[Melee] Rejected map

[normalice]

Hi. I have a rejected map because of the risk of "early game siege and air units". This is obviously not an actual problem, as siege and air units are tier 2. I'm new here so I'm wondering: is there a way to appeal this or is this the sort of 'wisdom' I should expect from the people who run this site?

 

[Codric]

Uhh I dont think this is where you should post this. . .

 

[Xonok]

Uhh I dont think this is where you should post this. . .

He was told to do so. Read the map thread to see.

 

[Goblinkingsp]

Hi. I have a rejected map because of the risk of "early game siege and air units". This is obviously not an actual problem, as siege and air units are tier 2. I'm new here so I'm wondering: is there a way to appeal this or is this the sort of 'wisdom' I should expect from the people who run this site?

I don't know what you expect, that's what the reviewer experienced. He believes that early game siege and air units are a problem, and if you don't like his advice then appeal it, but you will get the same result if you don't change it. The people who review maps have done it hundred of times before and know what they're doing. Just because you don't take their advice, doesn't mean you're right.

 

[normalice]

I don't know what you expect, that's what the reviewer experienced. He believes that early game siege and air units are a problem, and if you don't like his advice then appeal it, but you will get the same result if you don't change it. The people who review maps have done it hundred of times before and know what they're doing. Just because you don't take their advice, doesn't mean you're right.

I guess I shouldn't assume people have any experience with ladder play. The thing is that in melee games there's no such thing as "early game siege and air units"... I totally agree they would wreck this map, but that's probably why blizzard made no such thing possible. How can I "take this advice"? If I advised you to add more cupcakes to your melee map how would you respond? Would it be something along the lines of "there's no such thing!" That's about where I'm at... Besides, even if it were possible, the thing is that both opponents have the same disadvantage, so the issue is one of personal taste, not of function. If he is passing judgement based on personal taste then he shouldn't be passing judgement.

Anyway, I have an approved map that is very similar in theme to this one here

but you mentioned an appeal. How?

 

[Dr Super Good]

Are you absolutely sure that is the only reason it was rejected? Maybe that alone did not govern rejection but something much bigger was wrong with the map that did.

If so then I advise filing a complaint against him in administrator contact. It used to be fun as kids moderating maps based on our opinions but really this site should have grown out of that by now.

 

[normalice]

Are you absolutely sure that is the only reason it was rejected? Maybe that alone did not govern rejection but something much bigger was wrong with the map that did.

If so then I advise filing a complaint against him in administrator contact. It used to be fun as kids moderating maps based on our opinions but really this site should have grown out of that by now.

Well, imbalances that give an advantage of one player over another are the main factor in any melee map, so this would be the 'larger issue,' if it were an actual issue.

other things are creep locations and difficulty, pathing, and drop quality. Pathing isn't really that big of a deal (see: Hurricane Isle, a former ladder map), as long as there is some way to get forces into the enemy's base. However, there was a 'possible simplification' he suggested, and I did so.
Drop quality is typically an issue for anyone who just started making maps - I know I put gloves of haste on green creeps with the first map I made (serious no-no). Anyway, I learned that lesson long ago, and it isn't an issue on this map.
Creep locations and difficulty is actually something he brought up. But even so the main issue with this is if one person gets 'better' creeps than the other person. This was not the case here, however, as the creep camps were mirror images. I did take his advice in reducing the overall difficulty, though (I had actually intended to do so anyway).

That's all he mentioned, so if there is a larger issue, I don't know what it could be..

 

[-Kobas-]

Can you upload map here or post direct link to download?
I would like to see it before I say anything.

EDIT:

Nvm that, I got the file.
Anyway map is bad in general, trees are placed in poor way.
There is much empty space between them as well.
Pathing ground is main problem, you can't expand on hills because area is too small.
You will block 80% of hill pass with town hall (exclude Undeads).
There is huge empty space near map borders.
Tiles are horrible placed. Lava in same level with regular ground.
You should randomize doodads as well. Add more special effect like doodads.

Btw tell me if I'm wrong, but distance around starting locations is way too small.
Humans should have huge advance here, if they strike asap with like 10 militia units and hero before min 5 or so?

 

[normalice]

Humans should have huge advance here, if they strike asap with like 10 militia units and hero before min 5 or so?

well, the running distance is the average for any melee map. Any time I make a 'close-proximity' map like this, that's always the first thing I check - with human I always test by sending a militia to the opposing base. If the remaining time for that militia is 50% or above, then I must make the distance longer. This was at 40% (but I'll check it again anyway - this is important).

I will look into the pathing thing on the hill.

The rest of what you wrote, sorry to say, is an issue of personal taste. The sparse tree thing is sort of 'my thing'. It doesn't result in any imbalance - granted some people hate it, but some like it too. As long as the trees to be harvested aren't sparse (which they're not).

I will look at the tile and empty space, though. Even though it doesn't break the map, I would like the terrain to look good enough to not notice

 

[-Kobas-]

In current state rejection would be my opinion as well.
Because it's melee, and terrain is really important here, and you used cliffs only around map center, everything else can be destroyed and map will look like huge empty and flat area or whatever.

Add some cliffs or water here and there, randomize it a little. Also use doodads, you can even edit them in WE if needed, blizzard created it, in the way they needed, you are free to modify it as well. If AI works fine, there is no reason not, for players, to do so.

 

[normalice]

In current state rejection would be my opinion as well.
Because it's melee, and terrain is really important here, and you used cliffs only around map center, everything else can be destroyed and map will look like huge empty and flat area or whatever.

Add some cliffs or water here and there, randomize it a little. Also use doodads, you can even edit them in WE if needed, blizzard created it they way it needed, you are free to modify it as well. If AI works fine, there is no reason not, for players, to do so.

Well, in a melee map the likelyhood of everything being destroyed before the game ends is pretty slim - especially if it's close-proximity, like this one. Again, how 'pretty' the map looks still qualifies as a personal preference, but I admit it could use some polish - that which is appealing to the eye is not my forte. I try to make maps that require a unique strategy more so than 'look good.' But, if it's that big of a deal then I'll look into it, i guess..

 

[Wazzz]

hive is all about quality apparently

 

[normalice]

hive is all about quality apparently

if i have an apple in one hand and an orange in the other, which is the better quality? There is strategic quality and aesthetic quality. I contend that for melee maps the former is the one that counts.

also, do you have anything constructive to add? If not I'd appreciate it if you stopped trolling my posts.

 

[Wazzz]

'trolling'
rood

i'm sure my presence would be more significant than yours, in any case

 

[normalice]

'trolling'
rood

i'm sure my presence would be more significant than yours, in any case

congratulations..