots). Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible). What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now? Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there. It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth.
All maps no matter how standard dictate play, and limit it to a subset of what is possible in the game. Playing only on a single map no matter how good narrows what is strategically possible. Additionally maps do grow stale. What is optimal gets figured out and the list of plays and builds that are sound grows shorter and shorter.
|
United States1907 Posts
On October 08 2017 08:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 07:56 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 07:31 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 07:18 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 07:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:59 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though. I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero. King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard. What maps do you thing are great? The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots). Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible). What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now? Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there. It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth. All maps no matter how standard dictate play, and limit it to a subset of what is possible in the game. Playing only on a single map no matter how good narrows what is strategically possible. Additionally maps do grow stale. What is optimal gets figured out and the list of plays and builds that are sound grows shorter and shorter.
Except Overgrowth, despite existing for years and years and two expansions, still sees a wide variety of play with regularity.
|
On October 08 2017 08:15 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 08:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 07:56 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 07:31 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 07:18 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 07:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:59 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 04:39 mizenhauer wrote:
Why are standard maps boring to so many people? I'll never understand. Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though. I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero. King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard. What maps do you thing are great? The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots). Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible). What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now? Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there. It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth. All maps no matter how standard dictate play, and limit it to a subset of what is possible in the game. Playing only on a single map no matter how good narrows what is strategically possible. Additionally maps do grow stale. What is optimal gets figured out and the list of plays and builds that are sound grows shorter and shorter. Except Overgrowth, despite existing for years and years and two expansions, still sees a wide variety of play with regularity.
Overgrowth's a garbage map now and I don't think I've seen a single good LotV game on it.
|
United States1907 Posts
On October 08 2017 08:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2017 08:15 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 08:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 07:56 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 07:31 Sr18 wrote:On October 08 2017 07:18 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 07:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:59 mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2017 06:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 08 2017 06:41 Sr18 wrote:
[quote]
Really? It seems quite obvious. A new 'new map' is exciting, a new standard map is not. For many people this is true in most things in life. New will always be more exciting when compared to something not new. People finding 'standard' more exciting than 'new' would be surprising. Also you need a least a little non-standardness to make a great map imo. A hyper-standard map might be good, but will never be great, whereas a non-standard map has a chance of being great (and also a greater chance of being a trainwreck). Exactly how "different" a map needs to be to aspire for greatness, and how "different" a map needs to be to be considered non-standard is very much up for debate though. I can't think of a single non standard map that was great. I can only thing of a handful of standard maps that were great, but any number is greater than zero. King Sejong Station was really non-standard when it first came out. Abyssal Reef is a little non-standard, probably on the border between standard and non-standard. What maps do you thing are great? The only maps that I consider great are Coda (hots), Overgrowth (hots), KSS (hots). Other maps that I think are good are, Ascension to Aiur, Newkirk, Frost and Whirlwind (although all four player maps are inherently terrible). What's the purpose of adding a new map, if it's going to be just like the ones you already have now? Standard maps typically allow the greatest breadth of play as they facilitate timings, macro games and smaller scales engagements. They are meant to enable players to dictate strategy rather than a map like Dasan Station or Moonlight Madness which dictated the style of play through terrain, base spacing and other features (something I find abhorrent). I understand mapmakers want to create something different, but to me a map should be like a referee in traditional sports. When they are doing their job, no one should notice they are there. It's my opinion and an unpopular one, but I wouldn't mind it if every game ever was played on Overgrowth. All maps no matter how standard dictate play, and limit it to a subset of what is possible in the game. Playing only on a single map no matter how good narrows what is strategically possible. Additionally maps do grow stale. What is optimal gets figured out and the list of plays and builds that are sound grows shorter and shorter. Except Overgrowth, despite existing for years and years and two expansions, still sees a wide variety of play with regularity. Overgrowth's a garbage map now and I don't think I've seen a single good LotV game on it.
It is a bad map in LotV, but the point remains that it enables a wide variety of play despite having existed so long. It never grew stale, it just got railroaded by a bad expansion it wasn't intended to be played on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
369
53
EPT
