|
On April 23 2015 03:22 hobbes wrote:
I'm getting the FFA itch, but there simply aren't any good SC2 Blizzmaps for this, like there were in Brood War.
I'm looking for ffa maps with 12 players or more (preferably 14 or 15).
Prefer non symmetrical maps. I like the old fashioned SC1 blizzmap feel.
No money maps
Balance is not important: it's meant for spectacularly large, non rules free for all.
On April 23 2015 04:06 WELPAX wrote:
@ hobbes;
what is meant to be with "no money maps" - no minerals?
Maps like big game hunters/fastest map. Maps with so many minerals that they never expire. Too many. I'd like to see a normal amount of minerals per base.
On April 23 2015 04:06 WELPAX wrote:
And how many bases per player? - just main or main/nat or might you want to have 45 bases?
As many as you like. There is no minimum or maximum requirement. Balance is not a concern in free for all, because gameplay is much more random than team matches.
On April 23 2015 04:06 WELPAX wrote:
It's an inteessting idea. ...to make a map for 14 player. haven't done it, yet.
I might try that. but depends on my future spare time....
Free for all is very fun. It's a shame that blizzard does not support it and does not make maps suitable for this game style anymore, which was very popular in Brood War.
Since there doesn't seem to be any 15 player ffa maps out there, i will start working on a new map too.
I hope others will feel driven to build big ffa maps as well.
Here is the map i made back in WoL beta. It's a space island map.
(15) Asteroid Field
This might not mean anything to anybody anymore, but mine was the very first map to feature a Space Shark. =P
![[image loading]](http://oi57.tinypic.com/4lrgp5.jpg)
Hmmm, TL seems to reduce the width the of the image, so here's a direct link to it.
|
oh wait! i've a problem... when i press save button. a window appears showing an error and that windows is looking for solution the the program close. Why???!!!
|
the program closes without saving the analyzed map picture. has it a relation with that the map is made in WoL??
i mean i see the analyzed map with termal colours but i can't save it. help me plz 
|
forget it, forget it... i solved the problem. i didn't choose the right save placement XD
|
@anime98;
I have the same problem with one map of mine... - no, it's a hots map, so it isn't just because of that. It might be an issue.. I don't know.
The map I have problems with is slightly asymetrical in terms of cliffs. That might be the problem. BUT I don't know. :-(
It could be that You might get lucky, because actually I had this problem with two maps. In one case it has solved itself just be waiting and than trying again... so, there's a little hope. :-)
Somebody else might know tha issue.
@hobbes;
check out at near future the WIP thread... if I get time I will post it there soon. (No promise)
PaCE
|
most expos i was able to cram in was around 50 (in largest map)
:D
fun fun fun
edit: maybe more 
|
A couple of questions:
-- What are people referring to when they mention "proportions" in a map?
-- What makes an attack path safe or risky?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2015 03:09 NinjaDuckBob wrote:
A couple of questions:
-- What are people referring to when they mention "proportions" in a map?
-- What makes an attack path safe or risky?
proportions:
the map:
max size is deemed bad for "melee purists": rush distances non applicable / lag issues / make game unnecessarily long / etc
the main:
size of main must house "x" primary structures (HatchNexusCC) and be "x" ratio to map size
the natural:
size ratio to main and to center / distances implied in 3rds and 4ths
the center and alleys:
the center s proportions must accommodate zerg's needs to surround/swarm armies / must accommodate the terran's drop/harass gameplay / must accommodate protoss's forcefielding/storm fun
alleyways are forbidden by "melee purists"
lol
+ Show Spoiler +i must insist that these notions are ridiculously narrowing down gameplay and you should think about them only with the goal in mind to create .. create!! not photocopy
when teaching how to draw to people (in real life, with something in front of you with pen and paper), you should insist on:
first: + Show Spoiler +
then, for years onwards we insist/persist on 2 things, : proportions/directions
we make the pupil check/acknowledge his own mistakes regarding what his eye/hand did and the "real" model
one should never be dissociated from the other, they are an unbreachable couple
the notion of proportions is important but in so far as you are clear on what you wish to do
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2015 03:09 NinjaDuckBob wrote:
A couple of questions:
-- What are people referring to when they mention "proportions" in a map?
-- What makes an attack path safe or risky?
a risky path: zerg is f cked
a safe path: toss rule
an alleyway: somewhere in between the two
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2015 17:21 fluidrone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2015 03:09 NinjaDuckBob wrote:
A couple of questions:
-- What are people referring to when they mention "proportions" in a map?
-- What makes an attack path safe or risky? proportions: the map: max size is deemed bad for "melee purists": rush distances non applicable / lag issues / make game unnecessarily long / etc the main: size of main must house "x" primary structures (HatchNexusCC) and be "x" ratio to map size the natural: size ratio to main and to center / distances implied in 3rds and 4ths the center and alleys: the center s proportions must accommodate zerg's needs to surround/swarm armies / must accommodate the terran's drop/harass gameplay / must accommodate protoss's forcefielding/storm fun alleyways are forbidden by "melee purists" lol + Show Spoiler +i must insist that these notions are ridiculously narrowing down gameplay and you should think about them only with the goal in mind to create .. create!! not photocopy when teaching how to draw to people (in real life, with something in front of you with pen and paper), you should insist on: first: + Show Spoiler +then, for years onwards we insist/persist on 2 things, : proportions/directions we make the pupil check/acknowledge his own mistakes regarding what his eye/hand did and the "real" model one should never be dissociated from the other, they are an unbreachable couple the notion of proportions is important but in so far as you are clear on what you wish to do
Thanks! Makes sense :-)
Still wondering about the attack paths. I thought Zerg generally did worse in the same paths Protoss did well in 0_o
|
Well that's a bit of a broad question. Zerg playing ling bane muta is obviously going to favor different terrain from one playing swarm hosts. What's most important is having appropriate distances and choke sizes, but it's more of an art than a science.
|
+ Show Spoiler +How to make a map in a "current" patch?
What is most important is to experiment!
In order to do that you need "players" to play the map you are studying (the map you are "judging" good or bad).. with all the match ups, loads of different skill levels, , loads of build orders and strategies being played out.
These being the "previous" build orders and strategies formulated from / on the "previous" maps.
At this point, one needs to take a second to acknowledge that these "old" gameplay "habbits" are used to try out these "new" maps, while nothing could be further from the "truth" (one has to rethink the game for every new map).
The maps have always dictated the play.
The best you can hope for is to make their gameplay palette as large as possible, seeing as actiblizz doesn't "favor" unit "scaling" but rather map "scaling".
So, it takes a whole lot of time / investment for "new" appropriate gameplays to emerge that can answer the question:
is this map good/balanced (in the current patch)?
Since ladder rules, just put your eggs in tlmc i guess?
|
On April 28 2015 09:43 TheFish7 wrote:
Well that's a bit of a broad question. Zerg playing ling bane muta is obviously going to favor different terrain from one playing swarm hosts. What's most important is having appropriate distances and choke sizes, but it's more of an art than a science.
I'd say a science, but thats just how I approach maps.
On April 28 2015 20:01 fluidrone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to make a map in a "current" patch? What is most important is to experiment! In order to do that you need "players" to play the map you are studying (the map you are "judging" good or bad).. with all the match ups, loads of different skill levels, , loads of build orders and strategies being played out. These being the "previous" build orders and strategies formulated from / on the "previous" maps. At this point, one needs to take a second to acknowledge that these "old" gameplay "habbits" are used to try out these "new" maps, while nothing could be further from the "truth" (one has to rethink the game for every new map). The maps have always dictated the play. The best you can hope for is to make their gameplay palette as large as possible, seeing as actiblizz doesn't "favor" unit "scaling" but rather map "scaling". So, it takes a whole lot of time / investment for "new" appropriate gameplays to emerge that can answer the question: is this map good/balanced (in the current patch)? Since ladder rules, just put your eggs in tlmc i guess?
not sure what you're going on about here.
if its about how to approach making a new and mostly metabreaking map, I have some things to say.
experimentation is important, but before being able to aim your experimention, you need a design goal or theory, rarely does blind experimentation work.
recommended is to take a look at the current meta, and think for yourself "what is wrong here?" "what would I like to see different?" and how maps impact that.
as for testing, you will rarely find anyone to do that, if you do have access to such a resource that's great, but otherwise you will have to rely on your own knowledge of the meta and matchups, and how they generally play out/evolve on a map.
by far the biggest problem you will face when experimenting is breaking through, if your map isn't on the ladder it may as well not exist, and currently are completely reliant on the one gate that is TLMC, which works in mysterious ways and can almost be considered somewhat random.
|
Important question what if you were to import a bw style into sc2 like low main to high nat/third. What are the problems? advantages?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 28 2015 20:29 Meavis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 09:43 TheFish7 wrote:
Well that's a bit of a broad question. Zerg playing ling bane muta is obviously going to favor different terrain from one playing swarm hosts. What's most important is having appropriate distances and choke sizes, but it's more of an art than a science. I'd say a science, but thats just how I approach maps. Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 20:01 fluidrone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How to make a map in a "current" patch? What is most important is to experiment! In order to do that you need "players" to play the map you are studying (the map you are "judging" good or bad).. with all the match ups, loads of different skill levels, , loads of build orders and strategies being played out. These being the "previous" build orders and strategies formulated from / on the "previous" maps. At this point, one needs to take a second to acknowledge that these "old" gameplay "habbits" are used to try out these "new" maps, while nothing could be further from the "truth" (one has to rethink the game for every new map). The maps have always dictated the play. The best you can hope for is to make their gameplay palette as large as possible, seeing as actiblizz doesn't "favor" unit "scaling" but rather map "scaling". So, it takes a whole lot of time / investment for "new" appropriate gameplays to emerge that can answer the question: is this map good/balanced (in the current patch)? Since ladder rules, just put your eggs in tlmc i guess? not sure what you're going on about here. if its about how to approach making a new and mostly metabreaking map, I have some things to say. experimentation is important, but before being able to aim your experimention, you need a design goal or theory, rarely does blind experimentation work. recommended is to take a look at the current meta, and think for yourself "what is wrong here?" "what would I like to see different?" and how maps impact that. as for testing, you will rarely find anyone to do that, if you do have access to such a resource that's great, but otherwise you will have to rely on your own knowledge of the meta and matchups, and how they generally play out/evolve on a map. by far the biggest problem you will face when experimenting is breaking through, if your map isn't on the ladder it may as well not exist, and currently are completely reliant on the one gate that is TLMC, which works in mysterious ways and can almost be considered somewhat random.
I was answering NinjaDuckBob, happy to see you partake in this "debate".
+ Show Spoiler +On April 25 2015 10:31 NinjaDuckBob wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2015 17:21 fluidrone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2015 03:09 NinjaDuckBob wrote:
A couple of questions:
-- What are people referring to when they mention "proportions" in a map?
-- What makes an attack path safe or risky? proportions: the map: max size is deemed bad for "melee purists": rush distances non applicable / lag issues / make game unnecessarily long / etc the main: size of main must house "x" primary structures (HatchNexusCC) and be "x" ratio to map size the natural: size ratio to main and to center / distances implied in 3rds and 4ths the center and alleys: the center s proportions must accommodate zerg's needs to surround/swarm armies / must accommodate the terran's drop/harass gameplay / must accommodate protoss's forcefielding/storm fun alleyways are forbidden by "melee purists" lol + Show Spoiler +i must insist that these notions are ridiculously narrowing down gameplay and you should think about them only with the goal in mind to create .. create!! not photocopy when teaching how to draw to people (in real life, with something in front of you with pen and paper), you should insist on: first: + Show Spoiler +then, for years onwards we insist/persist on 2 things, : proportions/directions we make the pupil check/acknowledge his own mistakes regarding what his eye/hand did and the "real" model one should never be dissociated from the other, they are an unbreachable couple the notion of proportions is important but in so far as you are clear on what you wish to do Thanks! Makes sense :-) Still wondering about the attack paths. I thought Zerg generally did worse in the same paths Protoss did well in 0_o
I concurred.. if there are a lot of places to be surrounded easily and the "walling" (where zealots would get to lessen surface to attack ratio for instance) is "simple" (no crevasses or other) then the zerg has an advantage against protoss (as to state if it is a deciding advantage is up to you, it will be argued that it would most certainly be the case with pro sc2 players playing that map (and we are all *sarcasm breath* sc2 GM, no?)).
If terran bioballs have a greater chance of getting caught in ambushes in a "hectic tight terrain" (because they have no medivac to pick up and flee at that moment), then the bio ball's kitting ability would be reduced to naught .. making protoss very efficient against it.
All is terrain.. then the units prevail unto that terrain.
For instance, I loved this:+ Show Spoiler + and this sounds promising, no?
On April 29 2015 04:06 Rukis wrote:
Important question what if you were to import a bw style into sc2 like low main to high nat/third. What are the problems? advantages?
"Important" + Show Spoiler +?, in the Simple questions thread?
It has been done / attempted and showcased on tl already (not to mention on sc2mapster too), and I am sorry to say that the whole concept was rejected by a majority of "regular" tl posters.
Stating that it is impossible in sc2 (siege tank rush comes to mind, soon derailed by mothership core / blink stalker and no mention of the at the time irrelevant reaper..)+ Show Spoiler +Kind of like throwing the baby with the water if you ask me + Show Spoiler +, but no one is asking... Sorry I need to find the map thread link to drop back here when / as soon as I find it.
I would say that it has never been proven to be a "broken" concept in sc2, even if I would sadly admit to the units in the current patch not helping / suiting the issue, .. ill suiting it at best.
I see it as one type of map: ultra defensive or ultra rush.. that amount seems fair in my book.. as far as research goes.
If "you" (for instance) were to make a map where that main would have 24 mineral nodes and 3 gases and a "too long" rush distance in early game (due to destructible units requiring at least a squad of units for instance) but "regular" in mid to late game.. then I see it as a possibly "balanced" concept and not only doable but interesting.
|
On April 28 2015 20:29 Meavis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 09:43 TheFish7 wrote:
Well that's a bit of a broad question. Zerg playing ling bane muta is obviously going to favor different terrain from one playing swarm hosts. What's most important is having appropriate distances and choke sizes, but it's more of an art than a science. I'd say a science, but thats just how I approach maps.
I wholeheartedly agree that that's the best possible approach, however I don't think we have enough information to call it a science. And while we're debating semantics, I'm not ready to call it a science until someone can write me a formula that explains win ratios based on map features. I think there's just too many variables for it to be called a science just yet. In an ideal world, yes, we'd know exactly what the effect of the size of each choke and the number of bases and the placement of xel naga towers has on the potential racial balance, but it's just not feasible.
I do agree though, mapmakers need to approach their creations first and foremost as engineers, then secondarily as architects, and then tertiarily as artists. Only the very best ever get to be scientists, the rest of us are just shooting in the dark.
On April 29 2015 04:06 Rukis wrote:
Important question what if you were to import a bw style into sc2 like low main to high nat/third. What are the problems? advantages?
Like fluidrone said they're not really compatible. You might as well adopt a counter-strike map to sc2 (it's been done) or a warcraft 2 map to sc2 (also been done). The amount of changes necessary make the map a completely new map anyways. low mains are generally not considered acceptable for example for a number of reasons.
|
quick thing that comes to mind is warping into the main from a highground
|
edit: not sure if this is the right place to ask this
Hi TL,
I am looking for the name of a custom map that gives you infinite resources and allow you to build almost infinite (?) supplies to test spam as many units as possible to test my new PC. I remember seeing people plays back in WoL but really cant recall the name of the map
Thanks
|
Is anyone else having this problem?
When I create custom game, one of my melee maps ( NO MODS) it loads with a really weird mod.? Like for example i played an ffa and the map loaded with a goliath... wth!
|
Yeah, it happens randomly, sometimes I open my maps and they load with some of wargirl's mods.
Thanks wargirl -.-;
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
