| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
hd
United States11 Posts
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 + ![[image loading]](http://classic.battle.net/war3/images/ladder/maps/losttemple.jpg) My map: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/5686/terrain002.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/5010/terrain003.jpg) Thanks! | ||
GTR
51574 Posts
| ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
| ||
|
hd
United States11 Posts
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
| ||
|
Coil
Argentina119 Posts
| ||
|
TrueIsAwesome
Finland160 Posts
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. 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
| ||
|
USn
United States376 Posts
On July 25 2010 21:46 hd wrote: 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
| ||
|
Monokeros
United States2493 Posts
| ||
|
Lennon
United Kingdom2275 Posts
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
| ||
|
SC2Phoenix
Canada2814 Posts
| ||
|
FindingPride
United States1001 Posts
Looks fantastic. Just needs balancing | ||
|
hEndO
United States124 Posts
| ||
|
hd
United States11 Posts
On July 26 2010 03:41 USn wrote: 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
On July 26 2010 10:06 hd wrote: 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. You should try porting maps from BroodWar instead. The community would appreciate said efforts at faithful reproduction  | ||
|
hd
United States11 Posts
On July 26 2010 10:14 QuothTheRaven wrote: 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 + ![[image loading]](http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7728/terrain004.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/3496/terrain005w.jpg) | ||
|
andeh
United States904 Posts
but it would never be playable in sc, but good port! | ||
|
canucks12
Canada812 Posts
| ||
|
Monokeros
United States2493 Posts
On July 26 2010 11:51 andeh wrote: looks just like the w3 lost temple but it would never be playable in sc, but good port! really? Come on now, he states that it was inteded to be a direct copy of it... | ||
|
MiyaviTeddy
Canada697 Posts
Big game hunters is a fun map for like I guess anyone, but it's not really ideal for competitive 1v1/2v2 now is it? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Counter-Strike 4055Mini  717Larva 328Shuttle 288ggaemo 283firebathero  243actioN 231Soulkey 129Rush 127Dewaltoss 94[ Show more ] Other Games Grubby2733 FrodaN1212 ceh9689 B2W.Neo550 ArmadaUGS140 KnowMe121 C9.Mang088 QueenE77 Mew2King73 Sick41 Trikslyr41 sas.Sziky9 |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
