| ShaManT | | |
k it has a good concept but it looks plain. toss needs more room to flank terrans. and also you can subtitute the temple buildings into high dirt and add wider ramps.
and make blue's expansion easier to defend for zerg and terran. and you can clutter the water a bit, you know, it makes it look good. |
| ShaManT | | |
| click on GMCS for more details |
| flothefreak | | |
| the overall arrangement causes trouble for positional balance. remaking the map slightly rotated would make your life easier^^ |
| inept | | |
| reminds me of a more complicated paranoid android with mineral only to the center instead of sides |
| majorgamer | | |
| I like it. Something new :) |
| AiurZ | | |
| updated the mineral positions to be more convenient and decorated it some. |
| the dentist | | |
| good concept (should have more maps this general idea), but very early level of deco |
| flothefreak | | |
| *and execution |
| the dentist | | |
| how would you like me to go through every map you have on this site and rudely demean your abilities personally? |
| flothefreak | | |
| i'd have no problem with that because i usually judge for myself which comments have truth in them and which not. i am no 12-year-old-kiddie. i am self-confident enough to deal with it. and it is just a fact that this concept is badly executed, and you won't be able to blandish it. |
| the dentist | | |
| too bad your massive barrage of negative comments are not only to the point of being rude but are completely useless to someone trying to improve their maps. they are of the usefulness equivalent and sensitivity equivalent of insults. |
| the dentist | | |
| in fact, behaving like you would amount to spam on this site. maybe you are a spam bot on this site set up to drive people out with uselessness and rudeness. |
| flothefreak | | |
| don't make too much out of two words just giving away a fact ^_^ |
| AiurZ | | |
"i'd have no problem with that because i usually judge for myself which comments have truth in them and which not. i am no 12-year-old-kiddie. i am self-confident enough to deal with it. and it is just a fact that this concept is badly executed, and you won't be able to blandish it."
your general behavior on this site is hardly what i would classify under a category that wasnt entitled childish; but its not like i expect much from people over the internet.
if you want to try to refute my point, simply look to any of your comments towards mosq or his maps.
your level of criticism is essentially so shallow and on the surface that it would be akin to a movie critic saying "uh the movie had characters" or a literary analyst remarking "this book used punctuation."
as some somewhat paternal advice, you should stop thinking and acting like you are some kind of gods gift to mapping, and think about what drives a community and what furthers its cause.
ill give a hint: "delete this map" isnt it. |
| flothefreak | | |
i only bitch with mosq because he started it at the very beginning. and my suggestions to delete maps only hit when i see a map which i don't consider working at all, conceptwise. note that i never told you to delete THIS mapm, i only criticized the execution. i started with this "deleting comments" as panschk told us there is not much webspace left for the site. so maps with a non-working concept fill only the webspace, which should be obvious to everyone.
before this post by panschk, i just ignored those maps and didn't say anything, because they wouldn't do harm to anyone.
and the fact that my comments in the last time are rather short doesn't make them shallow or superficial. i used to write long comments some time ago, like in LGIs maps. now i don't any more. dunno why, i just changed and only rarely post such long ones.
considering my comment on this map:
"the overall arrangement causes trouble for positional balance. remaking the map slightly rotated would make your life easier"
what is shallow about it, tell me. i just says that the positional balancing is damaged by the structure of the map, which is obvious and clear to anyone. so i say you'd be better off with rotating it, so your concept isn't screwed by some unawareness while starting the map.
plus, there are some race-imbalances (imo) and things damaging the gameplay. but i won't comment those until i see a positional balanced version, because only through that it would make sense to improve the map. changing anything race-balancewise on the current state doesn't make sense, if the pos. balancing doesn't work anyway.
and before you try to get me with the "short shallow stupid stuff"-argument: look at the other comments in this mapthread first and tell me in what sense they've more content for the map. they weren't really longer or making more sense.
only shamant at the beginning gave a slightly longer advice - but i don't see, as pointed out, any sense in changing the map in little details (as shamant wrote) as long as the structure isn't rotated.
the only difference between me and the others is that i don't hesitate to say shortly and clearly what is bad about a map. not even to me. i actually remaked "jungle raid" about 10 times until i managed to get a decent pos. balanced version - which was very hard with this mainbase/naturalsetup. it was horrible to find a structure and location and shape of mainbases/natutals where the distances and wideness of the paths fit altogether. esp. when considering the fact that a map is "larger vertically" than horizontally.
i just expect from others what i expect from me. working all over and over again. until you reach your personal limits. but those don't stop before just rotating a map. i bet you could do this. really. and that is the first large step you must take to make out of this a good map.
here you have my short comment above explained eloquently. are you satisfied? i hope so, it did cost enough time, too much time if you even aren't willing to put this effort into this map. |
(2)Castle RockCastle Rock(n).jpg)
