|
Inspired by Not_Computer's map, I decided to make one of my own.
The idea behind it was to allow for modern play to work. So there are few gimicks except for it being a relatively small and expo rich map. Balancewise, I guess terran has the easier time, but I think it is still somewhat playable for all races. Ironically, I wanted to make this map good for zerg, but they'll have a hard time getting a third gas, I think. Leave some comments if you want. I'm not going to host the map because no one except me is going to play it anyway. Have a good Wednesday!
Update:
I highlighted the areas that have been changed. Here is a summary:
- Moved mains closer to the nats.
- Removed gas from the two middle expos.
- Disconnected the 12 and 6 to the middle and instead routed them to the corners by using a wall. (Note that the walls are also meant to defend against attacks from the outside, so if tanks can still do that here, I will tweek that.)
- Added two zerg friendly gases by the walls with no minerals by them.
 
|
That looks like a pretty standard map, but it might be a bit small, what size is it?
One thing you could do to make it a less 'Terran' map is to stretch it horizontally and remove some of the water from the middle.
|
Remove all the water in the middle imo and put minerals at eleven above CC and at 5 they should be to the right.
|
The mains are way too small for macro of this extent with all the expos.
|
Calgary25993 Posts
You don't actually play this game, do you? StarCraft has a certain set of ideas in a "standard" map that keeps the game balanced. You can't just change these ideas without counterbalancing them with other things. For example, putting the natural that fair away and giving no relatively close third base, means Zerg simply loses on this map.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
I agree that it would be very difficult to lose PvZ on this map
|
I like the idea and design very much actually. (I guess I'm quite liberal to new map designs... even if they're imbalanced?)
I thought of the idea of a "resource only" main, where it would be compact and separate, so that all the production buildings (and bulk of the base) would be on the lower ground.
I would have to agree with the others though, that this map would be extremely zerg unfriendly (opposite to my map, lol... hey, you're a terran player and I'm a zerg player, makes sense for the bias)
This style would probably reminisce of the early starcraft days where one base micro play would be the emphasis and players would not be expected to expand until the mid-game. All of the expos are pretty difficult to defend, especially since the natural clogs the entrances, lol.
5/5, keep working at it! Study existing maps to see what details are a requirement and what "balances" are flexible to give a slightly imbalanced but importantly creative feel. (I need to do so too  )
|
Calgary25993 Posts
On November 27 2008 02:13 Not_Computer wrote:I like the idea and design very much actually. (I guess I'm quite liberal to new map designs... even if they're imbalanced?) I thought of the idea of a "resource only" main, where it would be compact and separate, so that all the production buildings (and bulk of the base) would be on the lower ground. I would have to agree with the others though, that this map would be extremely zerg unfriendly (opposite to my map, lol... hey, you're a terran player and I'm a zerg player, makes sense for the bias) This style would probably reminisce of the early starcraft days where one base micro play would be the emphasis and players would not be expected to expand until the mid-game. All of the expos are pretty difficult to defend, especially since the natural clogs the entrances, lol. 5/5, keep working at it! Study existing maps to see what details are a requirement and what "balances" are flexible to give a slightly imbalanced but importantly creative feel. (I need to do so too )
Why? Why do mappers have this ideal that creativity is more important than balance? That's why no one plays your maps.
|
Because macro games are so friggin boring these days... T_T
And people do play on my maps. But they're all casual players and aren't hardcore 1v1.
edit: I'm not saying that map balance isn't important.
New strategies can be implemented and used depending on maps. The macro revolution came because of a more macro-oriented map pool. The viability of many FE builds are heavily depending on the map. There are so many niches cause by the conformity of map making that continue the trend of the current "standard builds". Certain maps allow 14 CC, bisu build, double expand, etc., to be very safe.
Over the history of map making, map balancing tweaks always came last. Why? Because we, the map makers, can only give general guidelines in how we structure a map. We can't predict what players will do on it, and that is why there are multiple versions and updates.
A map may start out seemingly extremely imbalanced, but have a good overall idea. After 10+ or 15+ edits and versions, the final product may seem totally different, but still adhere to the fundamental ideal the map creator initially sought out. Persay, disallow proxy builds altogether, while at the same time discouraging macro endgames, and encourage micro oriented play with short-lived mass expansions.
When neutral buildings were first introduced, everyone thought it was really strange and awkward and that it was an awful addition to professional maps. There was even the extreme case of Neo Arkanoid where neutral buildings filled the entire map and made a kind of island type map.
Also spells were used for a while, but map makers couldn't figure out how what situations to use them in and how to balance them, so they were taken out.
Same things with the ramps that only allow small sized units through. Players adapted by burrow-jumping lurkers over, or vultures+spider mines jumping over them.
|
On November 27 2008 02:55 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2008 02:13 Not_Computer wrote:I like the idea and design very much actually. (I guess I'm quite liberal to new map designs... even if they're imbalanced?) I thought of the idea of a "resource only" main, where it would be compact and separate, so that all the production buildings (and bulk of the base) would be on the lower ground. I would have to agree with the others though, that this map would be extremely zerg unfriendly (opposite to my map, lol... hey, you're a terran player and I'm a zerg player, makes sense for the bias) This style would probably reminisce of the early starcraft days where one base micro play would be the emphasis and players would not be expected to expand until the mid-game. All of the expos are pretty difficult to defend, especially since the natural clogs the entrances, lol. 5/5, keep working at it! Study existing maps to see what details are a requirement and what "balances" are flexible to give a slightly imbalanced but importantly creative feel. (I need to do so too ) Why? Why do mappers have this ideal that creativity is more important than balance? That's why no one plays your maps.
because last time I checked Starcraft was a GAME
GAMES are supposed to be FUN
|
An idea I had for the longest time was a "low low-money" micro oriented maps.
It never worked out because people were impatient and wanted epic games with 200/200 worth of units.
Hence most of my b.net friends were fastest players back then (and currently most are BGHers that still dislike the idea of low low-money but are actively joining low money with all the hype of korean progaming and play/obs games).
People laugh when I say that Python is a money map, but in my opinion, it is. One of my favourite maps that I get some ideas/inspiration from is "(7)Broken Steppes" and "(8)Killing Fields"
==================
edit: If you play only FFA on blizzard maps, you are seriously missing out on a lot. Besides, I only said I get ideas from those maps, I don't base my maps on those. Thanks to TLPD I can keep up to date on all the latest kespa maps and I base my "standard" map mechanics on those maps.
Python is a money map because you can get into mid-game with only your main and natural.
My ideal of a low-low money map is that early game pressure and shorter distances will not allow you to fast expand. One would be more prone to rushes (though the map would have to be balanced so that a 4 pool wouldn't be insta-win) and would have to be very meticulous when timing expansions.
There would not be any 200/200 end game scenarios because the map would run out of resources far before then. There would also be an emphasis on lower tier-ed units and a risk involved when teching.
Unless the game extends into late-mid-game or late-game, the average match up on Python can be played 2 base with a 3rd being optional to secure a win. Likewise, BGH matches require expansions to fuel the 25 gateways, 20 factories, or 15 hatcheries in order to keep up with opponents in mid-game. End-game requires 6 gases which equals to at least 4 bases. Can't really say anything about fastest though.
|
Oh common, I was a pretty big fan of experimental maps, but getting inspiration from giant Blizzard FFA maps? That's just retarded on so many levels.
If you think Python is a money map, you have a unique definition of the term money map. Money maps are maps that discourage expansions, and that do not have a factor of resource starvation. Basically you don't understand StarCraft if you think Python is a money map.
|
On November 27 2008 01:48 Chill wrote:
For example, putting the natural that fair away and giving no relatively close third base, means Zerg simply loses on this map.
So how is Python a standard map?
|
There are actually some nice replies here. Thanks for those. This was really just a concept map I wanted to put out here. I only tweeked the mains slightly to brush out some positional imbalance. Like Chill pointed out though, zerg is doomed in both its matchups because of nat distance and a lack of a good 3rd base. The size of the map is 128 x 96, which I think should be fine for a two player map. If I was able to I would want to make a balanced 64 x 64 map, but it's not going to happen.
I will probably move the mains closer to the nats without changing the idea behind them. I'll also rethink the corner expos so there is a gas on ground level which should solve the 3rd gas problem. I deem the main area big enough to house all the buildings you need at 2 bases, so I'm going to ignore that for now. I think maybe having the walls twist around so that 12 and 6 gas expos are connected to the corner instead of the middle. And also making the middle expos min onlies, will lower the value of just sitting and controlling the middle.
About the creativity vs balance arguement, I think balance is more important than creativity. It's more fun to play and watch BW when you know that the best player has a greater chance of winning. Who cares if the map is completely uninspired. That's why clones of existing maps will more often than not be better than original gimick maps. But what you want is fluke luck where the gimick map ends up being balancable. And that leads to even more fun!
|
On November 27 2008 04:07 Nytefish wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2008 01:48 Chill wrote:
For example, putting the natural that fair away and giving no relatively close third base, means Zerg simply loses on this map. So how is Python a standard map?
I believe he is refering to the fact that in order to gain a 3rd gas without going for overlord drop, you need to expo towards the protoss on my map which just gets you in trouble. On the flip side, protoss gets to expo towards you, which is exactly what he wants. Neither of these apply to python. And even though the zerg 3rd gas on python isn't really close to you, it's even farther away from the protoss scum.
|
Update:
I highlighted the areas that have been changed. Here is a summary:
- Moved mains closer to the nats.
- Removed gas from the two middle expos.
- Disconnected the 12 and 6 to the middle and instead routed them to the corners by using a wall. (Note that the walls are also meant to defend against attacks from the outside, so if tanks can still do that here, I will tweek that.)
- Added two zerg friendly gases by the walls with no minerals by them.
|
you're making progress :3
|
On November 27 2008 05:23 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:
you're making progress :3
I'm trying to figure out if that is sarcasm or a genuine comment... so hard to tell... and that smiley just confuses me completely.
|
On November 27 2008 04:36 stenole wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2008 04:07 Nytefish wrote:On November 27 2008 01:48 Chill wrote:
For example, putting the natural that fair away and giving no relatively close third base, means Zerg simply loses on this map. So how is Python a standard map? I believe he is refering to the fact that in order to gain a 3rd gas without going for overlord drop, you need to expo towards the protoss on my map which just gets you in trouble. On the flip side, protoss gets to expo towards you, which is exactly what he wants. Neither of these apply to python. And even though the zerg 3rd gas on python isn't really close to you, it's even farther away from the protoss scum.
Oh whoops when I looked at the top right and bottom left corners I thought I saw ramps there.
|
United States3824 Posts
Who's to say that there can't be micro orriented SC anymore? If the map pool pushed towards macro based pro games then we as a community could push towards micro based foreigner games. The maps moved towards more resources to make the players produce more units so that the game would be more entertaining to watch. Is it more entertaining to play? I suppose there are a million people gearing up for SC2 that would say otherwise.
I like your map by the way. The island is so far from the main! That's good though as you can have terran players not screw over everyone by floating there CC. No 8 mineral patch required. Keep up the good work!
|
United States3824 Posts
|
On November 27 2008 01:48 Chill wrote:
You don't actually play this game, do you? StarCraft has a certain set of ideas in a "standard" map that keeps the game balanced. You can't just change these ideas without counterbalancing them with other things. For example, putting the natural that fair away and giving no relatively close third base, means Zerg simply loses on this map.
As far as I know, most map making has simply become aesthetics. It looks pretty good, but Chill already pointed out the issue in balance.
|
On November 27 2008 03:20 demonic_phate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2008 02:55 Chill wrote:On November 27 2008 02:13 Not_Computer wrote:I like the idea and design very much actually. (I guess I'm quite liberal to new map designs... even if they're imbalanced?) I thought of the idea of a "resource only" main, where it would be compact and separate, so that all the production buildings (and bulk of the base) would be on the lower ground. I would have to agree with the others though, that this map would be extremely zerg unfriendly (opposite to my map, lol... hey, you're a terran player and I'm a zerg player, makes sense for the bias) This style would probably reminisce of the early starcraft days where one base micro play would be the emphasis and players would not be expected to expand until the mid-game. All of the expos are pretty difficult to defend, especially since the natural clogs the entrances, lol. 5/5, keep working at it! Study existing maps to see what details are a requirement and what "balances" are flexible to give a slightly imbalanced but importantly creative feel. (I need to do so too ) Why? Why do mappers have this ideal that creativity is more important than balance? That's why no one plays your maps. because last time I checked Starcraft was a GAME GAMES are supposed to be FUN
....and imbalance is fun?
Seriously if you're gonna make melee maps make them balanced or noone is gonna play them.
|
As far as I know, most map making has simply become aesthetics.
Allow me to inform you that you know nothing.
|
Well Chill basically said it. The map is imbalanced, isn't symmetrical, looks plain, and doesn't really bring anything new to modern maps.
|
On November 27 2008 08:00 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2008 03:20 demonic_phate wrote:On November 27 2008 02:55 Chill wrote:On November 27 2008 02:13 Not_Computer wrote:I like the idea and design very much actually. (I guess I'm quite liberal to new map designs... even if they're imbalanced?) I thought of the idea of a "resource only" main, where it would be compact and separate, so that all the production buildings (and bulk of the base) would be on the lower ground. I would have to agree with the others though, that this map would be extremely zerg unfriendly (opposite to my map, lol... hey, you're a terran player and I'm a zerg player, makes sense for the bias) This style would probably reminisce of the early starcraft days where one base micro play would be the emphasis and players would not be expected to expand until the mid-game. All of the expos are pretty difficult to defend, especially since the natural clogs the entrances, lol. 5/5, keep working at it! Study existing maps to see what details are a requirement and what "balances" are flexible to give a slightly imbalanced but importantly creative feel. (I need to do so too ) Why? Why do mappers have this ideal that creativity is more important than balance? That's why no one plays your maps. because last time I checked Starcraft was a GAME GAMES are supposed to be FUN ....and imbalance is fun? Seriously if you're gonna make melee maps make them balanced or noone is gonna play them.
I'm not saying imbalance is fun, I'm saying that often times creative maps are more fun to play on than the "standard" macro maps even if they sacrifice balance
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pepperscmfd9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img87.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pepperscmnr9.jpg)
