I don't even know what a grossly protoss favored map would like like. Either way I'd like to see it.
[R]What do you like to see in Melee Maps? - Page 2
Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Geovu
Estonia1344 Posts
I don't even know what a grossly protoss favored map would like like. Either way I'd like to see it. | ||
Barrin
United States5002 Posts
I don't even know what a grossly protoss favored map would like like. Either way I'd like to see it. Reading this thread should give you some ideas (warning: not everything mentioned by everyone in there makes sense). http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=169474 | ||
CounteR
New Zealand103 Posts
BW style maps with small chokes at your front expo with more expansions which the current blizzard ladder maps lack :D | ||
Barrin
United States5002 Posts
| ||
baskerville
541 Posts
Your op question is (deliberately or not) very open... and the thread and openness both are very conductive to debate, thank you. So.., is the player the viewer or the mapmaker suppose to answer? + Show Spoiler + Mapmaker: I like open mains, I like hard to take nat and impossible thirds, loads of attack paths (I feel the edges should be used more (a "dropable" main is a good thing), I like aggro maps with concepts applied that make these maps difficult to master, maps requiring sneak expoing and constant scouting (leading the opponent's forces to waste their time on fake expos etc), maps that you think "what ze fuck wins on this map! gotta try this!"... Not because those favour me, they are damn hard and I mostly get plowed over, those types of map favour PLAY! What is the point of having diversity in the units if the maps nullify them... where is the fun in waiting around until the lag makes your mass of units unbeatable (whatever race) and you win by just 1 Aing around the map, beats me. To sum up I'd say my wish is for maps that enforce a "universal" build order that provides incentive for developing (what I feel is the game) strategy, this from the get go...(build 2 workers and then stop sinking your resources mainly on economy, just leveling through, you'll still have massing and teching available, only it is simultaneous with the attacking (harass etc) ) why should I spend my time rallying workers when I can do more exiting stuff? I hate maps that favour 200 food 1 A attack turtling players (if most blizz's map do, it's to get beginners to invest more time in the game and allow for simcity addicts to flourish). I am sooooo sad that most players think this defines the game. You should attack harass, be doing something, f..k waiting for the 20 minute mark to get to PLAY!!! This game is like sex: the back and forth defines it... if I'm the ony one attacking in a game where there's a defender's advantage I must be "barney"(in trouble)..?!? ... thankfully there are ways to counter turtles... So with aggro play and gradual macro and teching, you have to mass armies or tech gradually, and it's always more rewarding since the game didn't start with 20 minutes of boredom... Also I like to see people produce the weirdest maps possible... but this doesn't happen much... every main is choked, every pathway is understood in one play... blablabla... and that's why I don't map that way, not because I think Blizzard's type of balancing via layout is wrong... on the contrary I think no one will surpass their initial pool of map concepts. In any case, they define the melee gameplay ... I like these concepts it's just that there's so many people producing maps on that wavelength that I got fed up with it surprisingly quickly. This coupled with the (map wise very disappointing) laddering experience.. , f..k what is Blizz doing on that front? We should have gotten extra ladder maps by now, even bad ones! Player: Laddering play: I play random, which grants me the delight of killing the scout worker my opponents offer without fail every time... (which sums up the usual first 10 minutes of game, since most people turtle till then) ...since they "have to" in order to get their defenses to be tailored to my race... (when I "announce" I'm playing t z or p, I don't even get the pleasure of that first skirmish...) ... While laddering, I don't mind turtling players so much (still it takes no guts to turtle and tech and gg at once if it doesn't work because someone crashed your surprise party), but boy are they the norm. I think my favorite ladder maps would not surprise anyone: Metal, Xelnaga caverns, Shakuras ... but in fact I really like them all, cause they pose an array of challenges to overcome (the random tidbit is again a plus). There should be no dead end discussions about such, one should always bend over backwards to win on any map (regardless of the map being good or bad ), providing you have marginally the same mileage as your opponent on said map (that's the only imbalance in this game)... there should be discussions on how to create new challenges and other such "evolution".. there should be lots of discussing done, after having played the maps... Any play: My personal choice has always been to get any type of units in my build orders (the choice defined by what will counter what you've "scanned" from your opponents, personal pet peeves, layouts timings, flavor of the week and what have you...). I wish to go even further with mass reintroducing BLACK MASK, remember when you had to scout to view the overall layout on the minimap? Even if you've played through and through already it adds to the game (never take stuff out from a game without long consideration). This (among many other concepts) enriches the game, makes it exiting and insures constant varied plays... viewer: great play can be found in any map! As for graphics (I love eye candy but a map is not encompassed by that, it does SET the mood and that's vital though) anything goes if it works (a map filled with clouds as an oppressing "line of sight blocker feature" would be my personal goal, just haven't figured it out yet... As for "features" (again with the imprecise) , ums is both accepted and rejected as "other" when referencing melee... if a feature goes beyond blizz's trademark, usually it's frowned upon (read me pontificate, "frowned upon", f..k this is a cool game where people still frown) ... but those are untested waters, for instance, melee mod are not even defined yet, the very tasty last Iccup map is arguably showcasing new features, so some hope is still there... I love features, all of them providing they are showcased properly and work for the map (the more features the merrier, however a skyscrappershitload of work is needed just for pretesting said features, and mostly their conjunction into one "ready to play" map.. ready to be tested further.. very few "features" will go beyond a few months of play, but they should all be considered... So in short I like new maps... edit: spoilered for being in the "corner" | ||
Faze.
Canada285 Posts
Actually I don't think the editor can generate maps as big as I would like them to be. Too many ramps for any kind of walloff, or simply wide open bases. High grounds so high that flying units can't see what's going on here unless they fly over it, and range units shouldn't be able to shoot through mountains and reach what's up there. Water or gap blocking the normal ground path and weird air zones messing up air units going thought them. Biological looking maps with trees so huge it blocks scan vision. You would need units there to actually have sight of the ground. (that could work with caves too) Something probably no one else would like to see : a map where you have the choice of where you wanna start, maybe like 4 options out of 8 spawning points, and the map should be designed to make it so it's impossible to spawn at close position. Inbefore: lol zerg player wants far position for imba play QQQQQQ selfish basterd. Sorry to be the one telling you this but every race can play far positions, it's just that zerg is not advantaged by close position like protoss and terran, not the other way around. | ||
l3lackjax
Canada24 Posts
On December 23 2010 23:06 baskerville wrote: Mostly I like choices... I'll always want more... Your op question is (deliberately or not) very open... and the thread and openness both are very conductive to debate, thank you. So.., is the player the viewer or the mapmaker suppose to answer? Both help greatly, but I guess it should be more directed to the people playing the maps as they're probably going to be your main contributors here, unless TL has a big mapping community. Either way I'm open to both and I'm sure others could agree to that - it all helps. | ||
Zero.Tha.Hero
Canada155 Posts
On December 30 2010 17:16 l3lackjax wrote: TL has a big ... community Truncated for accuracy. <on topic> Melee maps should be made with a varying attention to both innovative design features and conventional balanced construction. The best maps are the ones that present multiple viable strategic options for each matchup, sometimes engineered towards a particular tactical approach through careful path geography. | ||
Barrin
United States5002 Posts
The best maps are the ones that present multiple viable strategic options for each matchup, sometimes engineered towards a particular tactical approach through careful path geography. While this sounds good on paper, it's actually much more complicated than that IMO. I personally think it makes a lot more sense to only do so to an extent, while making greater portions of the map actually fairly ambiguous. Certain types of strategies should be relatively viable in each matchup, but the map as a whole shouldn't really funnel the player into that one type of strategy, macro vs micro aside. Not only does this make for more varying types of games on that particular map, but it also allows the better player's decision making skills to shine. | ||
Zero.Tha.Hero
Canada155 Posts
| ||
Barrin
United States5002 Posts
You might be interested in this thread btw. My theories have evolved somewhat since I wrote it, but I would still appreciate your input ^_^ | ||
Eiviyn
United Kingdom169 Posts
I think a lot of custom melee mappers forget that their maps aren't just for playing on, but for watching too. There are too many custom melee maps with 2-3 textures tops, little to no blending and obvious copy/rotate/pasting of terrain. It's lazy practice and while it wasn't too noticeable in sc1, it makes a huge difference in sc2 and I think some mappers haven't realised this yet. Balance is always good, but it's only part of the picture. In addition, people seem to strive to make the perfect map, rather than the perfect map pool. Maps with deliberate flaws like susceptibility to air attack or a short ground rush distance might not make for a "perfect" map, but it does create variety in playstyle and I think a lot of people forget this. Just my 2 pence. I don't play melee, I prefer to watch, so take the above with a pinch of salt. | ||
baskerville
541 Posts
On December 30 2010 22:57 Eiviyn wrote: Attention to detail. I think a lot of custom melee mappers forget that their maps aren't just for playing on, but for watching too. There are too many custom melee maps with 2-3 textures tops, little to no blending and obvious copy/rotate/pasting of terrain. It's lazy practice and while it wasn't too noticeable in sc1, it makes a huge difference in sc2 and I think some mappers haven't realised this yet. Balance is always good, but it's only part of the picture. In addition, people seem to strive to make the perfect map, rather than the perfect map pool. Maps with deliberate flaws like susceptibility to air attack or a short ground rush distance might not make for a "perfect" map, but it does create variety in playstyle and I think a lot of people forget this. Just my 2 pence. I don't play melee, I prefer to watch, so take the above with a pinch of salt. " it does create variety in playstyle and I think a lot of people forget this " more power to this! | ||
jon osterman
71 Posts
i say thee nay!!!! | ||
| ||