BWMN Time

04/27/2024

06:28

Map Access

Forum - main

MOTM 6 page: 1 2
NastyMarine	TOTM Testbug's of the Month
2008, 07, 28 23:15
NastyMarine	dont redo battlegrounds.
2008, 07, 28 23:16
NastyMarine	for the record. I dont dislike your version but the mere fact that it retained all necessary votes and still lost after tons of edits is just perplexing. I wont ever agree with it at all. I didnt make radical edits, I made nerfing edits and fixed all issues.
2008, 07, 28 23:18
Nightmarjoo	Battlegrounds imo could benefit a lot from a redo, lemme find the post I made about it. From this thread: "Hey Testbug, do you think you could either edit or remake BattleGrounds? I think the map has a lot of little things which could be improved on, though I think the map is solid as is. The mains are imo badly shaped, the main2nat distance is too long, the nats could use some work and be moved closer to the mains to allow a larger center, then the nat backdoor path thing would need some modification. The nat/min only formations need improved. Other things need modified imo for the middle to be wider, I'm concerned tvp is too easy on the map despite the alternate paths and high harass potential. Some ramps probably need to be enlarged, and I don't know if those inverts are the best kind or not. I think all around there are places where space is either unused or badly/inefficiently used, particularly the highground paths on the sides, and the corners. I don't think the two highground ramps should be so close to eachother either (where the rocky ground is, between the two plateaus). A lot if not all of these things could be fixed with modification, but I think given the work involved it'd be easier to just remake the map, and perhaps you'd find while editing it that some things can't be fixed without remaking it" Nick, for the record: I don't dislike your map, I just got the impression that you were done with editing the map, and Testbug was quite willing to step up and take a whack at it. The biggest "issues" I came up with while reviewing your map for the motm news post, was that it's just way too poor. The fact that's so open helps a lot, but it needs another expo. The two gas expos offer nothing more than the other, by that I mean there's no strategical advantage to take one over the other, they're both far from you, both have about the same size choke; there should be bonuses and minuses to each expo, imo. And imo there needs to be another expansion. I like testbug's version, because it retains the other expo, but reconfigures the middle so that the expo is down instead of to the right (top right's expo) the way it was before you removed it. That's the biggest changes, but there are many other little things which I would really want worked on, but you didn't appear willing to put that much time into the map. I know you're busy and that bwm doesn't play a big part of your life at all, but it's a shame to go halfway and not finish it; Testbug was nice enough to go the full distance and just remake the map entirely, keeping in mind your map, spines' map, and spines' original concept, while keeping an open mind to all other suggestions. For how you lost, Spinel 2.0 would've beaten Crackling's Voices. You put more time into the map, and Voices while being basic and simple, and thus probably fine, offered nothing special, and needed a lot of work, similarly to Spinel 2.0. However, testbug put the work into Voices, and the end result was impressive, all things considered. If it was Spinel 3.0 vs Voices 4, Spinel 3.0 would probably win. Given the same amount of time/effort/consideration, Spinel imo comes out to be the better map (testing will show). You should've won motm6, and could've if you had worked more on spinel. Voices4 has replays, Spinel 2.0 really doesn't. That alone makes a big difference. It's not just me pulling strings here as I think you assume: if you look at the comments I was giving Voices and Voices2, basically none of that appears in 3 and 4. Lots of edits =! complete. Lots of edits is just something every map requires basically. No map wouldn't benefit from modifications. I could improve every single Starparty map, but that certainly doesn't mean they're bad. But if it came down to, an improved Starparty map, and an unmodified 2004 Starparty map, despite the latter being quite gosu, the former would win.
2008, 07, 29 01:03
Grief_Stricken	in your place i won't swing the scepter like this.firstly because not evry changing on a map is automatically an improvement.and secondly,and that's very important - when you try to improve a map u have to preserve the original feeling/note in it,also the gameplay.besides i dont think the site needs x versions from a map.however if u fall in love with a map & the author allows you an upgrade it's fine.but starting to cobble on a large-scale older maps is what this site really don't need.this is the opposite of being creative! if you can't resist do this for your own collection,but don't spam the site.. battlegrounds2.3 is already improved by arden.what u wanna do on it,add some doodads?lol the mains can be better - give me a break!u talking about bits and boobs.for an 0,5 % upgrade - that's not reason enough!it's like i_terran „improved" once luna;nearly nothing.btw,testbug should fix firstly his own maps - look odissey;i have my doubts whoever made these mains would be able to improve the ones on battlgrounds. but you know what nasty?if he's really so in love with this map allow him to make a version of the original map,id 972.to give us a new perspective about it.to cobble on arden's version it just laughable - it's already a version of a previous map! oh and btw nmjoo,if you support this kind of pseudo-mapping let him improve your own maps.i'm sure he will have alot to do for a long time.
2008, 07, 30 00:32
Nightmarjoo	Most of my maps are so terrible or have such a poor concept that you can't remake the map, or that remaking and improving the map would be of little merit. BattleGrounds2.3 is not perfect, it could be better. If TSL2 is our aim, we can't stop with "good enough", but have to leap to "great". BattleGrounds2.3 is a good map already, but I'm saying with more work it can be even better. The little things matter. The best pro maps were probably already "good" in their first beta versions, but they certainly weren't promap quality yet. For TSL2, we're trying to get as close to promap quality as we can, every little possible fix is important. Now, it doesn't have to be testbug who makes these edits, but if he is willing and the original author is either inactive, or doesn't want to do it themselves, why not let Testbug do it?
2008, 07, 30 01:58
starparty
2008, 07, 30 03:07
Testbug	yeah like (2)Romanov Sanctum 2.0 is almost the same as original (2)Romanov Sanctum but you felt in love with that map. modified by Testbug
2008, 07, 30 03:36
Grief_Stricken	that was close.a comparison velocity - velocity ba fits better in this case.i suppose that is what u looking for.on romanov sanctum 2.0 i spend more work than your untrained eyes may notice.if i will put all changes that i make on rs 2.0 in a shedule you won't believe your eyes.i complete that map because it was in my eyes unfinished,and btw arden like all the changes and he admit they make sense.i become from alot of people outside of bwmn alot of good feedback.if i'm not totally wrong they play it in some tourney(s)?? can't say for sure!.however,it was long ago.nowadays i won't do that again,except the original author want it or agree about an upgrade.but that's something different than to start to modify older maps on a large scale. don't you realize what a big mistake this is? if you start with that shit every noob will start to do it too.he will argue - if testbug do it why not me? and there is no argue against.and this is what the site needs;endless versions of a map,and not new maps.come on,man! and back to battlegrounds2.3.the map is already a great map,was played in tournies,also motw.it is veeeery few that u can do on that map,it's sad that u don't realize it.but if u believe u can do it better than arden ask nasty for the permission to remake the original map id 972;i'm pretty sure he won't be against. look,if you really wanna improve a old map - make a balanced lt;there is no good version available yet.
2008, 07, 30 22:14
Crackling	grief is right once again >.<
2008, 07, 31 02:43
Nightmarjoo	Any mapper is allowed to modify any other map, borrow a concept, or even remake if he so desires, so long as he credits all concerned authors. That's how it's always been. Your argument about 34509345 versions of a single map is flawed because it is unrealistic, the liklihood of more than one mapper remaking a single map is incredibly low, the only example I can think of out of thousands of maps is Spinel Valley, and the third creator never uploaded his version, so only two exist in the database anyway. Should there ever be a case where three or more versions of the same map are uploaded, we will specifically open a thread about it deciding if all versions are worth keeping, or if we need to remove one or more. There exists no problem at the moment, should any arise we shall specifically address it at that moment. It's silly to think so far ahead of a problem for which there is no evidence to suggest its existance or even probable potential existance, especially when it potentially lessens the quality of maps in the database. We do not allow one mapper to upload such a map and disallow the mapper next to him from doing so. Consistency is always important. Either, allow all mappers to upload a version of any map they want, or allow no mappers to upload different versions of maps. The latter is good in that it keeps the database from being cluttered, but prevents good remakes and modifications which vastly improve a map. The minus far outweighs the bonus there in my eyes. Nasty has specifically said he does not want Testbug to remake (2)BattleGrounds. Just because (2)BattleGrounds 2.3 is a "good" map, does not mean it could not be greatly improved by modification, and I have already explained why I feel modification, or more realistically remaking it, would make the map better. Nasty's wish that it not be remade is definitely something to consider however, though I feel since he has already let Arden remake the map, it is unfair to disallow Testbug to remake it, especially when the end result of Testbug remaking it will be a better map. There is no "probably" or "might" there, every map Testbug has remade has come out far better than the original, so there is nothing to suggest to me that Testbug cannot make a better version. Then you have to consider, even if Testbug can make a better map out of it, is there any benefit to such an ordeal? In my eyes, yes! I would never use (2)BattleGrounds 2.3 in any testing tournament on teamliquid, because it has a lot of room to have imperfect gameplay. There is too much risk involved. I would ask the author to work on the map, but he has already made it plain that he has no intention to do so. So, that leaves someone else doing the remake. Why let a map sit in the database unused when it could be improved and actually BE USED? Just because the stubborn author wants it that way? This is a scenario of Stubbornness vs the Greater Good. As a mapper, member of bwm, and admin of bwn, I entirely am in support of Testbug being able to remake (2)BattleGrounds 2.3. If the majority of mappers here feel that he should not be allowed because Nasty does not want him to, I will respect the majority resolve, but I will have Testbug make the map anyway but we will not upload it to this website. The map will be used anyway, but it will not represent broodwarmaps.net. That's what bwm has to lose, representation, what it's been fighting to obtain for years.
2008, 08, 02 23:14
spinesheath	You definately are praising Testbug way too much. His remakes are good, but certainly not ALWAYS better than the original. Bear in mind that Testbug actually remade MY version of spinel and not Nasty's. Since you have never played on my version you can't really judge which one is better. Especially when the two versions are so similar. There's only like... "less linearity", a cliff, slightly reshaped terrain and some details. I would only believe that these changes actually improve balance if I was told that by a progamer.
2008, 08, 03 00:35
Testbug	spines, that is what i said. i uploaded your version (you told me it wasn't finished so i decided to work on it) but then you didn't like the result :( Then you told me to show it to the others anyway, so i uploaded it. i tried to follow your jpg the most as posible. like the corner expos, expo layout, 12/6 cliff, etc. You said your version was better than Nasty, and if it was the version you liked the most, i worked on the map to "make you happy" remember the first pilot versiond had sunken pit? i didn't want to get in troubles with NastyMarine :(
2008, 08, 03 21:48
spinesheath	Well, really, if you tred to copy my version as much as possible we could just have skipped the whole remaking process. Well, I didn't say my version was actually "better" than Nasty's, but Nasty's current version definately strolls off way too far from my original concept with the ramp sizes and the removed expansion. I told you before that I simply prefer my version for various reasons. This does not mean that I think your map is bad, but with those little differences you really can't decide which map is more balanced from theorycrafting alone.
2008, 08, 03 22:12
NastyMarine	Testbug you arent in any trouble with me lol remake the map if you wish
2008, 08, 04 20:57
Testbug	yay i love you Nasty :D i promess i won't love nightmarjoo if you say you love me ^^
2008, 08, 05 00:25
Nightmarjoo	wat
2008, 08, 05 15:14
	page: 1 2