[Map] The Really Lost Temple (WC3 Port)

United States11 Posts

July 25 2010 11:55 GMT

Hello,

I plan on making various maps throughout the course of StarCraft II and in order to learn the map editor and to practice, I decided to port the WarCraft III version of Lost Temple, to which I have named, "The Really Lost Temple."

Please critique the good and the bad. I would like to improve as much I can.

The original map overhead shot I based the map on: + Show Spoiler +

My map:
+ Show Spoiler +

Thanks!

GTR

51445 Posts

July 25 2010 12:04 GMT

you should REALLY add rocks to one of the entrances to the main, or else the map is simply unplayable.

MorroW

Sweden3522 Posts

July 25 2010 12:20 GMT

u sit on rotical symmetry and still ur corners look differently. its huge positional imbalance :D i dont think wc3 maps will transition so well into sc2 maps because wc3 has creeps, item shops and all those critical areas while u r now forced to remove them. wc3 maps themselves without all those objects doesnt really have much positional strategical points, just mostly directions everywhere like i feel with this map ^^

United States11 Posts

July 25 2010 12:46 GMT

On July 25 2010 21:04 GTR wrote:
you should REALLY add rocks to one of the entrances to the main, or else the map is simply unplayable.

While my intentions aren't for this map to be played I must say that I disagree. The time to go from one entrance to the other is more than enough for the most immobile army to switch. Yes, it's harder to wall off to handle rushes but I don't think that would be too much of a deal breaker. Yes, flanking offenses could potentially take an advantage but the counter argument that splitting your forces could potentially cause your attack to fail is equally as valid.

I think saying it is "unplayable" is an extreme. I considered placing the rocks when I first started porting the layout but decided against it for the above reasons (not to be played, etc.)

Of course, I'm not a top SC2 player and it is only my opinion.

On July 25 2010 21:20 MorroW wrote:
u sit on rotical symmetry and still ur corners look differently. its huge positional imbalance :D i dont think wc3 maps will transition so well into sc2 maps because wc3 has creeps, item shops and all those critical areas while u r now forced to remove them. wc3 maps themselves without all those objects doesnt really have much positional strategical points, just mostly directions everywhere like i feel with this map ^^

I do see some topographical changes I can make (natural chokes not the same). Thanks for pointing that out. I do think there are plenty of focal and strategical points, though. The Xel'Naga watch towers in the center around the "temple" are of value; the high yield expansions in the north east and south west are of value. The potential three chokes can be made to be an offensive and defensive advantage. Back to the Xel'Naga watch towers, controlling the midfield (temple area) can reap great rewards for controlling aside from the vision granted by the towers. In cross positions, you would control the fastest route to the opponent, have a higher probability of catching potential expansions and aggression and open yourself up to take more map control through expanding yourself. There are also ledges (cliffs) near the naturals that might favor Terran too much (Siege Tanks) so I'll look into that. The high ground around the Temple could net an advantage in some scenarios.

Sorry, I really shouldn't be defending the map so much. As stated, it's not being released for play. It was merely one of many maps I'll be making to practice. I just figured I should explain why most of it is the way it is.

Telcontar

United Kingdom16710 Posts

July 25 2010 14:55 GMT

a baneling bust would work 100% of the time on this map. you just cant have 2 wide entrances to the main.

Coil

Argentina119 Posts

July 25 2010 17:50 GMT

Seems to me like the bases are REALLY small, i'm comparing the size of the mineral line with the rest of the area... Or maybe it's just me.

TrueIsAwesome

Finland160 Posts

July 25 2010 18:18 GMT

You're wrong. Zerg will have a dominant win% on this map (I'm talking 95%+) since neither Terran or Protoss can stop the zerg from rushing in. Speedlings enter base and run around sniping probes, until you lose your whole mineral line the instant Banelings hatch.

Are those frikkin' doublewide ramps? :|
Block the ramp closer to middle with rocks and make middle more desirable. Either add expansions to the middlegrounds, somewhere near the edges, or perhaps create some sort of a big positional advantage there.

If you plan on having this map as a 1vs1 map, you should make all corners symmetrical. Positions #2 and #4 are more desirable than the others, since they have a ramp closer to the expansion. Terrans have a ridiculously easy time securing the gold expansions from these positions, since a few siege tanks can secure the landroute to the expansion. However, that requires the Zerg to be AFK for the first 3 minutes for the Terran to be alive. (Note, an interesting idea here would be to make all corners accessable, but reverse the gold/normal mineral positions and remove the stones. Distance vs lucrativity? Probably too random for serious play)

canucks12

Canada812 Posts

July 25 2010 18:25 GMT

Starting locations two and four should be moved to their naturals instead. It is unfair that they start so close to the high yield. I also agree that you should put rocks on the entrance to the main from the middle. To compensate, you could widen the chokes at the natural to make it harder to defend. Or you could put rocks on the ramp to the natural. That would make things interesting as the player would have to decide when to open up a vulnerability and go expand.

USn

United States376 Posts

July 25 2010 18:41 GMT

On July 25 2010 21:46 hd wrote:

Show nested quote +

While my intentions aren't for this map to be played

Even bringing this up is a cop-out, if you want to make playable maps you should be aware of this kind of thing, and if you don't, why did you post it?

FabledIntegral

United States9232 Posts

July 25 2010 18:58 GMT

#10

What people are saying is right, you can't have the main super exposed like that, I'm not even sure how Terran would hold off mass speedlings with a few baneling support in this game, they don't even have to blow up a wall... maybe 3-4 bunkers around their main base, which would make it really hard to move out or even expand your base.

Monokeros

United States2493 Posts

July 25 2010 19:05 GMT

#11

Honesntly, you did a REALLY GOOD JOB remaking the map it looks like an exact copy which is what the main issue is, WC3 doesn't play the same as sc2 so maps are terrible at copying over. For example echo isles, if that was an offical SC map I would quit playing.

Lennon

United Kingdom2275 Posts

July 25 2010 19:26 GMT

#12

Incredible job. Really well done.
Looks a lot better than some of the current ladder maps.
Also, this makes a great 2v2 map as well as a 1v1 map.

Ouga

Finland645 Posts

July 25 2010 20:39 GMT

#13

It's true that you can't have 2 big ramps in SC2. This could be playable with 2 small ramps a lot better, or if the main ramp was filled with rocks.

SC2Phoenix

Canada2814 Posts

July 25 2010 21:24 GMT

#14

Amazing job, I used to love this map in Wc3 :D You should add rocks to one side though just because any sort of all in would would insanely hard to stop or impossible.

FindingPride

United States1001 Posts

July 26 2010 00:46 GMT

#15

Id 4 pool so hard.
Looks fantastic. Just needs balancing

hEndO

United States124 Posts

July 26 2010 01:05 GMT

#16

great job on the remake. Agree with the balancing issues and maybe WC3 maps just dont lend themselves well to the different playstyle. But in terms of being your first map and i beleive you said it was just to practice your map making skill in your post anyway so good job! keep up the good work

United States11 Posts

July 26 2010 01:06 GMT

#17

On July 26 2010 03:41 USn wrote:

Show nested quote +

Even bringing this up is a cop-out, if you want to make playable maps you should be aware of this kind of thing, and if you don't, why did you post it?

It's not a cop-out. I was simply trying to make the map as close to the original as possible. The idea was to practice making maps (as stated in my first post) and porting an already existing map from another game isn't easy.

QuothTheRaven

United States5524 Posts

July 26 2010 01:14 GMT

#18

On July 26 2010 10:06 hd wrote:

Show nested quote +

You should try porting maps from BroodWar instead. The community would appreciate said efforts at faithful reproduction

United States11 Posts

July 26 2010 01:42 GMT

#19

On July 26 2010 10:14 QuothTheRaven wrote:

Show nested quote +

You should try porting maps from BroodWar instead. The community would appreciate said efforts at faithful reproduction

Which ones? I haven't played Brood Wars in years. No idea what maps would be important.

On a side note, I implemented some changes suggested:

1.) Made primary entrance ramps smaller.
2.) Made island expansions (north west, south east) accessible by land through a ramp closer to P1, P3.
3.) Made high yield expansions normal expansions.
4.) Blocked ramps from main base to natural with destructible rocks.
5.) Removed some trees in the main bases to increase building room.

As well as some cosmetic changes (made area around temple less devoid of texture, added some critters, etc.)

The screenshots have the placement grid overlay to show what's build-able and what isn't.
Images: + Show Spoiler +