|
Published on HotS Beta
click on the image for closeups
- 152, 124 playable size - 150 nat2nat (townhall centre) rush distance - 12 bases, two of which being 6m1hyg - third which is impossible to take in PvZ because you don't have 3 bases behind a single 1 FF choke. - circle syndrome and no regrets.
|
Very pretty, the nat cant be FFE'd, but pretty. The pre-preemptive 3rd and CS comments...
|
If you were to change the rocks leading from the nat to the 3rd to fully block that ramp, you'd have a safe FFE map for protoss without changing very much at all, it would require some creativeness to wall off entirely but the rush distance makes up for that. In my opinion though the 3rd is also simply too exposed, not even from any specific match up's stand point but removing 1 of any of the access points would clear that up, again without changing anything significant layout wise. The 3rd favour's the opponents movement, its too constricted for the defender on top of the fairly open natural. There should be a steady progression from the main outwards in terms of defensiveness through constricting movement, you've made yourself a glorious 6 base aside map but would never see a game get even to 4 bases based on the opening layout, most games would finish at 2 base.
|
On February 02 2013 16:23 lorestarcraft wrote: Very pretty, the nat cant be FFE'd, but pretty. The pre-preemptive 3rd and CS comments... Of course it can be FFE'ed, there's such a thing as a nexus wall.
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
I love the design and in no way is the third too open. Leave it as it is.
|
I'm going to come out and say that this map is...not very good. I have two speculations as to why. 1) You just want to get away from standard map things and try crazy things because they are fun to play on. 2) You are actually trying to make a legitimate melee map that is balanced for competitive play, but you don't have a good enough understanding of the game to know how to approach "neat" ideas. If it is the first reason, then pardon my following list of complaints. If it is the second reason, then I recommend you learn how to make a super standard map, understand why it works, and most importantly watch and play more sc2! Understanding the game to at least a diamond level of play is recommended. Onto my rants:
A) The natural is terrible. Nexus wall-offs do not work well, especially in super open conditions as this natural. If you don't believe me, try playing as toss vs a mid diamond or higher Zerg, and try to nexus wall while he goes roach ling all-in/pressure. Sure, you can hold it, but you become really limited in what you can do because of the threat of roach ling. You need to invest much more and run the risk of losing probes and even the nexus. As far as I'm concerned, it would be in your BEST interests to open up strategic viability by making as many strategies as viable as possible on your map. This natural design does not promote such an interest.
B) The third is even worse. If you really want 1 gas thirds to work, they have to be EXTREMELY easy to take and hold. Otherwise, there will be no real incentive for toss or zerg to take it. Zerg has it a bit easier since they can take the fourth as a far third, but still rough. To be frank though, with how open the third is and the fact that it's on the low ground makes not even a full base worth of that position. Make it a standard 8m 2g, and really choke it up, or expect 1-2 base play.
C) Poor lategame support. If a game does go to lategame, it will not last for very long. The designs of the fourths, fifths, and half bases don't really make any sense what so ever. They just seem as if they were placed there because you had room to do so. There really isn't a thought out position to put your army to cover lategame bases, while holding onto your main, natural and third. The only spot I could see a lategame army being would be at the half base, but forcing the armies to be that close together will essentially lead to aggression. Hence why I say why the lategame will not last long. In other words, one big engagement and game over. Where as on maps like Cloud Kingdom, lategame position is at the fourth and on the high ground around the fourth. Thus, when a lategame engagement takes place, there is still wiggle room to rebuild while the winner of the big engagement comes in for a counter attack. This map has no such wiggle room.
D) Really bad usage of space. From this alone I can tell the layout was made in about 30mins to an hour, if not less. You did not put much thought into this map, and clearly just threw it together. I say this because the proportions and positions of the bases, pathways, and air gaps do not make any sense. The fourth is abnormally large, as if it were meant to support large battles. Yet you have that open area behind los blockers to defend? Things just don't connect. Additionally, you have these wide open areas around the third, fourth, and fifth while the middle and a few paths are a bit cramped. The fifth is close to your opponents main, even though there is this massive amount of airspace around the main and fifth to potentially prevent that. I could go on and on about the poor proportions on this map, and how they will negatively impact gameplay, but I think you get the idea.
Overall, there isn't really anything I like about this map. There isn't any thing really neat about the map either, just plenty of "broken" things. What I mean is that there is nothing neat about neat ideas being poorly executed that ends up breaking balance. Furthermore, there is no doubt in my mind that this map layout was rushed, and as a result is very poorly executed. I think the general idea of the layout could be much, much stronger if you had better understand of flow, proportions, and the game in general. However, you are still quite new to mapmaking, so no harm done.
Once again, I recommend you try and understand why standard maps work, and get really good and comfortable making those. Once you have a feel for proportions and flow of standard maps, then you can move on to messing with neat stuff such as half base thirds. However, if you are simply making these maps for fun games or aesthetic challenges, then by all means ignore me and my seemingly endless wall of rant. My apologies if I came across as a bit harsh, but some honesty was required. Cheers!
|
On February 02 2013 18:21 Timetwister22 wrote: I'm going to come out and say that this map is...not very good. I have two speculations as to why. 1) You just want to get away from standard map things and try crazy things because they are fun to play on. 2) You are actually trying to make a legitimate melee map that is balanced for competitive play, but you don't have a good enough understanding of the game to know how to approach "neat" ideas. If it is the first reason, then pardon my following list of complaints. Little bit of both
If it is the second reason, then I recommend you learn how to make a super standard map, understand why it works, and most importantly watch and play more sc2! Understanding the game to at least a diamond level of play is recommended. I'm actually a highish master level random player (reveal race) and good chance I am one of the highest level player who frequents this forum. I do meet GM's on the ladder from time to time and have taken games of pros in both WoL and HotS
I am quite frankly pretty darn sure I understand this game better than almost anyone I've been in discussion with about it on this forum. Most people seem to be around plat-diamond here..
A) The natural is terrible. Nexus wall-offs do not work well, especially in super open conditions as this natural. They work excellent, especially with a mothership core. On HotS beta there are a couple of maps where you can only do a nexus wall and they are quite common.
If you don't believe me, try playing as toss vs a mid diamond or higher Zerg, and try to nexus wall while he goes roach ling all-in. I refer to the above.
Sure, you can hold it, Indeed you can.
but you become really limited in what you can do because of the threat of roach ling. You need to invest much more and run the risk of losing probes and even the nexus. As far as I'm concerned, it would be in your BEST interests to open up strategic viability by making as many strategies as viable as possible on your map. This natural design does not promote such an interest. Or you know, you can just have good forcefields and hold it. Roach/ling all ins can well be held with a nexus wall in. If you believe they cannot be held easily, you might want to play a game in master league as protoss and practice your forcefields. There have been numerous examples at the pro level where these all ins have been held convincingly and numerous example where people died to it, as it should be of course.
B) The third is even worse. If you really want 1 gas thirds to work, they have to be EXTREMELY easy to take and hold. Otherwise, there will be no real incentive for toss or zerg to take it. Zerg has it a bit easier since they can take the fourth as a far third, but still rough. To be frank though, with how open the third is and the fact that it's on the low ground makes not even a full base worth of that position. Make it a standard 8m 2g, and really choke it up, or expect 1-2 base play. I'll do no such thing, if you don't want it then take the other base, I'm pretty sure I'd personally almost always go for the other base as protoss coupled with quick blink and proper sim city.
And if we're going to be condescending about league. I feel obliged to point out that I don't believe in this whole 'third to far away for PvZ' thing that some people claim exists, maybe this exists in diamond or platinum where people do not have proper multitasking. Maybe it exists in master league as well for other players, but I never felt it. Back when Korhal compound was still in the ladder and PvZ was like my absolute worst matchup Korhal Compound was the only map for me with a positive PvZ winrate.
C) Poor lategame support. If a game does go to lategame, it will not last for very long. The designs of the fourths, fifths, and half bases don't really make any sense what so ever. They just seem as if they were placed there because you had room to do so. There really isn't a thought out position to put your army to cover lategame bases, while holding onto your main, natural and third. The only spot I could see a lategame army being would be at the half base, but forcing the armies to be that close together will essentially lead to aggression. Hence why I say why the lategame will not last long. In other words, one big engagement and game over. Where as on maps like Cloud Kingdom, lategame position is at the fourth and on the high ground around the fourth. Thus, when a lategame engagement takes place, there is still wiggle room to rebuild while the winner of the big engagement comes in for a counter attack. This map has no such wiggle room. You can split up your army you know?
Or wait, maybe you can't in at least diamond level PvZ, no idea?
In any case, the entire purpose of the layout and the layout of pretty much all my maps is to force one to split their army and maintain map awareness. Like I said before, I think CS is a good thing because it punishes bad positioning and splitting of armies by rapidly losing bases instead of allowing you to keep them by keeping your army in one ball. Korhal Compound had this to a lesser extend
D) Really bad usage of space. From this alone I can tell the layout was made in about 30mins to an hour, if not less. You did not put much thought into this map, and clearly just threw it together. I say this because the proportions and positions of the bases, pathways, and air gaps do not make any sense. The fourth is abnormally large, as if it were meant to support large battles. Yet you have that open area behind los blockers to defend? Things just don't connect. Additionally, you have these wide open areas around the third, fourth, and fifth while the middle and a few paths are a bit cramped.
The fifth is close to your opponents main Why is this a bad thing, can someone please finally tell me what makes CS bad. Surely you want to force peolpe to take bases close to their opponent so it creates tension and forces proper splitting of armies to defend them?
Overall, there isn't really anything I like about this map. There isn't any thing really neat about the map either, just plenty of "broken" things. What I mean is that there is nothing neat about neat ideas being poorly executed that ends up breaking balance. Furthermore, there is no doubt in my mind that this map layout was rushed, and as a result is very poorly executed. I think the general idea of the layout could be much, much stronger if you had better understand of flow, proportions, and the game in general. However, you are still quite new to mapmaking, so no harm done. The map layout actually went through a lot of iterations, I spent I think 4-ish weeks on this map (I make a lot of maps at the same time). Everything you see here has a purpose and I spent a lot of time moving choke points and ramps around, widening chokes or making them smaller.
Once again, I recommend you try and understand why standard maps work, and get really good and comfortable making those. Once you have a feel for proportions and flow of standard maps, then you can move on to messing with neat stuff such as half base thirds. However, if you are simply making these maps for fun games or aesthetic challenges, then by all means ignore me and my seemingly endless wall of rant. My apologies if I came across as a bit harsh, but some honesty was required. Cheers! You can be as harsh as you want. What I read can basically be summed up in oen sentence:
'this map makes it hard for me to defend bases, therefore I don't like it."
Am I right? That's basically the entire gist of your post, almost every point comes down to "It is hard to hold bases.", yes hard, difficult, skill ceiling. Ever noticed how most Korean maps make a lot harder to hold bases than most foreign maps?
I'm sorry if I come of condescending but I kind of feel condescending at the moment. I'm sorry but if you're diamond you have no clue of how this game works, hell, I won't profess to be a theorycrafting genius myself but I'll say that without a shadow of a doubt I understand this game far better than the average person on this forum.
This is exactly the thing with the foreign mapmaking community, they are around plat-diamond and almost all play Protoss. The philosophy that is very common is to make things as easy as possible in terms of holding space and bases. I go in the opposite direction, I want to make it very hard while encouraging aggression, not defensive play.
|
I would much rather like the map if the center of the map wasn't bridged and a single XWT placed in the center and the other ones removed because right now its neigh impossible to travel Nat to Nat without passing through the vision of a XWT. I believe this would lead to more agressive play vs Zerg. Also I believe it would lead to camping your army slightly further away from your base to cover more attack paths.
|
On February 02 2013 19:18 iTzSnypah wrote: I would much rather like the map if the center of the map wasn't bridged and a single XWT placed in the center and the other ones removed because right now its neigh impossible to travel Nat to Nat without passing through the vision of a XWT. I believe this would lead to more agressive play vs Zerg. Also I believe it would lead to camping your army slightly further away from your base to cover more attack paths. Yeah, I honestly contemplated if I wanted the entire map covered by two towers or not pretty long. I'll sooner remove the towers than remove the bridges though
|
Well, speaking as a mid-master who doesn't really care about catering a map to the meta game, I like it.
I'd much rather a map have its own meta than the map fit the meta.
|
On February 02 2013 19:31 InfCereal wrote:I'd much rather a map have its own meta than the map fit the meta. Honestly, I liked the game more back when you had to use a different strat for every single map. Maybe it was just because the game was new but I recall myself having a childlike enthusiasm for SC2 back in the days of mass void raying on scrap station simply because it was a strat that only worked on scrap station. Nowadays you can do the same strat on every single map and seeing the same opener every single game bores the hell out of me. I 11p every ZvP because everyone FFE's anyway.
Back then, expanding was a decision rather than a build order and I like that more. You would actually scout, check what your opponent was up to and then decide if it was safe to expand or not. I remember Husky having his usual stupid comments about why supposedly pros would FE so often while many of his viewers tended to die when they did that and he jabbered on about how their micro was so good that they could hold it or whatever. No smarty, they scouted and determined if it was safe to so.
Raises the skill ceiling of the game and all.
|
On February 02 2013 19:56 SiskosGoatee wrote: ...Nowadays you can do the same strat on every single map and seeing the same opener every single game bores the hell out of me. I 11p every ZvP because everyone FFE's anyway.
Back then, expanding was a decision rather than a build order and I like that more. You would actually scout, check what your opponent was up to and then decide if it was safe to expand or not...
This is a very good point. I just think there can be a balanced version of 'new' and this stretches it.
Now that imgur is working i can actually see that the third is a half node reducing its value by a bit.
And for the FFE, i just dont like nexus walling, ill admit bias.
EDIT: i also thought that was a ramp going from the XNT's platform down towards the nat, meaning i thought it was far more open.
|
Well hey, I don't like FFE or playing against FFE and I consider the strat the single greatest cancer to this game so I admit bias to make it as hard as possible. But then again, I in general don't like passive FE's so I design my naturals to discourage them.
|
Sexy map! I love the use of snow / "industrial" tileset you have going on. I also like the positioning of the Xel'Naga towers.
|
Reliable sources have told me that:
Is essentially a better version of my concept, thoughts?
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
On February 03 2013 20:13 SiskosGoatee wrote:Reliable sources have told me that: Is essentially a better version of my concept, thoughts?
I prefer your version of a third as it really isn't as hard to defend as people seem to be making out.
They can attack in one/two of three chokes which can be covered from pretty much one spot or walled.
|
Well, we discussed that, basically, my plan for the third was this:
In this case what makes the half third defensible isn't the chokedness but rather the amount the opponent has to walk around to attack it.
You can however deny that position on the high ground with say siege tanks or tempests on the pod next to it.
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
That sounds like a fine idea, what exactly is the problem, are people saying it's too easily defendable or too hard? I'm really confused by this entire situation, your one seems much better.
|
Reliable sources told me that my proportions are off.
Edit: All sardonism aside, I honestly have no idea. I still like my version more that's all I know and I feel it would lead to games which I personally find more interesting.
|
what is the other map? just another potential template you made? or someone else's
|
On February 03 2013 22:09 Fatam wrote: what is the other map? just another potential template you made? or someone else's Someone else's, I've been told it's a better version of my concept, truth be told I like it less and I'm a bit puzzled at what supposedly would make it 'better'. It seems to remove every bit of strategical complexity I planned for the map.
|
On February 03 2013 22:12 SiskosGoatee wrote: It seems to remove every bit of strategical complexity I planned for the map.
Can you elaborate on this?
|
Well one thing I don't like about the other template is that there are 2.75 bases incredibly close to each other (the clumps at 12 and 6 o'clock). I feel like that would make things very all-or-nothing.. e.g. your main is starting to mine out and you're able to get a 4th and 5th, with a 6th to be taken whenever you feel like it because the location is already secured.. or you're not able to expand, at all.
@ the third being impossible, I don't know, it's sort of open but it's a bit closer to your nat compared to something like daybreak's third that I think it wouldn't be so hard to hold. It is 6m1hyg, but I think that slight lessening of gas can be worked around. As P if you're not 2 base all-inning a zerg you might do some warp prism zealot harass which is all minerals, or maybe a DT harass expand into zealot archon. Or some other mineral-heavy strat since it's HOTS and we don't know everything yet. You do also save a bit on workers b/c you need less of them for full saturation.
|
On February 02 2013 20:59 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 19:56 SiskosGoatee wrote: ...Nowadays you can do the same strat on every single map and seeing the same opener every single game bores the hell out of me. I 11p every ZvP because everyone FFE's anyway.
Back then, expanding was a decision rather than a build order and I like that more. You would actually scout, check what your opponent was up to and then decide if it was safe to expand or not...
This is a very good point. I just think there can be a balanced version of 'new' and this stretches it. Now that imgur is working i can actually see that the third is a half node reducing its value by a bit. And for the FFE, i just dont like nexus walling, ill admit bias. EDIT: i also thought that was a ramp going from the XNT's platform down towards the nat, meaning i thought it was far more open. Then you'd hate BW hah
|
On February 03 2013 22:48 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 22:12 SiskosGoatee wrote: It seems to remove every bit of strategical complexity I planned for the map.
Can you elaborate on this? Sure:
- I'd planned for the catch about the half base to be that the attacker has to walk around a really long way to attack it unless they can walk over the high ground that is your natural, meaning that ascertaining or denying that position in some way becomes really important. It also gives the half base natural a pretty unique sense of defensibility.
- Half of the point of the design of the nat and that lowground area with the bushes is that you can run by an unsuspecting player who takes a bit too much of the forward natural position and feels too safe.
- The full third/fourth is meant to be in a more forward position that puts some pressure on your opponent as well as being blinkable/reaperable from the main
- The point of the top/bottom bases is that there's a lot of pressure on them depending on which bases are already taken by the opponent or allow you to put pressure on them
- The centre half bases are in a very forward position and therefore half, it is very easy for the opponent however to sneak upon the high ground above it if you're not careful and put pressure upon it.
- The removal of the CS means you aren't punished any more for not properly splitting up your army, you won't lose bases over it
And in all, the majority amount of the positional thought in the map has been killed. It's just become another map where you park your army on one hotkey around your main/nat to respond to any thing and taking certain positions and decisions about which expansions to take and through what avenue to attack and anticipating that really doesn't matter any more.
On February 04 2013 01:44 Pucca wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 20:59 Unsane wrote:On February 02 2013 19:56 SiskosGoatee wrote: ...Nowadays you can do the same strat on every single map and seeing the same opener every single game bores the hell out of me. I 11p every ZvP because everyone FFE's anyway.
Back then, expanding was a decision rather than a build order and I like that more. You would actually scout, check what your opponent was up to and then decide if it was safe to expand or not...
This is a very good point. I just think there can be a balanced version of 'new' and this stretches it. Now that imgur is working i can actually see that the third is a half node reducing its value by a bit. And for the FFE, i just dont like nexus walling, ill admit bias. EDIT: i also thought that was a ramp going from the XNT's platform down towards the nat, meaning i thought it was far more open. Then you'd hate BW hah Everyone hates walling in BW...
|
I strongly disagree that the second concept is better than the first.
However, I think your opponent would often know whether you have your 3rd or not before he moves out, eliminating the large loop around because you hold that high ground area (labelled defensive position in that pic). Also i feel an opponent would be foolish to just run straight to your nat, passing under XNT range. If he were smart, he'd secure the XNT first, and then it wouldnt really be a choice to attack your nat or your 3rd.
I guess that would punish brain dead players, to simply just try to attack underneath XNT range without checking it. Also presents the defender with some time to reassess what is coming towards his third if he holds the XNT. On that other map passing by the XNT isnt even a choice...thats something blizz would do
|
Maybe if siskos showed up his replays and how awesome he is, then maybe we would see the revelation on how to play that contradicts everything demonstrated for years by GSL pros. I'm sorry, but if you think an open nat and far away third are viable in PvZ then you are a complete and utter idiot.
|
On February 04 2013 07:39 lorestarcraft wrote: Maybe if siskos showed up his replays and how awesome he is, then maybe we would see the revelation on how to play that contradicts everything demonstrated for years by GSL pros. I'm sorry, but if you think an open nat and far away third are viable in PvZ then you are a complete and utter idiot. Lol, there is no such demonstration.
As an example, XNC was PvZ favoured. Jungle Basin was also massively PvZ favoured, metalopolis also always had a slight PvZ bias.
You're adroidly talking out of your proverbial butt, which is extremely common in the mapping scene, everyone is parroting maxims like 'Far away third bad for PvZ', 'Big maps are bad for Terran.', 'Chokes are good for Protoss' but not a single piece of evidence is ever offered. I'm willing to bet 90% of people here would've expected crossfire to be hell for Z, but it didn't turn out that way now did it?
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
On February 04 2013 07:39 lorestarcraft wrote: Maybe if siskos showed up his replays and how awesome he is, then maybe we would see the revelation on how to play that contradicts everything demonstrated for years by GSL pros. I'm sorry, but if you think an open nat and far away third are viable in PvZ then you are a complete and utter idiot.
Cool, I didn't realise GSL pros had been playing HoTS for years :p
That maps published in HoTS. Toss have a much better early game defense.
|
You cite imbalance independent of maps in a former metagame era... and anyway XNC and Jungle Basin were just bad maps for zerg, it has nothing to do with the protoss natural or 3rd.
|
I was the mysterious helper behind the second map Siskos posted here:
On February 03 2013 20:13 SiskosGoatee wrote:Reliable sources have told me that: Is essentially a better version of my concept, thoughts? Would just like to clarify something real quick. I was essentially trying to demonstrate to Siskos how better proportions can lead to a stronger concept and better execution, and I was not really trying to fix this map itself. Secondly, I was working off of the first version of the map that he provided me with, as seen here: + Show Spoiler + He mentioned how the middle didn't work on the original version because it wast too cramped for Zerg. Thus, I thought it would be a good opportunity to demonstrate how good proportions can lead to a concept being stronger and more balanced, so I redid that layout instead of the layout posted in the OP. As you can see, my version is much more similar to the original layout he gave me than the current layout in the OP. Sorry for any confusion.
With that said, my version and the current layout in the OP are different conceptually as Siskos has pointed out. However, if the proportions were better on the current layout, the concept would be much stronger, cleaner, and probably more balanced.
|
On February 04 2013 08:54 EatThePath wrote: You cite imbalance independent of maps in a former metagame era... What maps exist 'in this era' that don't follow the same trite template except Icarus? Supposedly people moved away from 'that era' because the maps wre imbalanced with little statistical evidence to back it up.
and anyway XNC and Jungle Basin were just bad maps for zerg, it has nothing to do with the protoss natural or 3rd. It means everything, because according to the theory some people subscribe to a far away third would automatically make a map good for Zerg, apparently it doesn't work like that. Also, XNC was like 55% PvZ or something.
Let's face it, this whole theory some people subscribe to is a bunch of theorycraft concocted by a bunch of people who never offered a shred of evidence to back it up. Add to this the fact that there is a definite Protoss bias going on, it's definitely time to re-asses a lot of the theorycraft people have come to believe in due to the parroting effect that was never proven.
On February 04 2013 08:59 Timetwister22 wrote:I was the mysterious helper behind the second map Siskos posted here: Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 20:13 SiskosGoatee wrote:Reliable sources have told me that: Is essentially a better version of my concept, thoughts? Would just like to clarify something real quick. I was essentially trying to demonstrate to Siskos how better proportions can lead to a stronger concept and better execution, and I was not really trying to fix this map itself. Secondly, I was working off of the first version of the map that he provided me with, as seen here: + Show Spoiler +He mentioned how the middle didn't work on the original version because it wast too cramped for Zerg. Thus, I thought it would be a good opportunity to demonstrate how good proportions can lead to a concept being stronger and more balanced, so I redid that layout instead of the layout posted in the OP. As you can see, my version is much more similar to the original layout he gave me than the current layout in the OP. Sorry for any confusion. With that said, my version and the current layout in the OP are different conceptually as Siskos has pointed out. However, if the proportions were better on the current layout, the concept would be much stronger, cleaner, and probably more balanced. Maybe, maybe not, I won't profess to be able to theorycraft balance to that extent before playtesting and I don't believe it is possible unless you're a wizard, ultimately we take a shot in the dark to some extent with balance. Personally though, I like the proportions of my version better and I feel they more set out to create the game I want to see. If you like yours more that's fine.
Like I iterated before I do not think the opinions of others are invalid, the only opinion I think is invalid is thinking that some opinions are invalid, as in, thinking there is such a thing as an objectively good or bad map..
If you think a map I absolutely dislike like Ohana is good or you like playing on it, that'sfine, that doesn 't mean you understand the game less or whatever, it just means you like to see different games. I personally like games that feature a lot of multi pronged aggression and slugfests with expansions dying left and right, Ohana doesn't offer me that, if you don't like those kinds of games. Your opinion is as valid as mine, but I do take offence if you claim that I, or anyone, does not 'understand' StarCraft just because they like to see different games than anyone else.
|
Objectively bad map: 64x64 flat ground with starting locations within creep of each other.
Games that you play on ladder have little bearing on whether a map is good or not.
|
On February 04 2013 09:35 EatThePath wrote: Objectively bad map: 64x64 flat ground with starting locations within creep of each other.
Games that you play on ladder have little bearing on whether a map is good or not. Not even that is objectively bad, you can objectively say that that map is going to lead to ridiculous early aggression yes. But if ridiculous early aggression is a bad or good thing is subjective. Of course, 99% of people doesn't like those games. But that doesn't make the 1% that does like them any more wrong than the 1% people enjoying old B movies with horrible special effects are wrong.
|
It is objectively bad for competition.
|
On February 04 2013 10:02 EatThePath wrote: It is objectively bad for competition. You can argue that competition objectively requires fair balance of races yes. Balance can be argued to be objective, but that even balance or fair comeptition is a good thing is quite subjective.
Most tournaments disagree by the way, single elimination isn't fair, it's bad for competition in that sense. It doesn't take a brain to realize the fairest tournament will always be a round robin where you aren't told how well the other players are doing. But that's not good for spectatorship because viewers don't like to know it's over until the end of the tournament lest they switch off the stream. So in that sense tournaments care more about spectacle than the fair spirit of competition (candy handout charity foreigner seeds lol).
So yes, in that sense, I would say that most people don't think, deep inside, that fair competition is the highest ideal as most people would hate to see a pure round robin tournament because of spectacle, and in that, their opinion isn't more right or wrong than people who like to see games on shrinkage purely for the spectacle of it even though shrinkage is probably heavily Terran favoured.
|
In this thread sisko has some good arguments. A lot of the jargon/reasoning thrown around this forum really is based on very little to no evidence, and once everyone hears someone "respected" say it, they perpetuate the myth by repeating it in all the relevant locations.
I think part of the problem is that people, at times, let their personal feelings get in the way of reasoning in arguments or correctly judging maps. For instance, a lot of people on this forum don't like sisko (which I can understand, sometimes he likes the sight of his own writing too much :-P), so they go into his map threads determined not to like the map, or they put it under the microscope more than they might another person's map. It reminds me of all the stories where the town drunk foreshadows what is going to happen.. he's warning them inbetween drunken songs or mumbled ramblings but they all ignore him because he's the town drunk, so he must not have a clue what he's talking about :-P The moral of the story being: judge the arguments (or maps) by their merits, not by the person making them.
|
On February 04 2013 11:20 Fatam wrote: In this thread sisko has some good arguments. A lot of the jargon/reasoning thrown around this forum really is based on very little to no evidence, and once everyone hears someone "respected" say it, they perpetuate the myth by repeating it in all the relevant locations.
I think part of the problem is that people, at times, let their personal feelings get in the way of reasoning in arguments or correctly judging maps. For instance, a lot of people on this forum don't like sisko (which I can understand, sometimes he likes the sight of his own writing too much :-P), so they go into his map threads determined not to like the map, or they put it under the microscope more than they might another person's map. It reminds me of all the stories where the town drunk foreshadows what is going to happen.. he's warning them inbetween drunken songs or mumbled ramblings but they all ignore him because he's the town drunk, so he must not have a clue what he's talking about :-P The moral of the story being: judge the arguments (or maps) by their merits, not by the person making them. I agree! I only argue when sisko is quite wrong.
|
That's why we always argue.
Anyhow, it's published now, managed to fix the editor. In case anyone wonders who still can't publish, in the editor preferences under 'general' you can change the region, set it to HotS beta and it works.
Also, they just hate me because I'm beautiful.
|
On February 04 2013 08:52 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 07:39 lorestarcraft wrote: Maybe if siskos showed up his replays and how awesome he is, then maybe we would see the revelation on how to play that contradicts everything demonstrated for years by GSL pros. I'm sorry, but if you think an open nat and far away third are viable in PvZ then you are a complete and utter idiot. Cool, I didn't realise GSL pros had been playing HoTS for years :p That maps published in HoTS. Toss have a much better early game defense. Because air units are made early and control space
|
|
On February 04 2013 16:55 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 19:56 SiskosGoatee wrote:On February 02 2013 19:31 InfCereal wrote:I'd much rather a map have its own meta than the map fit the meta. Honestly, I liked the game more back when you had to use a different strat for every single map. Maybe it was just because the game was new but I recall myself having a childlike enthusiasm for SC2 back in the days of mass void raying on scrap station simply because it was a strat that only worked on scrap station. Nowadays you can do the same strat on every single map and seeing the same opener every single game bores the hell out of me. I 11p every ZvP because everyone FFE's anyway. Back then, expanding was a decision rather than a build order and I like that more. You would actually scout, check what your opponent was up to and then decide if it was safe to expand or not. I remember Husky having his usual stupid comments about why supposedly pros would FE so often while many of his viewers tended to die when they did that and he jabbered on about how their micro was so good that they could hold it or whatever. No smarty, they scouted and determined if it was safe to so. Raises the skill ceiling of the game and all. I still tailor my builds to the type of map and the build that I expect my opponent is likely/unlikely to use. Certain maps are good for pressure as Protoss for different reasons in different match-ups, and some are better for turtling in different match-ups. If you're as "good" as you claim to be, you'd realise that... Making a bad map because you want it to have its own meta is silly. People just won't play the map, because they don't want to have to make time for it. Oh please, link me a single recent PvZ game that didn't start with a forge FE. I'm pretty sure if you ported those protoss players to XNC they wouldn't forge FE.
You barely can get around forge FE any more these days, maps force it because a single spine stops any and all pressure.
|
On February 04 2013 09:35 EatThePath wrote: Objectively bad map: 64x64 flat ground with starting locations within creep of each other.
Games that you play on ladder have little bearing on whether a map is good or not. OMG just imagining the meta on such kind of map is awesome, basically you don't want to attack, since than the opponent might have an extra drone a bit later, so this would lead that both will drone up until they saturate, or maybe before that time you will get a few drones to try and reduce the enemy mining time. I would love to see decent players seriously try to figure such a map out Of course it would get boring fast, but 2-3 games on it should be really unique and cool.
|
On February 04 2013 16:55 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 19:56 SiskosGoatee wrote:On February 02 2013 19:31 InfCereal wrote:I'd much rather a map have its own meta than the map fit the meta. Honestly, I liked the game more back when you had to use a different strat for every single map. Maybe it was just because the game was new but I recall myself having a childlike enthusiasm for SC2 back in the days of mass void raying on scrap station simply because it was a strat that only worked on scrap station. Nowadays you can do the same strat on every single map and seeing the same opener every single game bores the hell out of me. I 11p every ZvP because everyone FFE's anyway. Back then, expanding was a decision rather than a build order and I like that more. You would actually scout, check what your opponent was up to and then decide if it was safe to expand or not. I remember Husky having his usual stupid comments about why supposedly pros would FE so often while many of his viewers tended to die when they did that and he jabbered on about how their micro was so good that they could hold it or whatever. No smarty, they scouted and determined if it was safe to so. Raises the skill ceiling of the game and all. I still tailor my builds to the type of map and the build that I expect my opponent is likely/unlikely to use. Certain maps are good for pressure as Protoss for different reasons in different match-ups, and some are better for turtling in different match-ups. If you're as "good" as you claim to be, you'd realise that... Making a bad map because you want it to have its own meta is silly. People just won't play the map, because they don't want to have to make time for it.
Imagine if players needed more than one build.
|
On February 04 2013 17:06 moskonia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 09:35 EatThePath wrote: Objectively bad map: 64x64 flat ground with starting locations within creep of each other.
Games that you play on ladder have little bearing on whether a map is good or not. OMG just imagining the meta on such kind of map is awesome, basically you don't want to attack, since than the opponent might have an extra drone a bit later, so this would lead that both will drone up until they saturate, or maybe before that time you will get a few drones to try and reduce the enemy mining time. I would love to see decent players seriously try to figure such a map out Of course it would get boring fast, but 2-3 games on it should be really unique and cool. But ZvT and ZvP would be completely imba.
|
Sigh. I'm going to ignore your blatant ignorance of FFE (from why it's better to why it is not the reason PvZ is awful) to your poor understanding as to why Protoss match ups are a mess in general, and even why half bases do the opposite of what you want them to do, simply for the sake of discussion. Basically, I'm going to assume that you can FFE and hold a third in PvZ on this map.
That being said it's a Daybreak clo- actually it's an Abyssal City clone. =( It's uncanny. Yeah, the centre, chokes, and routs are different but I don't think it's different enough. =( It's enough to be a mod of a map but a different map in total would be up to debate.
|
On February 05 2013 04:59 Drake Merrwin wrote: Sigh. I'm going to ignore your blatant ignorance of FFE (from why it's better to why it is not the reason PvZ is awful) to your poor understanding as to why Protoss match ups are a mess in general, and even why half bases do the opposite of what you want them to do, simply for the sake of discussion. Basically, I'm going to assume that you can FFE and hold a third in PvZ on this map. Son, this is a hots map, you know that FFE happens on Howling peak in Hots right? The assertion that you cannot nexus wall in HotS is bull.shit because it happens. It's also bullshit in Wings because it happened all the time on Antiga and many people choose to nexus wall even on Ohana for stylistic reasons.
If you seriously think nexus walls aren't viable in either game then you don't understand FFE yourself.
That being said it's a Daybreak clo- actually it's an Abyssal City clone. =( It's uncanny. Yeah, the centre, chokes, and routs are different but I don't think it's different enough. =( It's enough to be a mod of a map but a different map in total would be up to debate. While it isn't as unusual in its topology as some of the maps I made with half inbase naturals or two different naturals or whatever. It's not a daybreak clone because it doesn't give you a single choke to your third that is 2-3 forcefields wide. It gives you no 1 forcefield wide chokes to your half third.
Natural design does look a bit like Abyssal City though, except that Abyssal City again uses that single choke while I opted for many smaller chokes which change the dynamic.
|
On February 05 2013 04:59 Drake Merrwin wrote:Sigh. I'm going to ignore your blatant ignorance of FFE (from why it's better to why it is not the reason PvZ is awful) to your poor understanding as to why Protoss match ups are a mess in general, and even why half bases do the opposite of what you want them to do, simply for the sake of discussion. Basically, I'm going to assume that you can FFE and hold a third in PvZ on this map. That being said it's a Daybreak clo- actually it's an Abyssal City clone. =( It's uncanny. Yeah, the centre, chokes, and routs are different but I don't think it's different enough. =( It's enough to be a mod of a map but a different map in total would be up to debate.
While the broad layout may be fairly similar to another map (im willing to bet almost every map has a 'sister' map), the engagements themselves should look quite different. The 'finer' layout is very different. The XNTs hold more purpose than to simply look at the center of the map. The half nodes toward the middle of the map are actually in the middle of the map, not hugged up against the main.
EDIT: instantly, a huge difference id see in PvZ is an immortal all in would need to expend twice the FFs to push into the nat and that strat needs to eat shit and die.
|
Sentry/immortal all in is pretty dead in HotS.
Apart from that the natural design does look a bit like Abyssal in some way. Apart from that the only resemblance it has to Abyssal is the amount of bases, like that's literally the only other thing.
|
On February 05 2013 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: Sentry/immortal all in is pretty dead in HotS.
Apart from that the natural design does look a bit like Abyssal in some way. Apart from that the only resemblance it has to Abyssal is the amount of bases, like that's literally the only other thing.
Touche, watching too much WOL pro stuff lately where immortal allin is still a very large threat. (even though i cant specifically recall a game where its been used recently).
You have no reason to worry about it looking like abyssal. Just from the overview pictures, Abyssal's playable area looks to be half as small as this one's. If you were to double or halve any map's proportions you'd have an entirely different map, imagine even steppes of war at double the size (excluding ofc main ramp and maybe nat ramp), it'd be a completely different map. I can recall IdrA doing a hydra-spine push on steppes with ovie creep spread(i THINK in beta), now imagine that same push on something like taldarim (assuming cross spawns, or any other map), wouldn't work.
|
It's not even proportions, the entire layout of the map is different. The only remote resemblance is the natural design and the base count. Via that argument Cloud Kingdom and Daybreak are very similar.
|
On February 05 2013 13:36 SiskosGoatee wrote: Sentry/immortal all in is pretty dead in HotS. Hmm...Did Blizzard change anything that I did not hear of? Because there are no new ways to counter the Immortal Sentry all in for all I know.
Just because it might not be used, does not mean its not usable.
|
There are plenty of new ways, such as swarmhosts, in HotS gasless third is also uncommon and roach/hydra is far easier to get to which crushes it. Burrow at hatch tech also helps of course.
You just almost never see it any more and the few times I saw it I beat it without much preparation because in HotS, at least for me. Roach/hydra into roach/hydra viper is very common and roach hydra just beats it. The addition of the viper makes a roach/hydra midgame army more viable because roach/hydra/viper works a lot better than roach/hydra/corruptor versus colossi to the point that I'm seeing a lot of Protoss players go more zealot/ht like styles versus Zerg now because vipers are pretty useless against that and templar can feedback them anyway. Apart from that the major hindrance to zealot/ht in Pvz has always been fungal being brutal on melee units but infestors are some-what out of use now in HotS.
|
So I had a couple of ZvT's against mech which was kind of interesting because the expansion layout at all didn't go how I expected:
Which is honestly pretty cool. Like how a lot of Terrans on CK nowadays take the other base as their fourth as a staging point to attack Z's fourth. I like it when people really think about which expos to take.
|
Hmm, before now I look at this map and said (unconsciously) "its a siskos' map, so it sucks" (no offense ), and so it seemed like a horrible map from the overview to me, but after looking at it again while trying not to have a prejudice opinion on it, I think it could be play out really nice, but the only thing I hope you reconsider is the amount of expansion, it is simply too low. Having a low amount of bases does not add options, while it removes possible lategame option.
To see a game where all the bases are mined out is pretty bummer, unless its like a 1 hour game or so. I understand why you made the map to have few bases, but I think that having at least one more base would make for better games that reach the lategame.
I might not have seen it in the thread, but I wonder if anyone suggested making the half natural a full base and than adding a half base (I think a proper location for one would be between the red 3 and 5 bases), this would make it possible to get to the lategame while still not allowing to turtle too easily. I see no real reason for the 3 red to be a half base, since its very open and not in a forward position..
I personally don't really mind the hard FFE, since I barely do it anymore, but i hope its still possible to do it, because removing options is bad. I think people forget that this is HotS, and therefore it should still be pretty easy to defend a roach ling all in, although a mass of early slow or speed lings should be pretty hard to stop (since it hard to wall).
If you want I would love to have a game on the map, just join the Melee Mapmakers group's chat and we can play.
|
On February 04 2013 17:02 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 16:55 Sated wrote:On February 02 2013 19:56 SiskosGoatee wrote:On February 02 2013 19:31 InfCereal wrote:I'd much rather a map have its own meta than the map fit the meta. Honestly, I liked the game more back when you had to use a different strat for every single map. Maybe it was just because the game was new but I recall myself having a childlike enthusiasm for SC2 back in the days of mass void raying on scrap station simply because it was a strat that only worked on scrap station. Nowadays you can do the same strat on every single map and seeing the same opener every single game bores the hell out of me. I 11p every ZvP because everyone FFE's anyway. Back then, expanding was a decision rather than a build order and I like that more. You would actually scout, check what your opponent was up to and then decide if it was safe to expand or not. I remember Husky having his usual stupid comments about why supposedly pros would FE so often while many of his viewers tended to die when they did that and he jabbered on about how their micro was so good that they could hold it or whatever. No smarty, they scouted and determined if it was safe to so. Raises the skill ceiling of the game and all. I still tailor my builds to the type of map and the build that I expect my opponent is likely/unlikely to use. Certain maps are good for pressure as Protoss for different reasons in different match-ups, and some are better for turtling in different match-ups. If you're as "good" as you claim to be, you'd realise that... Making a bad map because you want it to have its own meta is silly. People just won't play the map, because they don't want to have to make time for it. Oh please, link me a single recent PvZ game that didn't start with a forge FE. I'm pretty sure if you ported those protoss players to XNC they wouldn't forge FE. You barely can get around forge FE any more these days, maps force it because a single spine stops any and all pressure.
Lure vs Jaedong game 1 on Bel'shir Vestige and game 2 on Whirlwind. Lure opens with Gate-Core-Nexus as opposed to FFE. He opened with the Gate-Core-Nexus build as opposed to FFE because he knew the long rush distances would hinder Jaedong from doing a roach/ling attack (something that can be hard to hold as a Protoss, especially if they do a 2-base version of this).
|
|
there's a couple similarities but I'd say it's not that similar overall, the middle especially is completely different
|
This map is as close to Abyssal City as Korhal Compound is to Ohana. Same amount of bases, vaguely similar natural design, that's it.
|
On February 07 2013 12:54 DreadLocK wrote: Abyssal City much lol This idea has already been brought up and discussed in this thread.
|
On February 07 2013 20:14 Unsane wrote:This idea has already been brought up and discussed in this thread. Surely that it has been brought up twice independently strengthens the idea? Can't be a coincidence if two people notice the similarity now can it?
Apart from the natural design the maps aren't too similar strictly. But one may observe that they have the same amount of bases and both feature heavy circle syndrome, though this map potentially features some of the highest amount of CS ever even topping dual site.
|
The similarity with Abyssal City is mostly because the third is vertical to the natural, and the natural to the main, besides the lefix ramp that separates the third from the center of the map and connect the third to the natural AND the texturing of the map (Abyssal city uses the same level texturing), Other than that the map as many differences.
I like this map, even tho it's yours j/k, i haven`t played on it, but for what i see it would play very standarish, Nexus FFE or gate FE both can be done on the map, but gate FE has preference.
I would like to know if you have played ZvZ and ZvT on the map and where the creep reaches, and if a Zerg can place a wall in the choke that's located behind the vespene geisers, that way it would be easier do defend the mineral line from hellions/banelings and stuff (you already know this), so yeah, that's my question can you build a wall there?
These bridges... i see what you did there little smart fucker...
|
On February 07 2013 22:55 Uvantak wrote: I would like to know if you have played ZvZ and ZvT on the map and where the creep reaches, and if a Zerg can place a wall in the choke that's located behind the vespene geisers, that way it would be easier do defend the mineral line from hellions/banelings and stuff (you already know this), so yeah, that's my question can you build a wall there? Yap, all races can wall the back of that with either 2x2 or 3x3 buildings, there's also a beautiful bunker spot.
It's a strong map for good creep spread I give you that, my creep spread is pretty good and I tend to be able to spread creep on this map almost into the natural when T takes the half third, they can't really take the forward third against it. Creep spread might be a little op on this map. Maybe I should make the bridges creep blockers
These bridges... i see what you did there little smart fucker... I don't, explain?
There are no Lefix ramps on this map by the way, true lefix ramps are a bit different.
|
The bridges, i was puzzled of how you did them, i have been trying to use the zhakuldas light bridges on some of my wip maps and trying to use them is hell, but thanks to the bridges that your map has i think that by tweaking the zhakul bridges and mergin them with these other bridges i think i will be able to use them just fine ^^
The ramp in connecting the third to the center of the map, yeah that's a lefix ramp only a tad wider. Aren`t you worried about having a as you say "beautiful bunker spot" just behind a mineral line knowing that it could become a problem, and the map could become nothing more than a 2rax bunkerfest in TvZ? I wouldn't be worried about the creep, since it's the non zerg player up to harass and kill the creep tumors and stuff, it's obvious that if the zerg remains unharased his creep and macro will go out of control, as i said i wouldn't worry about that
|
On February 07 2013 20:14 Unsane wrote:This idea has already been brought up and discussed in this thread.
I didn't read the other comments in the thread because I don't care what other people have to say. That includes you.
|
Damn tiger, are we feeling a little tough?
|
On February 09 2013 20:45 DreadLocK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 20:14 Unsane wrote:On February 07 2013 12:54 DreadLocK wrote: Abyssal City much lol This idea has already been brought up and discussed in this thread. I didn't read the other comments in the thread because I don't care what other people have to say. That includes you. Please, by all means, let everyone know exactly how valuable your opinion is.
|
On February 09 2013 20:45 DreadLocK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 20:14 Unsane wrote:On February 07 2013 12:54 DreadLocK wrote: Abyssal City much lol This idea has already been brought up and discussed in this thread. I didn't read the other comments in the thread because I don't care what other people have to say. That includes you. Shouldn't this reward in a warning?
|
The true nazi mods don't visit this forum man. It's amazing how civil this forum tends to stay despite the fact that the mighty templar in the order of the banhammer seldom visit this dark crypt.
|
On February 10 2013 01:22 SiskosGoatee wrote: The true nazi mods don't visit this forum man. It's amazing how civil this forum tends to stay despite the fact that the mighty templar in the order of the banhammer seldom visit this dark crypt. I strongly disagree with the use of the "nazi" word, because its sensitive to me, but otherwise yeah, map makers are pretty civil ^^, even though sometimes arguments get bad from time to time, but never too much.
|
Well, I guess it's a running joke, I'm pretty sure most mods call themselves that these days. I should've probably known better to use that word against someone from Israel I guess.
|
|
|
|