|
Ive taken a first pass at adding water to the gap at the bottom:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GSrV5XV.jpg)
And Ive been playing a lot with the top area, trying to get the rush distance up to 21 seconds with rock doodads and stuff but it wouldnt work. So what Ive done is move the bridges at all 4 spawns a little bit. So the map is now looking like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FutSBOg.jpg)
This has successfully got the rush time up to 21 seconds between the top nats. For comparison, Circuit Breaker is also 21 seconds on close spawns, and FS is 22 seconds.
Moving the bridges has also helped the pathing and even out the other spawns rush times;
21 seconds between the top nats
24 seconds between the bottom nats
24 seconds between the right nats
25 seconds between the left nats
On September 27 2016 02:30 FlaShFTW wrote:
needs symetry :c
Why? The idea is to have a familiar feeling map but then inject a bit of spice.
On September 27 2016 06:14 Freakling wrote:
Well, the problem with this map idea is that you end up with poor positional balance due to a vary uneven distribution of expansions and unequal rush distances. Picking FS with it's inherent rotational variety and already relatively short rushing distances only aggravates those problems. You'd be much better off doing a through-and through asymmetrical layout that is actually accommodated to what you want to do (i.e. a map with one asymmetrical spawn). Most importantly you really need to space out the topmost two nats more, not only to increase the rushing distance but also to create space for a proper gas expansion at 12 o'clock. Maybe you can make the left side more like CB top/bottom with some mineral onlies. In general I think throwing in some mineral onlies instead of a central gas expansion will give you a lot more adaptability to make the layout work as a whole,
Thanks for the tips. The goal is specifically a Fighting Spirit like map. With the reposition of the bridges, the rush times are more evenly matched.
As for having a base at the 12 o clock: There is a critical problem if you do that. In a split map scenario when top vs bottom, the top player would have 7 bases while the bottom player would only have 6 bases. Thats why I have done it like this.
|
|
|
Ive got another surprise for y'all.
There are 8 bridges. Im inviting you guys to directly make your own mark on the map by designing the decoration for the bridges.
Save the picture, draw your design in paint or whatever and then upload as jpeg.
Let me know which bridge is your first choice (numbered 1-8).
I may modify and move bits around to form a cohesive whole. And I reserve the right to choose which make the final cut, but if lots of people submit designs then it will be randomised.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dzoDtAw.png)
|
|
|
Okay I think CAS stands for:
Cardinal Allied System
Cardinal Allies System
Centralized Ally System
Coordinated Ally System
Coordinated Ally Spirit
One of those^
|
On September 29 2016 07:07 -NegativeZero- wrote:kind of asymmetrical but i did the best i could ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uFLEQ21.png)
Would you be interested in a game of high stakes matching pairs?
On September 30 2016 01:05 3FFA wrote:
Okay I think CAS stands for:
Cardinal Allied System
Cardinal Allies System
Centralized Ally System
Coordinated Ally System
Coordinated Ally Spirit
One of those^
Nope
|
Im away for the weekend so I will show now that the bridges in the bottom left have been moved. So incase someone would have suggested that, rest assured its already done. Also added some rocky ground on the Path To 3rd.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pdiTNlZ.jpg)
|
On September 28 2016 07:18 CardinalAllin wrote:
As for having a base at the 12 o clock: There is a critical problem if you do that. In a split map scenario when top vs bottom, the top player would have 7 bases while the bottom player would only have 6 bases. Thats why I have done it like this.
i m just casually passing by... you asymmetrical design seems really unbalanced in other scenarios, eg 5 vs 11, 5 easily taking both nearby expansions
symmetry is the key:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CCjCD5v.jpg)
or
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AclXaqu.jpg)
|
i juts love crazy symmetries!
the two rotational symmmetry bases at bottom left and bottom right do not work in a balanced way due to how the thirds are set up.
the only way drunken monkey style symmetries like this work is a third designed specifically to the needs of this symmetry style, e.g. three-spawn maps, whereas one possible spawn setup is rotational symmetry, one is axial symmetry close distance (like on 4spawn axial symmetry) and one is axial symmetry long distance (like on 4spawn axial symmetry). Here, too, the design of third bases is crucial, not so much how one expands into them as an expansion after the natural, but how you set them up so that they are balanced as fourth or fifth base. But this is a hell of a work and i am unsure if anyone every publioshed such a map. It is something i experiemented with in sc2:wol and hots, but it is too much work and one can imagine that it just draws too much pitchforking.
the advantage is that you have the same spawn setups (close, far, rotational) as on a four player map, but you have more space for bases, because you need one main/nat(/third) setup less, do not ghive away a "free main" and have more interesting ways to construct bases. the problem is that you have to do a 3-spawn map. Also you cut that chances for a bad spawn position significantly. when done right the rotational spawn setup is not even worse for the cw or ccw player.
here is an image for everybody who thinks this description is too abstract. usre if anybody ever made such a map. i theorized over this years ago with NullCurrent (ex-TPW) and made some tests that went unpublished. feel free to realize a map based on this symmetry.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o2FyVeX.jpg)
|
@Samro: I don't think that layout holds up in BW, actually, for the simple fact how Zerg expand and nat-nat distances seem very unequal. But then it is overall not just a question of where bases are but also of how the terrain is designed around them,
Cardinal: Negative's swastika design is not the bridge you are looking for. + Show Spoiler [Try this instead:] +
|
On September 30 2016 19:06 Freakling wrote:@Samro: I don't think that layout holds up in BW, actually, for the simple fact how Zerg expand and nat-nat distances seem very unequal. But then it is overall not just a question of where bases are but also of how the terrain is designed around them, Cardinal: Negative's swastika design is not the bridge you are looking for. + Show Spoiler [Try this instead +
it is not a layout, it is a symmetric principal. while i never did maps for sc:bw I think such a geometric idea can translate to any RTS game. obviously the layout has to be adapted to the specific game design...
|
I was specifically referring to your picture, which is the outline of an actual base layout.
In general, I agree that a map needs to be constructed around the feature one wants to implement (in this case the feature would be the asymmetry of one of the main-nat-areas in relation to the rest of the map) and not just have the feature arbitrarily superimposed upon some pre-existing layout. But the thought processes are pretty straight forward and not too different to any simple symmetric map.
As far as BroodWar-specific symmetry and balance considerations are concerned, 4 player macro maps are very straight forward: one main in each corner with a natural to either side, and a third base in between, roughly at the 3/6/9/12 o'clock positions. as long as the mains remain in the typical corner positions, this layout is pretty much a given and does not actually vary much between axially or rotationally symmetric maps, so the basic principal applies here as well. The problem then basically boils down to equalizing length and width of paths and the number and width of entrances to equivalent bases, which is mostly just a matter of the right layout (i.e. rather not an already strongly rotationally biassed path layout like on FS) and terrain editing.
|
DOgMeAt, hi thanks for taking the time to make those 2 pics. You made it really hard for yourself in the rotational one, the picture will probably give me some sort of Escher nightmare.
Im not really sure why you bothered to make pictures explaining what standard rotational and axial symmetry is, but I feel honoured that you did and that this was your 2nd post since 2007!
Imbalance, eg 5 vs 11, 5 easily taking both nearby expansions
Your example wasnt even the best example of imbalance. Better examples would have been 1 vs 5, 1 vs 7, or 7 vs 11.
However, Ive made a big change to the map, Ive added 2 mineral onlies.
Samro225am, hello, nice to see you in the bw section.
the two rotational symmetry bases at bottom left and bottom right do not work in a balanced way due to how the thirds are set up.
Im not sure why you pick on the bottom bases only, just seemed a funny way of wording it to me.
However, again though Ive made a big change and added 2 mineral onlies.
For those interested in some further reading on the subject, check out And G’s thread (theres a few mistakes but its good overall):
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/447881-walrus-symmetry
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/448561-4-crusader
And G calls it Walrus symmetry. Samro above calls it Drunken Monkey symmetry.
Personally I call it Black Sheep. Kind of hilarious that all 3 are animals.
@Freakling: Thanks for the bridge. It reminds me of your 3 player map Urban Warfare Tactics, which btw seems to not be in the database anymore. Did you delete it? Your bridge also reminds me of a jumping headcrab which is less desirable.
+ Show Spoiler +
7th October 2016
Version 0p1wip043
-Added 2 mineral onlies
-Placed resources at the high ground 3rds and centre base
-Terrain at 3 and 6 o clock
-Added rock and tree doodads in centre
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6wZ2n3t.jpg)
|
With the 2 mineral onlies this is getting more and more bizarre. I'd really like to get some player opinions on that design.
|
In my opinion the only problem with asymmetrical maps is that it often limits strategies instead of expanding them.
I like the look of the map, I love crazier maps.
|
On October 08 2016 07:23 B-royal wrote:
In my opinion the only problem with asymmetrical maps is that it often limits strategies instead of expanding them.
I like the look of the map, I love crazier maps.
Its not that crazy though. Its basically fighting spirit except for the asymmetry. And the 2 bridges and less unbuildable terrain. By the way: Dont you want to push that northern mineral only all the way up to the edge of the map? Looks like wasted space to me and it would make that base more relevant in top-left vs top-right.
|
hard to tell tbh,is not the final product so i guess talking about analitical information makes no sense for me,but this map is the mix of Nostalgia and FS except that the third expansion might be a problem for protoss players in a pvz and most likely to be very good for TvP,and yeah i dont think this is the way to go by copying FS style,why will we play this map having FS ?im more for having original maps forcing new sceneries rather than playing a copy paste map from the past.oh except Katrina,i think katrina is a terrible mess.
|
On October 08 2016 07:23 B-royal wrote:
In my opinion the only problem with asymmetrical maps is that it often limits strategies instead of expanding them.
I like the look of the map, I love crazier maps.
Glad you like the look of the map. Are you worried that you might feel strategically restricted when playing this map?
On October 08 2016 07:28 RoomOfMush wrote:
Dont you want to push that northern mineral only all the way up to the edge of the map? Looks like wasted space to me and it would make that base more relevant in top-left vs top-right.
At the moment, Im happy with the position of the 12 o clock min only, but its something that might change. What do you mean by more relevant?
On October 08 2016 08:04 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
hard to tell tbh,is not the final product so i guess talking about analitical information makes no sense for me,but this map is the mix of Nostalgia and FS except that the third expansion might be a problem for protoss players in a pvz and most likely to be very good for TvP,and yeah i dont think this is the way to go by copying FS style,why will we play this map having FS ?im more for having original maps forcing new sceneries rather than playing a copy paste map from the past.oh except Katrina,i think katrina is a terrible mess.
This is the best time to analyse and make suggestions. We are at the tipping point of preferably locking down the layout before all the polish begins.
|
On October 08 2016 21:51 CardinalAllin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:28 RoomOfMush wrote:
Dont you want to push that northern mineral only all the way up to the edge of the map? Looks like wasted space to me and it would make that base more relevant in top-left vs top-right. At the moment, Im happy with the position of the 12 o clock min only, but its something that might change. What do you mean by more relevant?
As I see it right now the 12 can not be taken by either player when playing top-left vs top-right. The base is so open and in the direct attack path that all attacks will happen there. No defenders advantage, no nothing.
There is only 3 possibilities:
1) The game is even => no player should be able to secure the base in an even fight without defenders advantage
2) The game is in favor of the attacking player => the base is a sure loss, no reason to even try to take it when you are behind
3) The game is in favor of the defending player => if the defender holds the game is pretty much over. If he is able to defend this base he will be able to crush the opponent ezpz.
So what is the point of that base in top-left vs top-right? I dont see it ever being used unless the game is already over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/snXXMEj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/half-life/images/4/49/Headcrab_underbelly.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100116143159&path-prefix=en)
