EPT[M]Small selection of bwm maps for you - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
| ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
About Sound Barrier 1.2: is there any way for workers to cross the buildings to scout the opponent? Assuming there isn't, I don't like how you won't be able to tell whether your opponent is rushing, teching, or FEing. Especially if they picked R. | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
On August 10 2008 08:13 Bill307 wrote: About Moon Tear II: I thought it was well-established that a min-only nat was a bad idea? About Sound Barrier 1.2: is there any way for workers to cross the buildings to scout the opponent? Assuming there isn't, I don't like how you won't be able to tell whether your opponent is rushing, teching, or FEing. Especially if they picked R. I dunno. Moon Tear II just tries something different. For Sound Barrier, I know for a fact that protoss can use pylons to hop, and I also think but am not 100% sure that terran can use depots to hop, and I think they can also use a rax or something to push an scv over. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
 As for the overall design... I'd have to play it before commenting. In particular, I'd look into PvT at the two top positions. | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
| ||
|
Testbug
Peru20 Posts
at least you really opened in your editor, and thanks for checking the bugs (but we DO know how to use scmDraft very well  ) and we all know how to find unwalkable bridge tiles or unwalable jungle squares (the ones arround temple wall). This is just a new map using the same design of Moon Tear (a very old map i made a few years ago) so the design was already established.I’ve already said the maps are not ready In the TSL2 maps thread, and I think I will only work on Voices and Spinel Valley because I don’t have too much time. Of course Moon Tear is just a “good looking but nothing else” now, and i know you have more knowledge than me if talking about map making (you have the staredit icon and i do not) if you say the map won’t work, then I won’t finish it, i really trust your opinion. It’ll be nice to read what do you think about Voices, Spinel valley and Korhal pride. I’ll be working on Voices and spinel valley this weekend. And if some one tells me that moon tear has any future, I’ll do all the changes needed. (like moving the geyser from center to nat, enlarging the bridges, editing the raised jungle, etc.) | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
but you don't need to get all butthurt when he makes a bit of criticism. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
The mineral only nat allows 1 base play to be possible and we could see a final deviation from this overused, boring, monotonous macro style of fast expanding. Secondly, the nat and 3rd are both cliffable which will open up new opportunities for drops, 1 base terran, etc. On top of that, the 3rd is harder to defend due to the double bridges. Now with the natural easy to defend, it's still much much better than before where you had the mineral only inside the base, one of the aspects of the map I found unappealing. Now you have changed it for the better. I'm not sure if the easily acquired 3rd will keep this map a macro map, but I feel since it's hard to defend and with the mineral only natural it should be an emphasis on low economy aggression (as this map will reward you for low economy style). In order to solidify the map as a low economy 'oldschool' map, you would probably want to reduce the number of minerals in the main from 9 to 8. I believe putting this map as a low economy map would benefit the entire community - as known Starcraft has become a macro game due to the current set of maps - whereas oldschool maps like Nostalgia, where the games emphasized low eco, micro and agression, I think people found these types of games MUCH more exciting than the current boring macro games. The one problem I can see with making this low economy is that people will be unwilling to play it as almost EVERY map is macro oriented now, although I found playing other low economy maps (Nostalgia, Waiting to Panic by PsychoTemplar) much more entertaining, although you had to experiment by yourself since nowadays, most people only know how to play in a macro style. When you address the issues that Bill307 listed, you're probably going to want to see how the 3rd plays into the game and how easy it is to defend - if it's hard to defend, great, that's what you want in a low economy map. However if you're aiming to make this a standard macro map (which I hope you're not) then please leave this version so I can play it with my friends, since this is pretty much the only map in the map pool Nightmarjoo listed that has the most emphasis on low economy play. Also be sure to check how long the rush distances are. Don't stop editing this map, it's great and keep it up! You've got great aesthetics and it looks beautiful, once you fix some terraining issues that Bill307 talkled about, you can start testing the balance, etc. Since you have a 3 player map, I know from experience making it symmetrical is much harder than a 2 or 4 player map, and it looks like you've done a very nice job of that. As well, 3 player maps are the most fun in my opinion, much more fun than 4 player maps because 3 player maps often have features that 4 player maps don't have enough room to incorporate (and 3 player maps also are a nice balance between 2 player maps and 4 player maps). When I was making maps I was only making 3 player maps, but I had troubles making them symmetrical (although I still have a few concepts that I want to test out, one of them is low economy style too because, to be honest, I really miss low economy play). Once I get back to the States I'll be playing this quite often, as I find myself often bored of playing macro macro macro. Edit: Reading the bwm.net comments. So far I just realized you can tank the gas 3rd expansion without a drop just by moving behind the temple - you've got to fix this. It has to be drop only, or else tanks are wayyyy to strong on this map. I don't know if you can fix this though, or if it was intended? Possibly even lurkers can fire over some of the temple walls? This will need extensive testing and I don't know if you're going to want to keep this, it will be pretty hard to fix due to the vicinity of the minerals to the temple and bridges. As well, tanks on the cliffs at red's natural can fire upon the natural too easily. Someone mentioned that the cliffs aren't fully connected at some 3rd bases, which should be easily fixed. As for the bridges being widened - you don't need this, if a Terran can contain you from both bridges you've obviously already done something wrong and pretty much already lost. The size right now is ideal. Since in early game you're probably going to take the mineral only natural first, the complaint that Terran can contain you too easily is unfounded. By the time you take the 3rd, you'll be out and running about on the map, and you're not going to be contained from both bridges unless you've done something seriously wrong. In that period of the game, having larger bridges will only open up more possibilites for enemies to harrass you or do run-by's into your main or natural. The bridges at the current size or okay, unless for some reason you take the gas first which would be hard enough to defend anyways (although possible, like if Terran walls of main choke and gets sufficient defenses, but fast expand to 3rd is unlikely even for Protoss). Basically I think the bridges are okay in their current state. Okay, I noticed this myself but you've got to do something about the minerals being so close to the temples. Of course you're probably trying to allow lurkers to be able to hit, but this way you're making mutalisks veryyy veryyy over powered since there's not good turret placements. Looks like Blue Storm 1.0 or 1.1 where it was impossible to defend versus mutalisks. Obviously you're going to fix the unbuildable/unwalkable tiles in the mains and bridges. There was a comment about moving the main minerals one step closer to the edge, I don't know if you want to do this, it should be about the same either way. The island to the left of red is kind of imbalanced - units coming out can't exit the left bridge if there's tanks on the island because they'll get slaughtered, effectively cutting off the left bridge from being a second route (and letting Terran only set up a contain at one side). The islands at blue and red seem like they can siege and shoot down the entire natural ramp, although I can't test that right now since I'm not in back from vacation yet. And again about the islands - why are the minerals so far apart? Is there a specific intention/purpose to this? I just want to know  Last thing is I have a little pet peeve of minerals under the CC/Nexus/Hatchery. It makes it very hard to move workers, even when you click gas or minerals or anything, when workers spawn they get stuck. Although it's not a real big problem, it's just annoying if you're going to spawn as red (but you don't need to address it, that would cause some imbalances positionally). You've created a masterpiece, please keep it up and pumping out more maps for the community - I find these maps don't get enough appreciation but Moon Tear II I've never been more impressed by a foreigner map (to the other maps and mapmakers, I've already seen the maps and listed my opinions but they still look great!). Of course that's just my stupid opinion on your beautiful map, prestigious elder. | ||
|
Testbug
Peru20 Posts
but whatever... here i go again: Superiorwolf i don't think Nostalgia will be balanced if played TODAY, game has changed a lot and as Bill307 said, it is very established in our minds that minonly nats won't work. see TvZ @Hwarangdo, it has bridges like Nostalgia and Rush Hour but it's simply a zerg graveyard. minonly nat is also said to help Z>P and P>T. you think Nostalgia is extremely balanced just because of old stats? then what's wrong with Hwarangdo? i'm not offended, i really appreciate tat Bill307 commented my maps, and i'm very happy that you like one of my maps. On August 10 2008 11:33 Superiorwolf wrote: Now with the natural easy to defend, it's still much much better than before where you had the mineral only inside the base, one of the aspects of the map I found unappealing. Now you have changed it for the better. I'm not sure if the easily acquired 3rd will keep this map a macro map, but I feel since it's hard to defend and with the mineral only natural it should be an emphasis on low economy aggression (as this map will reward you for low economy style). In order to solidify the map as a low economy 'oldschool' map, you would probably want to reduce the number of minerals in the main from 9 to 8. what? you mean, if i edit the nat and make it easy to defend? because the current nats are hard to defend (tankable from both temple wall AND raised jungle island) very wide choke, sunken colonies will have problems vs a lot of marines, and marines/zealots can just run pass them. this map is suppose to be T>Z that's why i made the expos easy to muta harass, and with almost no space for turret placement. also lurker drop will be very strong. (tank drop is always the same strong) it was to help zerg that i added the bridges (like Rush Hour with chokeless nats, but lurkers are good at bridges) On August 10 2008 11:33 Superiorwolf wrote: Basically I think the bridges are okay in their current state. every body told me to enlarge the bridges, but i always neglected. Bridges are good for Lurkers ZvT and defilers ZvT. Also minonly nat is said to be P>T and a wide choke is P>T again! so the bridges tightness will help terran push a little. the bridges, and the tankable expos helps T>P so i added islands that helps P>T. minonly nat is also Z>T (and if protoss decide to FE, zerg will just double expo and take the 2nd gass) that's why chokes are so wide to help zealots (1 base protoss) and here, islands also help the MU balance. protoss need islands PvZ, and it's not impossible to take 2 islands! Zerg 3rd gass are the 12/4/8 Andromeda-like expos which have a small choke that can be very well defended with Lurkers ZvP and protoss can close it with pylons PvT (like blue storm 12/6 or longinus gas expos) Nat-to-nat distances are as long as Tau Cross and 2nd gass-to-2nd gass distance are as long as Longinus minonly-to-minonly. and i don't know if this 3 base layout will result in a P>T like Andromeda. here the 2nd gass is closer to the oponent. i want a ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/images/usericons/staredit.gif) icon too  | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
Superiorwolf i don't think Nostalgia will be balanced if played TODAY, game has changed a lot and as Bill307 said, it is very established in our minds that minonly nats won't work. see TvZ @Hwarangdo, it has bridges like Nostalgia and Rush Hour but it's simply a zerg graveyard. minonly nat is also said to help Z>P and P>T. you think Nostalgia is extremely balanced just because of old stats? then what's wrong with Hwarangdo? Of course Nostalgia would not be balanced if played in modern Starcraft - it's because are, in my stupidity, stuck on their macro style (which makes it imbalanced). Since these maps (nostalgia) reward aggression, this is why old school players like July, who know how to utilize one gas, overcome the 'imbalance' of the map which comes from people not knowing how to play on it. For example, July is 4-0 on Hwarangdo in televised games, and although only one of them was a ZvT, it was against Mind, who is a very competent player. Modern day Starcraft would be imbalanced on the map because of all the macro, macro, macro that we have - and aggression will be more favored over macro on these types of maps which is why Julyzerg is undefeated on Hwarangdo due to his experience. Therefore, if people play like they play on any other map, it will be imbalanced - but if people relearn low economy style, they will beat people who macro like any other game and it should turn out to be pretty balanced if both play low economy more aggression (note that when I say low economy, it's not true low economy but more the style that's not FE and then start macroing like a beast). And then you'll be able to balance it more as you get some large sample sizes of aggressive games. If you're not offended, that's good I was under the impression that you took his comments a little bit too much at heart and was going to give up Moon Tear II, but I was wrong, fortunately. And I like more than just one of your maps XD.what? you mean, if i edit the nat and make it easy to defend? because the current nats are hard to defend (tankable from both temple wall AND raised jungle island) very wide choke, sunken colonies will have problems vs a lot of marines, and marines/zealots can just run pass them. this map is suppose to be T>Z that's why i made the expos easy to muta harass, and with almost no space for turret placement. also lurker drop will be very strong. (tank drop is always the same strong) it was to help zerg that i added the bridges (like Rush Hour with chokeless nats, but lurkers are good at bridges) Sorry that was kind of confusing - I meant that the natural was easier to defend than the 3rd, so most people would not try and take the 3rd before natural of course (in an attempt to macro). The biggest reason that Terran could be considered strong versus Zerg on this map is because of all the drop opportunities that they have. Of course, with the 3rd they don't even need to drop! Otherwise it should be pretty balanced, lots of opportunities to flank and a fairly open center imo. That said, I think having it that hard to defend against mutalisk harrass is just too much - it's kind of forcing Zerg to go mutas and forcing Terran to go tanks to take advantage of the map which is something you don't want. Not hard counters or anything - it'll be too hard for Terran to defend versus mutas and too hard for Zerg to defend versus tanks supported with infantry (will never be able to hold 3rd, since they don't even need drops to siege it). | ||
|
SilverSkyLark
Philippines8437 Posts
| ||
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On August 10 2008 06:47 Chill wrote: Wow these are awesome. TSL2 plz? :/ | ||
|
Carkling
Germany169 Posts
| ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
I third the notion. You guys have been looking for maps, you got your ass-kicking maps. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
| ||
|
Testbug
Peru20 Posts
i uploaded it as a "final version" but it can surely have issues. | ||
RaGe
Belgium9951 Posts
| ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
Runner up would have to be Spinel valley (is it pronounced Spin-L?), I like it except for the stuff I said about in it's own thread previously. Just curious, but do you guys have any korean speaking top members of the site? I know that most of the pro maps are either made in secret or from mapdori.com, but some of these top maps from bwmn are seriously worthy of some pro game usage. btw, I'm SpoR (long time member of BMWN) | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
We have no active korean members at the site, just some inactive guys from mapdori/intothemap who show off some of their new maps every now and then. | ||
| ||
