|
On February 05 2019 05:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote:
So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big.
What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away?
I mean, they're harder to defend, but is that necessarily bad for the game? Could you have less bases, further spread apart if there were more minerals per patch?
Or do you guys think this is just the optimal type of map for sc2?
|
On February 05 2019 23:44 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 05:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote:
So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big. What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away?
Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one
|
|
|
Ireland12 Posts
On February 06 2019 00:01 JaleVeliki wrote:Here is my standard submission: + Show Spoiler + Double Agent ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rgAPNuR.jpg)
Is this map not incredibly favored towards Terran?
Not a negative point more of a question.
Incredibly easy for Terran to get to 4/5 bases due to the chokes for tanks/high ground bases + a large amount of space to drop in main?
|
Could you have less bases, further spread apart if there were more minerals per patch? Or do you guys think this is just the optimal type of map for sc2?
Aside from it being against the general standards of the contest, here are a few reasons why you generally don't see this:
1. If you modify the minerals for the mains/nats of every ladder map it would change the meta drastically from map to map. Having a universal strict standard is arguably more intuitive/balanced.
2. It could impact certain races differently and create imbalance quickly.
3. Modifying node values introduces unnecessary complexity having to learn mineral node values on all maps (literally clicking on each node and reading the max values)
4. Would inherently create turtley maps (if values are increased a lot) which tend to have a negative stigma and are overall less "eventful" and fun
5. Having a Big Game Hunters LotV is not in popular demand for competitive ladder at the moment (it was my favorite BW map though xD)
|
On February 05 2019 23:53 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 23:44 InfCereal wrote:On February 05 2019 05:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote:
So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big. What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away? Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one
Another definition is of too big is "So big it gets vetoed in ZvZ because the game ends before the overlord scouts that it's 13/12"
|
Alright almost 100 map previews posted.. predictions anyone?
|
On February 06 2019 00:35 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 23:53 Ej_ wrote:On February 05 2019 23:44 InfCereal wrote:On February 05 2019 05:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote:
So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big. What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away? Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one Another definition is of too big is "So big it gets vetoed in ZvZ because the game ends before the overlord scouts that it's 13/12"
The map being big doesn't have to necessarily mean main bases being a silly distance from each other. There are more shapes than a square with mains in two opposite corners ...
|
On February 06 2019 17:28 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 00:35 Elentos wrote:On February 05 2019 23:53 Ej_ wrote:On February 05 2019 23:44 InfCereal wrote:On February 05 2019 05:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote:
So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big. What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away? Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one Another definition is of too big is "So big it gets vetoed in ZvZ because the game ends before the overlord scouts that it's 13/12" The map being big doesn't have to necessarily mean main bases being a silly distance from each other. There are more shapes than a square with mains in two opposite corners ...
I implore you to open the editor and spend quite a bit of time learning how to make maps and you'll find the reasons why most maps "look the same" as some people put it. People arguing about what maps can and should be from their armchair get a little tiring for us after so many years.
|
On February 07 2019 04:13 Avexyli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 17:28 opisska wrote:On February 06 2019 00:35 Elentos wrote:On February 05 2019 23:53 Ej_ wrote:On February 05 2019 23:44 InfCereal wrote:On February 05 2019 05:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote:
So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big. What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away? Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one Another definition is of too big is "So big it gets vetoed in ZvZ because the game ends before the overlord scouts that it's 13/12" The map being big doesn't have to necessarily mean main bases being a silly distance from each other. There are more shapes than a square with mains in two opposite corners ... I implore you to open the editor and spend quite a bit of time learning how to make maps and you'll find the reasons why most maps "look the same" as some people put it. People arguing about what maps can and should be from their armchair get a little tiring for us after so many years.
Avex editor bootcamp when
|
On February 08 2019 01:56 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 04:13 Avexyli wrote:On February 06 2019 17:28 opisska wrote:On February 06 2019 00:35 Elentos wrote:On February 05 2019 23:53 Ej_ wrote:On February 05 2019 23:44 InfCereal wrote:On February 05 2019 05:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On February 05 2019 00:52 InfCereal wrote:
So, from a map maker's perspective, is anyone concerned about the insane map density on maps nowadays?
Just looking at all the maps, there's no where you can go on most of these maps without walking through a base, and all of the expansions are an arm length away.
In LotV you need at least 13 bases on a map to allow for macro games to happen (with 14 or 16 being most common). So maps that aren't reasonably dense tend to be too big. What's the definition of "too big", though? What's the inherent downside of having bases further than an armlength away? Protoss not being able to win a game vs Zerg that goes longer than 10 minutes, for one Another definition is of too big is "So big it gets vetoed in ZvZ because the game ends before the overlord scouts that it's 13/12" The map being big doesn't have to necessarily mean main bases being a silly distance from each other. There are more shapes than a square with mains in two opposite corners ... I implore you to open the editor and spend quite a bit of time learning how to make maps and you'll find the reasons why most maps "look the same" as some people put it. People arguing about what maps can and should be from their armchair get a little tiring for us after so many years. Avex editor bootcamp when
Soon, very soon.
|
Results when ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/I0MSIS1.png)
|
On February 10 2019 02:53 themusic246 wrote:Results when
Tomorrow morning EU time. We're gonna finalize the standings tonight and I'll make a post 
|
A few that stood out to me!
Standard:
Dispatch by Zweck
Primus by Solstice
Macro:
Final Boss by Superouman
Grand Blue by Freeze_be
Seorabeol by RQM
Challenge #1 (mineral node blocking):
Sylia by Pklixian
Challenge #2 (inhibitor zone):
Beach Station by NegativeZero
Mungyeong Saejae by RQM
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
