EPTTvZ: 6-13 (31.6%)
ZvP: 4-5 (44.4%)
PvT: 6-6 (50%)
ZvP: 4-5 (44.4%)
PvT: 6-6 (50%)
Could be worse
Map Making Contest Voting - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Could be worse | ||
|
o3.power91
Bahrain5288 Posts
TvZ: 2-8 (20%) ZvP: 2-3 (40%) PvT: 8-2 (80%) lol U know what i mean | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
AltaiR_
Korea (South)922 Posts
| ||
|
asel
Germany1599 Posts
| ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
Hopefully they won't walk off too fast, and they'll be a fantastic deterrant to all these macro-whore fast expanders these days. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On April 20 2008 03:45 -orb- wrote: Wow backdooru looks amazing. Not only is that double-gas expo with double-assimilator-glitch with dark swarm awesome, but I'm really loving the 5 critters at each natural expansion (yeah you guys that just viewed the image probably didn't see them). Hopefully they won't walk off too fast, and they'll be a fantastic deterrant to all these macro-whore fast expanders these days. Except not quite. It's a fun map. And I enjoyed crushing you on it, ^.^;; But it has a few errors. The critters have 1hp each. So if they had full health, they could very well deter fast expos. However, my marine just went on safari and killed them all off easily. Also, the sort of "shared natural" if you will, is misplaced. It's impossible to fit a command center between the mineral clusters on each side. Overall though, hawt map. I do feel it favors terran a bit, as each mineral-wall gives T a slight advantage. But with a little tweaking, I think it'll be awesome. | ||
|
diggurd
Norway346 Posts
| ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
| ||
|
diggurd
Norway346 Posts
On April 20 2008 12:56 Haemonculus wrote: Except not quite. It's a fun map. And I enjoyed crushing you on it, ^.^;; But it has a few errors. The critters have 1hp each. So if they had full health, they could very well deter fast expos. However, my marine just went on safari and killed them all off easily. Also, the sort of "shared natural" if you will, is misplaced. It's impossible to fit a command center between the mineral clusters on each side. Overall though, hawt map. I do feel it favors terran a bit, as each mineral-wall gives T a slight advantage. But with a little tweaking, I think it'll be awesome. one guy said it favors terran, others toss. but most of you zerg. thanks guys for appreciating my ideas. understanding my genius thoughts is not for mr everyone, obviously. but i guess mr everyone has voted and the map is dead  edit: fixed expo issue, notice that the there is only 8 gas in the 6 and 12 mins only expos. its like a key to the backdoor: 1 big gas and 4 small (or none if youre zerg  )added two more crits at each natural, now they are seven they have 1 hp; easy to kill, but you have to micro a little and time time differently. http://www.panschk.de/mappage/(4)Backdooru(n).scx | ||
|
Triskaidecapod
United States18 Posts
Round gave me the most fun with cannons I've had in a very long time =p. The map was fun to play, but it simply begs you to cheese. That easily accessible cliff overlooking the opponent's main... It's also not symmetrical. Having only made a few maps, I can see that three way symmetry could be difficult and I've never tried it.... But I get hung up on these things and would not have submitted it in that condition. The same goes for Jungle Hijinx. (Some of you may have noticed the small asymmetry in the map I submitted =p I PM'd Lemonwalrus a fixed version) PshycHOTemplar gets the prize for most innovative map. But as many people have pointed out before, innovation without limit, and more importantly without balance, doesn't make a great map. The null terrain makes units behave very strangely, and frankly I just don't want to put up with it. On the other hand the neutral dt's were an AWESOME idea. I confess that I couldn't get anyone to play this map with me (My BW disc broke, so I'm stuck playing regular SC at the moment), so I played against the computer just to get an idea of how the terrain would work. Prophecy was OK. Didn't get a chance too play on it enough to get a good idea. On the other hand, it seems to allow for fairly standard play, it doesn't have any really weird features to figure out, and IT IS SYMMETRICAL!! This was my favorite of the maps that I've tried so far, if only because Jungle Hijinx has so many issues to be worked out. These are the only maps I've tried so far and, as such, I have not yet voted. Just thought I'd put down my thoughts so that a big argument can start and my words can come back to bite me(jk). Hope you guys didn't find my ramble too boring. I'll get around to trying the other maps as soon as I can, so you can expect more! | ||
|
Steelflight-Rx
United States1389 Posts
 | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
PshycHOTemplar gets the prize for most innovative map. But as many people have pointed out before, innovation without limit, and more importantly without balance, doesn't make a great map. The null terrain makes units behave very strangely, and frankly I just don't want to put up with it. On the other hand the neutral dt's were an AWESOME idea. I confess that I couldn't get anyone to play this map with me (My BW disc broke, so I'm stuck playing regular SC at the moment), so I played against the computer just to get an idea of how the terrain would work. Well, you know, people will always complain about about innovations in map making. When Peaks and Blitz X were first introduced, everyone whined about unit pathing, and now Peaks is among many people's favourite map. The fact is it only takes 2 or 3 games on a map to get used to a new feature like this, and null terrain is no different. In my games with SuperiorWolf, he was able to get the hang of null terrain after about 2 games. If you want to keep StarCraft fresh and exciting, you need to embrace innovations, or else StarCraft will just become WarCraft III in terms of maps. You know there was a time when people refused to play on any map with a backwards ramp just because they thought they were 'ugly'? Now just about every pro map has them. Believe me, I've been around the map making scene for a long time. Since the time when people only used (for melee mapping) the StarCraft Campaign Editor that comes with SC. Every time someone innovates, there's a flurry of blacklash, a few early adaptors, and then a year later it's in the proscene and everyone accepts it. That's just how it works. | ||
|
Triskaidecapod
United States18 Posts
On April 21 2008 09:02 PsycHOTemplar wrote: Well, you know, people will always complain about about innovations in map making. When Peaks and Blitz X were first introduced, everyone whined about unit pathing, and now Peaks is among many people's favourite map. The fact is it only takes 2 or 3 games on a map to get used to a new feature like this, and null terrain is no different. In my games with SuperiorWolf, he was able to get the hang of null terrain after about 2 games. If you want to keep StarCraft fresh and exciting, you need to embrace innovations, or else StarCraft will just become WarCraft III in terms of maps. You know there was a time when people refused to play on any map with a backwards ramp just because they thought they were 'ugly'? Now just about every pro map has them. Believe me, I've been around the map making scene for a long time. Since the time when people only used (for melee mapping) the StarCraft Campaign Editor that comes with SC. Every time someone innovates, there's a flurry of blacklash, a few early adaptors, and then a year later it's in the proscene and everyone accepts it. That's just how it works. Your points are well taken. I agree that innovation in map making is important, keeps the game interesting. I wasn't trying to bash your map. I have never played it against a real opponent and so am not really fit to judge it. I was merely complaining about how difficult it is to control units on null terrain =p This doesn't make it a bad thing, but in combination with my ignorance about how null terrain works and my dislike for fastest style minerals, it didn't leave me wanting more. That said, I have no doubt I'd get used to it given some time and maybe even like it in some contexts. You say you've been making maps for a long time. I'd be interested to know how you begin to formulate a new map. I've only made 3 (melee) maps, one was a knock off of Monty Hall, one was Druadan Forest (my submission to this contest), and the third was actually conceived and begun by someone else with major revisions done by me. For Druadan Forest I had a notion of what I wanted to do with the expos at the cardinal points, so that's how I began. From there more features fell into place. I had wanted to do some things with neutral buildings, but I found out how to use sprites after the deadline =( For Chaos Darkness did you begin with the idea of null terrain start locations? Or perhaps somewhere else? Also, as someone who's been making maps for awhile, do you have anything to say about Druadan? | ||
|
spec. opps
United States127 Posts
| ||
|
diggurd
Norway346 Posts
i really hope people isnt voting just by looking at the pictures. two more days | ||
|
spec. opps
United States127 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Also, as someone who's been making maps for awhile, do you have anything to say about Druadan? It's way too tight, which benefits Terran. It's got cliffs everywhere, which benefits Terran. It's got an in-base island expo, which benefits Terran. Zerg and Protoss, especially Zerg, need room to flank Terran and Protoss armies (for reasons I hope are obvious). You map also doesn't give Zerg any way to defend his main with sunks at his nat, which is harmful as well. Really, all I can is: Next map make sure you have some open spaces that battles are likely to occur, and put more thought into the naturals. You say you've been making maps for a long time. I'd be interested to know how you begin to formulate a new map. http://www.staredit.net/maplantis/index.php?sid=4d4342964d;topic=19 That was before SCM's Mirror Tool existed, which made map making much more time consuming. Sometimes if you have a really good concept in mind, you have to think further ahead than just the main/nat set up, but it's generally good to start there. My last few maps I haven't used MSPaint to plan them out, and it actually shows pretty negatively. So you probably really want to actually do that still (even though mirror tool makes everything so quick). | ||
|
Moaf_
Austria76 Posts
On April 22 2008 10:13 PsycHOTemplar wrote: That was before SCM's Mirror Tool existed, which made map making much more time consuming. Sometimes if you have a really good concept in mind, you have to think further ahead than just the main/nat set up, but it's generally good to start there. My last few maps I haven't used MSPaint to plan them out, and it actually shows pretty negatively. So you probably really want to actually do that still (even though mirror tool makes everything so quick). Heh, yeah since the mirror tools is out it is much quicker and comfortable to make the map directly in the editor than to draw it in MSPaint and then to transcribe it. Also it's easier now to play around and to try out new things (which supports my much more chaotic style of map-making ). Sometimes i just start to draw without any planning, just to see what i get and then i might say "Hey, this could work".Planning my maps (with or without MSP) a priori had mostly following effects: - It takes less time to finish the map - Chances are higher to create a solid map (in terms of layout and balance) - If you don't have a lot of experience it's difficult to think out-of-the-box (because it could be harder to visualize the map in your mind), leading often to a more standard-type of map An approach i sometimes use in this context is prototyping. First i play around to find a concept. If i like the map i have built so far (also with proper testing to see how the map feels), i throw the map away and build it new from scratch (this time with decent planning and thinking). This approach worked out very well so far. Erm yeah, back to topic: I like Round a lot, has an interesting layout, but the mains are for my taste a bit too easy to harrass, and the nats are maybe a bit too open. @Triskaidecapod: I'd suggest you to post your map on broodwarmaps.net. Maybe you can get there some useful comments/critisicm about your map. (PT has already explained the main problems of your map) | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 21 2008 06:30 Triskaidecapod wrote: How exactly is it not symmetrical? It of course doesn't have all pixels identical for each spawn point. But important measures such as base sizes, distance between bases, distance between expos, exact size of each choke point. Those not only are the same for each spawn but they're actually MORE symmetrical between spawns than a 4 player map. Ex.: crossed positions in a 4 player map have larger distance between mains than neighbor spawns. Which leads to little gamble in starting builds before you can scout spawns.Round gave me the most fun with cannons I've had in a very long time =p. The map was fun to play, but it simply begs you to cheese. That easily accessible cliff overlooking the opponent's main... It's also not symmetrical. That is the main reason why I made a 3 player map in the first place. I wanted to avoid that early game gambling. I want MORE symmetry between bases than a 4 player map can offer. About the map begging you to cheese.. yes it does. But since anyone playing it would, theoretically, be expecting it -- then you would be prepared. I wanted it to be a cheese intense map. I made it that way because I thought it would be fun. And you agreed it was fun =D So how can it be bad? Not like you'd get tired of it since it's, supposedly, only one of the maps from a large map pool. So having one cheeseful map out of many others could be fun. And it IS fun.. isn't it? ^^ I should probably have named it "(3)Cheese" instead to make it more clear =P | ||
| ||
