EPTcustom map : Victorian Checkmate
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
baskerville
541 Posts
| ||
|
awu25
United States2003 Posts
it hurts my eyes | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 08 2010 23:07 awu25 wrote: jesus, why do the quality of the pictures get worse and worse it hurts my eyes just to get your attention | ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
| ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 03:17 G_Wen wrote: How did you change the HP of the destructible rocks? open a map on the upper header, click on data, it will open a new window select object explorer (unselect other 2: display object list as tree and display object sources) find the proper unit (by its name), list is long so look for destructible or ... select one on the right there is a field called "life starting amount", just change the amount (the data editor will create a second one with your changed value, but just in the data window) go back to the map and select units layer find the destructible place it on the map test ze map enjoy | ||
|
blubbdavid
Switzerland2412 Posts
not suited as a two player map make it more a team map or team melee and I dont know whether the middle passage is any good remove the passage and the rocks, and put the x'naga tower on an island | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 04:59 blubbdavid wrote: hmmm not suited as a two player map please elaborate | ||
|
DomiNater
United States527 Posts
Why is there only 1 gas at the main and Naturals? Are you trying to promote mineral heavy builds on this map? | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 04:59 blubbdavid wrote: put the x'naga tower on an island the center tower? the whole point is that the distance is very short between the two mains, once you have attacked the low hp rocks with your first attack unit (for instance a lone marine will pass the whole center "block" in thirty seconds, providing you target the right rocks) the concept is that if you open a pathway, you leave traces and grant access also it gives a center battlefield starting with a double choke, gaining more and more space as the players open it up the rocks make the cp bug a bit (it takes long for the cp to attack the rocks sensibly), but it does eventually get through) i'm ready to test it with anyone (and probably get creamed in the process) for further improvements, it has only been tested vs cp just pm me | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 06:20 DomiNater wrote: Good god man were you on shrooms when you made this map? Holy Cow. Why is there only 1 gas at the main and Naturals? Are you trying to promote mineral heavy builds on this map? the reasoning for the one gas is that you have to manage a gas only third expansion or try a sneaky corner base expansion (or gold base expansion) to get to tier 3 my feeling is that the game is more interesting/fun if you attack around the third minute mark... if both players get to tier 3 by the 20 minute mark, the tech will count that much more yes, i think players have had it easy... sc1 had bases with 1 geyser and it worked really well ... to each his own i suppose if you get the extra minerals you can expand, so... you can get up to 2 or even 3 gas geyser up by the half hour mark... (when the main's geyser runs out), but all expos are vulnerable no turtling on one base that's for sure, more in tune with bloodbath for the pace thank you for the insightful query | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 06:20 DomiNater wrote: Good god man were you on shrooms when you made this map? i'm always on shrooms | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 04:59 blubbdavid wrote: make it more a team map or team melee i would have to find people to "host" said team melee map i don't want to be capped by blizz, but i am if you volonteer, i can rework a team map... otherwise... i'll stick to 1v1 | ||
|
ForTeEscaPe
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
lyAsakura
United States1414 Posts
On November 09 2010 06:40 baskerville wrote: the reasoning for the one gas is that you have to manage a gas only third expansion or try a sneaky corner base expansion (or gold base expansion) to get to tier 3 my feeling is that the game is more interesting/fun if you attack around the third minute mark... if both players get to tier 3 by the 20 minute mark, the tech will count that much more yes, i think players have had it easy... sc1 had bases with 1 geyser and it worked really well ... to each his own i suppose if you get the extra minerals you can expand, so... you can get up to 2 or even 3 gas geyser up by the half hour mark... (when the main's geyser runs out), but all expos are vulnerable no turtling on one base that's for sure, more in tune with bloodbath for the pace thank you for the insightful query It is because in bw you mined 8 from each geyser instead of 4 in sc2. | ||
|
flowandebb
Canada158 Posts
| ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
Why are the minerals placed like bowling pins? | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On November 09 2010 13:41 neobowman wrote: Ok, let me get rid of this misconception. If you don't understand the game at a high level, how the hell are you supposed to understand how balance works? If you don't understand how balance works, how the hell are you supposed to make a balanced map? Totally different issue. Take Halo for example. You don't need hand eye coordination and reaction time to make a game like that. Still, it's played competitively and yeah. Etc etc. Starcraft 2 is a game of strategy. Blizzard obviously doesn't know **** about balance but taking pro feedback, they managed to get a decently balanced game. In fact, the original Starcraft's balance was almost a fluke. Also, their maps are terrible as many people agree. That's because they don't understand the game. Take any map from any player who doesn't play at a high diamond level, I could probably point out 10 different flaws in their map. Of course, that doesn't mean people would believe me since this is TL, a high diamond player would 9/10 times, agree with the argument after playing. This map, with its huge size, lack of a natural and wide open spaces, is shit to play. If it was put in ladder, people would rage about it 10x more than Desert Oasis and Kulas Ravine combined. You gotta understand that as a lower level player, you do not know how balance works, nor what makes a good map in Starcraft 2. I won't say it's impossible for you to make a good map without being a high level player, since most mapmakers on TL are probably low level players and I don't want to shatter their hopes, but you have to get an understanding of how the game works. | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 11:34 ForTeEscaPe wrote: it looks like this map favors the terran seige tanks over the zerg seige tanks. as the third happy camper to talk about siege tanks, i'll whale on you: why does it favor siege tanks? coouuuuuullllld you elaborate? have u tried the map? funny how the forums have given the 2 cent giving opportunity... blank statements are not funny and also useless saying this map favors x, without trying the map, or even giving a shred of explanation is childish (but that seems to be the rule on forums) so i'll only answer posts with discussion ps : i kinda though this map favored reapers, but hey i'm not diamond league so i should not even have posted this downloadable map in the first place... | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 11:34 ForTeEscaPe wrote: it looks like this map favors the terran seige tanks over the zerg seige tanks. funny remarks always welcomed | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 11:46 whitelynx wrote: the reasoning for the one gas is that you have to manage a gas only third expansion or try a sneaky corner base expansion (or gold base expansion) to get to tier 3 my feeling is that the game is more interesting/fun if you attack around the third minute mark... if both players get to tier 3 by the 20 minute mark, the tech will count that much more yes, i think players have had it easy... sc1 had bases with 1 geyser and it worked really well ... to each his own i suppose if you get the extra minerals you can expand, so... you can get up to 2 or even 3 gas geyser up by the half hour mark... (when the main's geyser runs out), but all expos are vulnerable no turtling on one base that's for sure, more in tune with bloodbath for the pace thank you for the insightful query [/QUOTE]It is because in bw you mined 8 from each geyser instead of 4 in sc2.[/QUOTE] no, thats not it... the fact remains : sc2 is as hard to master as sc1, but the starting out part is sooooooo much easier in sc2... blizz puts two geysers on each base because they want as many players (of all skill levels) to be able to function well with said maps... high level of play, say like in tournaments, should be done on difficult maps ...dare i say it, on unknown maps... i feel players just learn each map by heart... where's ze fun in that? | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 18:01 neobowman wrote: Same comment as in your previous thread. ... This map, with its huge size, lack of a natural and wide open spaces, is shit to play. ... and I don't want to shatter their hopes ... . [/QUOTE] wow first off, thank you for such insight... wow you really made my day "lack of natural": so you can't play maps with no natural then? maybe that makes you... maybe other people don't have to stick to your narrow view of things... "this map...is shit to play": so you've tried it then? ... thought not, ... if u do, then i'll assume your opinion is useful, until then thanks again for reassuring me that i was well raised... and not everyone has had the same luck "shatter their hopes ": boy do you sound ridiculous... possibly u are? | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 17:32 flowandebb wrote: This map makes absolutely no sense and you clearly do not know how to use the editor or make a map. well thank you very much and to you too, you clearly have no conception of what a forum is for i'll pass on asking u to elaborate as to what made u use the words "use" and "make" glhf on other maps | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 09 2010 17:44 prodiG wrote: What the... I don't even... Why are the minerals placed like bowling pins? what you are feeling... that's a good thing no? something new is always something scary it's alright i understand as to the placement of minerals, maybe the ones on Hades' Locker (a bit of self promo) will please you more as to why the particular placement: i feel the maps are often copies of blizz's skewed view, so i'm branching out... hope everyone joins in the fun on this particular map i hope to get the field back into mineral field (kinda miss worker micro i guess) anyway still no testers for me... i'm sooooooo sad... i thought so highly of u guys... guess u gotta do a "at first glance perfect balance 2 geyser in ze main with easy nat" map to rally anyone? (lookout for my next map: "Too many bridges" (bridge 2 bridge remake with rocks, god i love those low hp rocks) | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On November 09 2010 19:41 baskerville wrote: what you are feeling... that's a good thing no? something new is always something scary it's alright i understand as to the placement of minerals, maybe the ones on Hades' Locker (a bit of self promo) will please you more as to why the particular placement: i feel the maps are often copies of blizz's skewed view, so i'm branching out... hope everyone joins in the fun on this particular map i hope to get the field back into mineral field (kinda miss worker micro i guess) anyway still no testers for me... i'm sooooooo sad... i thought so highly of u guys... guess u gotta do a "at first glance perfect balance 2 geyser in ze main with easy nat" map to rally anyone? (lookout for my next map: "Too many bridges" (bridge 2 bridge remake with rocks, god i love those low hp rocks) There are standards that maps should meet if you want them to be accepted by the community. having mineral patches that are so far away from any ideal placement that they require eight workers to saturate alone does not meet this standard, nor does having three hundred destructible rocks or two minute rush times. If you don't want to design maps that meet these accepted standards then that's fine, but don't expect many people to play them | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 10 2010 04:34 prodiG wrote: There are standards that maps should meet if you want them to be accepted by the community. having mineral patches that are so far away from any ideal placement that they require eight workers to saturate alone does not meet this standard, nor does having three hundred destructible rocks or two minute rush times. If you don't want to design maps that meet these accepted standards then that's fine, but don't expect many people to play them well glhf on other maps | ||
|
flowandebb
Canada158 Posts
You do realize you're talking to prodiG right? One of the most highly respected members of this forum? Just making sure. | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 10 2010 10:10 flowandebb wrote: You do realize you're talking to prodiG right? One of the most highly respected members of this forum? Just making sure. ohhh that he's real good should deter me from discussion? i don't expect my first maps to get any fluf it's always nice to know he cared enough to post i'll be honest like him, i suppose, i do the maps one at a time it's circular logic not efficiency that drives the creation of each one the efficiency comes gradually, long after the look or feel, after the concept and just after my taste hope he keeps checking out the follow up viewers only take a couple of seconds to get a read on a map anyhow but he knows the time consuming habit of producing said maps comes from elsewhere i'll try to announce when i feel one of my maps is fit for ladder no promises on either count | ||
|
ForTeEscaPe
United States38 Posts
On November 09 2010 18:20 baskerville wrote: why does it favor terran seige tanks tldr tldr tldr tldr. because the zerg don't have seige tanks, silly! | ||
|
LeoTheLion
China958 Posts
let's just start with this point. your map isn't symmetrical, so it isn't positionally balanced. | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 10 2010 17:17 LeoTheLion wrote: op, when you say testers and critics welcome, you can't just dismiss every criticism you get. let's just start with this point. your map isn't symmetrical, so it isn't positionally balanced. who says the criticism falls on death ears? however, i much rather do another map than merking on it, to please " isn't symmetrical, so it isn't positionally balanced", so you've tested it then? the symmetrical (via copy) tool is really good that's why so many people use it i'm however not of the opinion that it guarantees anything else than a set type of drawing, no "positional balance" | ||
|
Cirno
Canada168 Posts
| ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 10 2010 13:51 ForTeEscaPe wrote: because the zerg don't have seige tanks, silly! you guys with th tank hopefully blizz will fvor zerg next in hos, so the siege rant will possibly die down thanks for the "it looks like"..., very nice when people are civil however stating that zerg should have tanks for my map to please is not very useful why don't you people ever elaborate... "ze lings can't surround" "too many chokes" etc, i don't pick up and answer on every thing, but i read and acknowledge i'm eager for testers or tester comments and bug fixed | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 10 2010 17:48 Cirno wrote: God it feels like I'm getting trolled. pardon me? | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On November 10 2010 17:51 baskerville wrote: you guys with th tank hopefully blizz will fvor zerg next in hos, so the siege rant will possibly die down thanks for the "it looks like"..., very nice when people are civil however stating that zerg should have tanks for my map to please is not very useful why don't you people ever elaborate... "ze lings can't surround" "too many chokes" etc, i don't pick up and answer on every thing, but i read and acknowledge i'm eager for testers or tester comments and bug fixed I don't mean to derail the thread, but is English your main language? (No offense, I am legitimately curious) Anyway, they're talking about how Zerg cannot get decent surrounds on an oncoming attack because the map does not have a lot of open real estate for them to work with. In spaces like this, tanks tend to shine since units funnel straight into them. Maps ridden with chokes cause tons of problems for Zerg. I can see this map being played like a money map: Players macro to 200/200 battlecruisers or void rays and then go and see who wins. | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
[QUOTE]On November 10 2010 17:51 baskerville wrote: [QUOTE]On November 10 2010 13:51 ForTeEscaPe wrote: [QUOTE]On November 09 2010 18:20 baskerville wrote: [QUOTE]On November 09 2010 11:34 ForTeEscaPe wrote: it looks like this map favors the terran seige tanks over the zerg seige tanks.[/QUOTE] why does it favor terran seige tanks tldr tldr tldr tldr.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] I don't mean to derail the thread, but is English your main language? (No offense, I am legitimately curious) Anyway, they're talking about how Zerg cannot get decent surrounds on an oncoming attack because the map does not have a lot of open real estate for them to work with. In spaces like this, tanks tend to shine since units funnel straight into them. Maps ridden with chokes cause tons of problems for Zerg. I can see this map being played like a money map: Players macro to 200/200 battlecruisers or void rays and then go and see who wins. [/QUOTE] well technically i learned english with an old englishwoman around 5 then it got ruined when i came to live in the uss of a then brushed it up to get a degree you should hear my accent, you guys can never place it as for "this map being played like a money map: Players macro to 200/200 battlecruisers or void rays and then go and see who wins" am i to understand you disagree of said strategy (the 1 a attack move at 200) ??? cause i do too (usually drop nydus or warp before the 13 minute mark myself) (putting aside my map) i'm unsure on several facts: 1/zerg needs it's lings on every map (jump to roach to hydra, then coming back to lings)? 2/tanks need to be set up (timing for 3rd tank produced) 3/no one talks about reapers anymore...? 4/ how long did it to get sc2bw up? of course, harass or other don't work as a sure win, but i'm sure if the opponent speeds to tech you can always punish him with early pressure, on my maps too pressure being much more effective than any other production builds, on any map i feel the best games have back and forth 4/5 tier1 units attack harass scout opposite base 15 tier1 units attack / 10 tier1 5 tier2 attack 30 tier1 units attack / 20 tier1 10 tier2 attack 15 tier1 15tier3 attack ... 200 vs 200 is not my cup of tee (even though they are commonly forced by siege tank photon cannon type turtling on ladder) i feel that if the map is intricate enough, the players get lost in it (building and unit placement becomes capital, expos are vital even if they are naked open, and all that scbw jazz...) the game evolves from there i just wish i got testers, players that would revel at unknown maps and here we get to my real question to the expert: could we ever get an unscouted map in a tourney, for a final for instance the map previously having been cleared by team coaches or something the players having to develop general builds this allowing for a first 5 minutes (rather than 3) and a thorough identification of the ins and outs of the map ?? when will the huge flow of mapmaking explode unto the scene to replace the antiquated idea that sc maps are a chessboard of some sort ... the ghost is not Knight.. the rare superb of this game is that it's silly infinity of potential (candidly admit i'm just getting started) (candidly admit i'm just getting started) | ||
|
LeoTheLion
China958 Posts
On November 10 2010 17:44 baskerville wrote: who says the criticism falls on death ears? however, i much rather do another map than merking on it, to please " isn't symmetrical, so it isn't positionally balanced", so you've tested it then? the symmetrical (via copy) tool is really good that's why so many people use it i'm however not of the opinion that it guarantees anything else than a set type of drawing, no "positional balance" but you've been rejecting criticism from pretty much every single poster. i can tell that your map isn't symmetrical from the picture you posted: ![[image loading]](http://www.cacaouete.net/sc2/vc1.jpg) that doesn't look symmetrical to me. | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
when drawing in a queued fassion (taylorism in action, you quickly draw a ton with no expectancies one must get some poorly drawn material in the process check out Dead Star, the drawing improves the problem with 1 a select and copy to be symetrical method is that you need to account for orientation (noone uses nukes with the camera turn, no?) i've started on Knight to king 5 map give your 2 cent there just for your satisfaction vc will be the first map to get dumped when i get capped by blizz | ||
|
LeoTheLion
China958 Posts
and to agree with above posters, this map would be hard to play versus tanks. you mentioned that it's zerg's job to not let terran get too many tanks. well no shit sherlock, you try to do that on any map you play. what if you can't prevent that? for example, terran just turtles and safely masses tanks to a critical number. then it's very hard to stop. of course you can say, well, you can just get mutalisks. but then in terms of metagame, it limits the options that zerg has vs terran on this map. part of the strength of zerg is versatility, and if zerg is forced to open muta instead of ground every game on this map, then terran can abuse that on this map. i took at your knight to king map, and it looks even worse. who the fuck would play on that? i mean, if it was just for kicks and giggles with friends i guess, but if you spawn on island and other guy spawns on land, he can just take an expo first, because you have to tech up to drop or air before you can do anything. what you could do is scrap the 9 spawn locations idea, and make it 4 spawn locations. but at least make the the corners and the sides the same. if top left corner has room to build one more barracks than bottom left, then it is your fault as mapmaker for making a positionally imbalanced map. edit: never mind this kid is just trolling. i'm outta here | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 10 2010 19:27 LeoTheLion wrote: what the fuck are you talking about? it's your responsibility as mapmaker to make it symmetrical so players don't get offered advantage just because of lucky spawn. people don't care if this is your first time making maps, but if you do want your maps to be played, you should put in some effort to at least make them symmetrical. and to agree with above posters, this map would be hard to play versus tanks. you mentioned that it's zerg's job to not let terran get too many tanks. well no shit sherlock, you try to do that on any map you play. what if you can't prevent that? for example, terran just turtles and safely masses tanks to a critical number. then it's very hard to stop. of course you can say, well, you can just get mutalisks. but then in terms of metagame, it limits the options that zerg has vs terran on this map. part of the strength of zerg is versatility, and if zerg is forced to open muta instead of ground every game on this map, then terran can abuse that on this map. i took at your knight to king map, and it looks even worse. who the fuck would play on that? i mean, if it was just for kicks and giggles with friends i guess, but if you spawn on island and other guy spawns on land, he can just take an expo first, because you have to tech up to drop or air before you can do anything. what you could do is scrap the 9 spawn locations idea, and make it 4 spawn locations. but at least make the the corners and the sides the same. if top left corner has room to build one more barracks than bottom left, then it is your fault as mapmaker for making a positionally imbalanced map. this is the fuck i'm talking about... none of us know the game yet so pipe down and clear the chips from your tummy tumtum "it's zerg's job to not let terran get too many tanks" look closer at the map and realize that the map is op favored to zerg, since walling off in your main is almost impossible under the 10 minute mark you guys are sweet, but you keep hammering (not unlike said siege toy) about it, reapers or the wall off issue far precedes the st issue... i do wish you guys took more than 3 seconds on a viewing of a minimap jpg tanks are tier 2, who says you'll get to that? "who the fuck would play on that?" read further developments on said thread, personally i feel a 1v1 on 6 would be nice (with re-haul of main shapes and sizes), but i'm hoping for the hat trick and get a 1v1 with 8 spawn positions (2 or 4 being island or not), remember that to get to you, the opponent has to scout you in all 7 positions, soooo... it's worth a try anyhow " if top left corner has room to build one more barracks than bottom left" "it is your fault as mapmaker" "metagame" you guys are really something (this is a work in progress, plus i like unbalanced titleset this one is a canvas showcasing max base potential on the largest map available) "i took at your knight to king map" (its knight to king 5) maybe that's where you should have posted it'd be nice if discussions always moved on to the last current published map, it would save time (the multiple map thread gets buried) finally "this is your first time making maps" i've been making maps since warcraft 1 thank you for the "this kid is just trolling" still not fluent, one can troll his (or her) post? please educate me | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
nonononono gogogogogo on and comment please and pm me if the download is not functionnal i might add that i encourage players to visit the maps for themselves, map textures of some originality may induce lots of misconceptions (on pathway sizes or other), it takes mere minutes | ||
|
baskerville
541 Posts
On November 10 2010 19:27 LeoTheLion wrote: edit: never mind this kid is just trolling. i'm outta here come again? | ||
| ||
