EPTBoomStevo's Map Thread - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
lovablemikey
264 Posts
| ||
|
Ongweldt
Sweden54 Posts
I've played Orbital Decay before, think it might have been your first map here on TL!? Anyways, Rendezvous and Urban Jungle looks nice. Keep up the work! | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
On November 09 2010 13:10 EatThePath wrote: Yeah, I'm the same way. And I haven't finished anything yet. I really like Mount Ida and Providence intrigues me. I was wondering how open to changes you are. I was toying with ideas for both but I'm not sure what needs improving. Providence seems to have a lot of space that you could call "wasted" as people like to say, but I also really like every individual spot on the map, and the way they work together. Mount Ida just looks really neat; the flow is familiar but unique. I was trying to think of a way to add an "automatic" third base without cramming things or having it too far from opponent. Figured I would send some encouragement after the ambiguous criticism over Perdition.  If you have any suggestions or ideas for my maps I would love to hear them. For Providence I think every spot is used but it probably looks quite bare without doodads or textures. For Mount Ida do you mean a third that is alternate to the high ground one blocked by rocks? On November 09 2010 18:03 lovablemikey wrote: Cool maps! I like how most of them are structured and they look balanced for the most part. Well done. Thanks for the comments! On November 10 2010 01:08 Ongweldt wrote: So many maps to test and so little time hehe. I haven't had the change to play SC2 for the past few weeks and your map thread has just... exploded! Hehe. I've played Orbital Decay before, think it might have been your first map here on TL!? Anyways, Rendezvous and Urban Jungle looks nice. Keep up the work! If you play one of the maps, I'd love to see the replay. Orbital Decay was my first map. I really like Rendezvous, but I think Urban Jungle looks nice, but might be too big. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
| ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
On November 11 2010 17:50 BoomStevo wrote: Updated OP. Moved Perdition to Complete maps. Added Dissension to WIP. I'm having trouble with it. I think the Nat is hard to control. it is small + two short chockes. another thing that bothers be is the narrow space between the high yield highrounds. it can easily be sieged and when movng towards the enemy you have to move through that small joint or via the highground. therefore the control of the highground is very important. which is good, but you might want to try making the gold a bit smaller and enlarge the "gate" in between he two gold bases. I also think that fourth is quite big. probably the map could be smaller overall and mre compressed. watchtower placement makes sense. | ||
|
KinosJourney2
Sweden1811 Posts
On October 06 2010 02:49 BoomStevo wrote: @KinosJourney2, I see it, but I don't think it will stand out as much once the map is textured. How do any of them have the same layout? @sob3k, LOL. I definitely see the monkey. What i mean't with same layout is that it's a highground main, a natural then rest of the map just looks nonimaginative. I want more crazy maps that uses experimental concepts and tries new things | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On November 11 2010 18:49 Samro225am wrote: I think the Nat is hard to control. it is small + two short chockes. another thing that bothers be is the narrow space between the high yield highrounds. it can easily be sieged and when movng towards the enemy you have to move through that small joint or via the highground. therefore the control of the highground is very important. which is good, but you might want to try making the gold a bit smaller and enlarge the "gate" in between he two gold bases. I also think that fourth is quite big. probably the map could be smaller overall and mre compressed. watchtower placement makes sense. This pretty much covers it. You could go about resolving these issues various ways, I think it will require experimentation. For the natural, assuming it gets a little more space, what if you enlarge the hole in front? Extend it in a line towards the fourth. This makes switching attack angles much slower, and gives some more direction to the flow, while removing some open space. edit: Btw, can you turn on a tower from the high ground? They are right up against the cliff, it looks like you could get it from the top. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
The natural has gone through a few iterations and I decided to try out a double choke. There were a couple reasons for it, mainly I wanted the choke to be on the side of the main cliff but I also wanted it to be not as easily defendable. I felt that the 3rd to 4th to gold might be too easy to defend, so I wanted the natural to be an easy target once your army is defending the 4th. I also felt that the cliff which the gold is on was too big. That's why I had been messing around with it's placement and the size of the 4th (as you can see from 0.1 to 0.2). It's also the reason why I did the double ramp on one side and a hold between them. I feel like widening the center would displace the ramps too far and make them less usable as an attack path, since the center would become more favorable. And I also liked the watchtower placement. I don't think you can activate the watchtower from the high ground. On November 11 2010 20:00 KinosJourney2 wrote: What i mean't with same layout is that it's a highground main, a natural then rest of the map just looks nonimaginative. I want more crazy maps that uses experimental concepts and tries new things I think making non-high ground mains without naturals would probably upset the balance way too much. Your definition of experimental and mine are different. I like to experiment with the way space is used to change flow and offer strategic points while playing the game the way it was intended to be played. Whereas I guess you're asking for maps that change the way the game is played. I'd rather not add gimmicks to a map just for the sake of change. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
| ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
On November 14 2010 19:54 dezi wrote: Seems to be very big? My first reaction to that statement is I hate you. But since I don't actually hate you I'll try to explain. The "close" spawn distance according to map analyzer is about 150 for main-to-main and 122 for nat-to-nat. The cross spawn distance is 183 main-to-main and 151 nat-to-nat. Those are not extreme distances. The map is 156x156 playable. This is as low as I could get a map with this style of rotationally symmetric expansion pattern to work. I tried smaller but I was unable to fit this number of expansions in without there being some issues. As for the expansion pattern, I feel like there are only two successful expansion patterns on a rotationally symmetric map that I have seen. First there is the Fighting Spirit style where the third expansions are simply between each main/nat area. The other is what I am attempting to accomplish which is going out from the nat are a separate third for each direction you would want to expand. Meaning there are two expansions between each main/nat area. This, of course, means that the map will be larger and this is my attempt to make it as small as possible. Otherwise, the golds were an afterthought and the center is my attempt at something interesting with the space provided. | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
| ||
|
Samro225am
Germany982 Posts
having alternating thirds makes sense to get rid of the typical 4player rotatonal map problem of exoandng towards opponent, while he is expending away. did something similar in my map no.5 that is 168x168 and as you pointed out it is compressable to 156 - probably. it is hard to make it 144 when you want to have two third and one fourth expansion per player. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
On November 15 2010 00:21 Samro225am wrote: @utopia. i think it could be more compresse. gold looks really hard to hold. still would love to play it. looks really interesting with these wide ramps. having alternating thirds makes sense to get rid of the typical 4player rotatonal map problem of exoandng towards opponent, while he is expending away. did something similar in my map no.5 that is 168x168 and as you pointed out it is compressable to 156 - probably. it is hard to make it 144 when you want to have two third and one fourth expansion per player. I don't think it could be compressed any more. Each expansion is actually about a siege tank range apart. So any more compressed and siege tanks can start hitting things from places I don't want them to. I agree that the golds will be difficult to hold. This was intentional, but I'll probably remove the rocks that make them more restricted. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
Comments on layout appreciated before I get too far into the doodading. Any thoughts on the aesthetic direction for either map? | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
- Moved Phalanx to Completed Maps - Added Dauntless to Works in Progress | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
I've been working on Providence on and off for a while. I have not decided on a good aesthetic direction for it yet. Once I can see a clear picture of what I want it to look like, the rest of the detailing work usually falls into place for me. Why do you think the space between the natural and third should be removed? In the current version (not pictured) there are actually LoS blockers at the entrance to that area. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
| ||
