[Contest] Map Design Contest! - Page 6

dyren

United States260 Posts

January 18 2010 13:55 GMT

#101

Nice update nightmarjoo, I think it's an improvement. Good job!! Nice maps everyone.. I'm really impressed at the quality and turn around time on some of these.

I've got a small update, I don't want to spam this thread with WIPs and I hope it's cool that I continue to post a few pics which I will hide in a spoiler tag for tidiness.

I spent several (rather unproductive nighttime) hours in Photoshop working on the balance of my map. It was a tough process but I've now got a clear plan going forward. I just know it's going to be another 10 hours in SCMDraft... and I've got work I should be doing.

Cheers
+ Show Spoiler +

Old

+ Show Spoiler +

New

+ Show Spoiler +

New (edits)

FaCE_1

Canada6154 Posts

January 18 2010 14:31 GMT

#102

I really like your map dyren.

Vlanitak

Norway3045 Posts

January 18 2010 14:53 GMT

#103

okay this might just be the most noob question of all time:
could someone, pretty please, pm on how to add observers to the map?

thanks

Now back on-topic:
damn... feel my winning chances sliping away with each new map/update that comes. oh well

good luck to all

Nightmarjoo

United States3359 Posts

January 18 2010 18:13 GMT

#104

dyren you need more map edge building space in your mains. You just don't have that much space for tech and depots as is. Too much tar still. I think you need to stop trying to perfect the map's symmetry through making a circle, it's not helping or even working imo. And the min onlys are really awkward. I think you should focus on either being significantly more or less faithful to colosseum's concept/design. I don't think the biggest deviations in space management from the source map are helping your map. Really LOOK at the differences in space for various aspects of the map compared to that same relative location elsewhere. Look at HOW MUCH tar you've needlessly got, both on the map edge and in the center. The source map had some tar by the nats yes, but otherwise it used all the space in the map. And even doing so, the mains felt somewhat cramped. The middle, nat, and 3rd base were all very comfortable though. Your nats aren't bad, but could be better, but everything feels sloppy and awkward to me. Your ramps are ugly too, btw. Try this: http://www.panschk.de/mappage/(0)Desert Ramp(n).scx. And watch red's main gas placement, I would move it to the right 1 tile.

Oh vlanitak, http://www.panschk.de/mappage/newsscript/viewarticle.php?newsid=5 is a bit outdated, but still a correct way to make an obs map. Mostly, setup the forces to be identical to a map that you can open that has obs triggers (if you download my obs map, my triggers are good, but don't copy the triggers that create text ~~) and either export/import the triggers into your map through staredit, or copy/paste them into the trigger editor in scmdraft (and click the checkmark thing at the top before closing the window).

frontliner2

Netherlands844 Posts

January 18 2010 18:14 GMT

#105

UPDATE - Abahus Kydan 0.92

- I've made the mineral 'passage' stack 5x0
- Further widened map to prevent Terran Turtling
- added 2 backdoor building stacks of x5 (overmind coccoon and nydus canal). The nydus canal (x5) allows for small units to move through, the overmind coccoon (x5) is harder to kill but allows for large units to pass and more at a time.
- The ultralisk cavern (x5) blocking the mineral only near the bridge needs to be killed before combat units may occupy it. Workers may move there through the double mineral stack (5x 0 mineral).

more info ->> http://www.panschk.de/mappage/comments.php?mapid=3989

Impervious

Canada4166 Posts

January 18 2010 18:18 GMT

#106

On January 18 2010 17:01 Nightmarjoo wrote:

Show nested quote +

Thanks for your comments. However, I disagree. The map has the same gas count as peaks of baekdu but isn't as tight, and if I recall correctly that map was relatively balanced. Obviously there're a lot of differences between two maps and to say that mine is balanced from having a few similiarities to a balanced map is a bit of a stretch.

If the map supports mech (I believe terran can ling-tight wall with depot/rax in their mains), that's fine with me. However I think bio should be viable through the game even as it is. It is on desti, and you've correctly described the similarities and differences with desti. The cliffs can be used for tank drops and defense for terran (as well as for lurker drops for z). I think t has plenty of options even while going bio. I really don't like mineral only expansions, especially not just for the sake of having one. The min only in bluestorm is a good one (though if the nat choke was not tight and pathing-altering, it would require gas), desti and andro's min only is good, matchpoint's is bad imo, the min only in blitzx is good.
Not only do I not believe the map needs a safe min only, I don't see any way I could change the map to include one without butchering it. I mean if I thought I needed one, I could potentially put one outside the nat and reduce the river a bit, but like I said I don't feel it's necessary or even helpful.

While I agree with what you are saying with the comparison to Peaks of Beakdu, there is one key difference - the main path to the opponent is far more linear (in fact, there are 2 linear paths). This is more similar to Destination than Peaks, for that reason, even though there are many other similarities between your map and both.

The ideal 3rd gas on Destination is easy to obtain (relatively). The fourth is more difficult, however, depending on your choice of third gas, a mineral-only expansion is already defended. This transitions well into late-game on Destination, regardless of the matchup. I am not sure how well the transition will work on your map..... If the main corridors between bases were longer, or more twisted, then having the extra gas would probably be a necessity. But I'm not sure if that is the case here.

Bio is viable on Peaks because of the tight linear corridors between mains, which can be abused by smaller units. Mech is viable because there is little that can stop a push, without being able to surround it well. Both Bio and Mech are viable on Destination, which is what makes it such a great map.

I'll be happy to play-test it, to tell for sure though. I don't think that adding a mineral-only expansion would be a good idea, yet I do agree that removing the gas may not be the solution either.....

Nightmarjoo

United States3359 Posts

January 18 2010 18:36 GMT

#107

Thanks again for your comments, but I'm not quite sure what I should have gotten out of that post ~~

frontliner, your (2)128x128 map makes me sad

frontliner2

Netherlands844 Posts

January 18 2010 18:55 GMT

#108

Nightmarjoo, explain why it makes you sad? I've worked really hard on it

I want friends, not sad ppl

splorygon

18 Posts

January 18 2010 18:59 GMT

#109

Link to updated map post.

dyren

United States260 Posts

January 18 2010 19:00 GMT

#110

Last update for this session... alpha 1.4...
+ Show Spoiler +

The jpeg is actually slightly updated from the series in the .gif.

Nightmarjoo thanks for your comments I'll take them into account in a next revision. Perhaps you're taking the name Colosseum III too literally though I understand why you're making such a heavy comparison. I definitely wanted to add a little to the idea and I didn't feel like straight up ripping off a classic map made by some professional map-maker. I think this map has its merits and I'm excited to see some games played on it.

If anyone sees any glaring mistakes (tank spots, pathing glitchiness, etc)

I didnt want to smother the map in doodads either.. should I add more?

p.s. The center ramps were hastily thrown together as were the wide up and side ramps. I've got the desert ramp template now so I may go back and update them. However mine are original.. and who cares about blockiness when theres so much more going on in this (any) map. I'd understand if it was blockiness of colossal proportions but give me a break. Maybe after I catch some zzz's.

edit: frontliner I think he means the fact that it's a 2 player map that's a square (most 2 player maps are not if I'm not mistaken (desti, hbr, bluestorm, etc.)

Nightmarjoo

United States3359 Posts

January 18 2010 19:06 GMT

#111

lol I strongly believe that (2)128x128 maps are inherently bad to some degree. I wrote a lot about it in my guide. It just inherently involves either a lot of wasted space, or too-long distances seperating things. I think your map reflects that. The distances between expansions are pretty long, too long imo, and a pretty obvious example of wasted space is the watered corners. I think if you compacted the map into 96x128 you'd end up with a better, more succinct concept. If that feels too tight (I doubt this'll be the case unless you're trying to cut corners with space management, which would be a bad idea imo), you could do 112x128, but I don't think that'd be necessary. Just compare the expo layout to other (2)maps. Think about how zerg can drag a protoss all over a small map, attacking his expos as he attacks or defends another base. This is an even larger factor on such a spacious map as this, and it's not good for gameplay or balance.

Impervious

Canada4166 Posts

January 18 2010 19:09 GMT

#112

On January 19 2010 03:36 Nightmarjoo wrote:
Thanks again for your comments, but I'm not quite sure what I should have gotten out of that post ~~

frontliner, your (2)128x128 map makes me sad

Your map, Destination, and Peaks have a very linear path between mains. They share the same number of gas expansions. Both have opportunities to harass. Both have expansions that are relatively easy to obtain, and relatively difficult. They are similar.

The main differences between Destination and Peaks (both are very balanced maps) is that the main path(s) used for troop movements between the bases is linear for Destination, and very twisty for Peaks. Another difference is the 1 mineral-only expansion that Destination has. Peaks also has a number of elevation changes between the mains.

Your map shares the linearity of Destination. But it does not have the mineral only expansion. It also lacks the elevation changes of Peaks. That's why I would compare it to Destination instead of Peaks. And Destination would play out very differently without that mineral-only expansion.....

I'm not sure if it will cause balancing issues, but my gut feeling is that it will.

Nightmarjoo

United States3359 Posts

January 18 2010 19:12 GMT

#113

Sounds like a nightmarjoo comment, so it must have merit. I need to test it more before I have any ideas about if it's good, needs edits, etc. I'll keep it in mind.

frontliner2

Netherlands844 Posts

January 18 2010 19:12 GMT

#114

haters united ;p
tbh honest ur map is tighter than mine and turtling will be more ez.
the 'wasted space' in the corner is meant decorative.

Should I add island expansions there?

Kaappp

Latvia9 Posts

January 18 2010 19:15 GMT

#115

hey guys, why do my stacked temples are not destructible in game? units just can go through them, how you make them with hp or something...

Nightmarjoo

United States3359 Posts

January 18 2010 19:19 GMT

#116

unit-sprites (as opposed to sprites or units) belonging to player 12

Kaappp

Latvia9 Posts

January 18 2010 19:23 GMT

#117

yeah, they are... i have read your guide, but i don't get the idea in difference between the unit-sprites and sprites or units (btw my temples are unit-sprites

)

MorroW

Sweden3522 Posts

January 18 2010 19:24 GMT

#118

i use unit-sprites on p12 and that worked great for me without any trouble :p, btw updated my map once again

Impervious

Canada4166 Posts

January 18 2010 19:31 GMT

#119

Normal Sprites are just the physical look of the unit, meaning you can walk through them, and never actually destroy them. They can cause pathing issues. It's more like a "ghost" - visible, but nothing is actually there. Things like death animations use these types of Sprites.

Unit Sprites are a section of Sprites, however, they do more than a normal sprite. They make it so the unit is not just visible, but actually there. It blocks movement, and can be destroyed (if it is not an invincible unit).

Both have uses, but Unit Sprites are more useful in map making.

Nightmarjoo

United States3359 Posts

January 18 2010 19:32 GMT

#120

On January 19 2010 04:23 Kaappp wrote:
yeah, they are... i have read your guide, but i don't get the idea in difference between the unit-sprites and sprites or units (btw my temples are unit-sprites

)

Click on sprites, and in the dropdown menus there should be something called "unit-sprites" that you can click on which'll appear identical to the menus "sprites" brought down.

Prev 1 4 5 6 7 8 24 Next All

Please or register to reply.

[Contest] Map Design Contest! - Page 6

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming