| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
l3lackjax
Canada24 Posts
I ask because I myself am a mapper and I keep hearing people complain about imbalances in Blizzard's melee maps (Scrap Station, Kulas). Perhaps if you guys could provide information as to what you would like to see in a melee map we could build better ones for you guys to pwn on in the future. I realize that me =/= Blizzard but who knows maybe they might read this one day and learn from it. ~ Thanks :D | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
 | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
As for my personal response, I can't improve on Barrin's exhaustive list . I'll edit with anything I think of, but I have nothing to add or subtract at the moment. Lol. | ||
|
Madsquare
Germany157 Posts
| ||
|
MAPPoVe
86 Posts
Every open space area should be there for a reason worth fighting for. With the enhanced pathing, flancking routes can be very narrow now. One should waste space as less as possible, making it important to combat for different key areas. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
PlaGuE_R
France1151 Posts
| ||
|
Steezysn0brdr
United States16 Posts
On December 04 2010 13:48 Barrin wrote: I like to see clever and plenty of LoS Blocker usage. I like to see creative destructible rock usage. I do not like to see too many destructible rocks. I like to see dead space and cliffs used generously to promote the use of air units. I like to see special attention to both rush distances and distance from every base to every other base with consideration to how each type of unit (ground / cliffwalker / air) can traverse that distance. I like to see reasonable potential for both short games and longer games on most maps. I like to see balance, but not an excruciating amount of balance. 55% winrate for a certain matchup on a certain map is extremely reasonable, especially in the context of a map pool. I like to see viable strategies for all races in all matchups on all maps. I like to see very beautiful maps with distinct themes and extreme attention to detail. I also like to see certain areas contrast well with certain other areas. I like to see all of this, BUT implemented in such a way that it harbors FUN for all parties involved. Anyways I like to see a lot of things (and I might add in more later), but what I really like to see is a tremendous amount of thought put into a single map. + Show Spoiler + (and that doesn't mean it has to be some 256x256 extremely complicated map) - Barrin This ^ Adding areas of high spectator value but at the same time maintaining balance is also what I appreciate from the map maker when playing custom-mades. I'd say the three most important things to consider (to sum up Barrin's post) is: -Multiple paths, areas to flank, alternate routes. -Well placed XnT's and LOS blockers. -Plenty of dead space around the map where air units can fly and room behind the minerals (crowded and land blocked minerals in your main are unappealing). There needs to be room for units to move and react behind the mineral lines, be they attacking, or defending. Most of the time+ Show Spoiler + As Barrin had already mentioned! (Not referring to bling drops as every good player should have that in their arsenal already.) | ||
|
Brother Roga
Finland38 Posts
| ||
|
Whiplash
United States2928 Posts
| ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
On December 05 2010 00:51 Madsquare wrote: "If i had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry Ford while this is true, its not an entirely applicable statement; this would apply to the design of the first map compared to whatever was before it | ||
|
BuuGhost
Netherlands340 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
TSM
Great Britain584 Posts
| ||
|
SnuggleZhenya
596 Posts
| ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
Elegance. The map needs to be simple. Not dull but it needs to have a neatness that can be picked up quickly. If the map is complicated it needs to come naturally otherwise it will be too messy to play on. | ||
|
BoomStevo
United States332 Posts
On December 07 2010 08:27 G_Wen wrote: While Barrin covers nearly all the bases I think there is one thing that need to be added before any map is complete. Elegance. The map needs to be simple. Not dull but it needs to have a neatness that can be picked up quickly. If the map is complicated it needs to come naturally otherwise it will be too messy to play on. Each aspect and feature of a map having a purpose and working harmoniously together to provide a unique experience. Elegance. That words sums up my feelings so well. I agree and thanks G_Wen. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On December 07 2010 08:41 BoomStevo wrote: Each aspect and feature of a map having a purpose and working harmoniously together to provide a unique experience. Elegance. That words sums up my feelings so well. I agree and thanks G_Wen. I would consider this a cardinal rule of design, in the most general sense. It should be ever-present in your mind when considering your options, and taking stock of what you have and where you're headed. As an aside, basically every successful map has that "oh I get it" moment of comprehension almost at first glance. But most of the best maps have layers of "oh I get it" that don't reveal themselves immediately. I don't think it's a requirement, but I think it's a hallmark of superlative work that you create this layered depth. | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
Everybody likes aesthetics. I'm not going to lie. Gameplay, while it is the most important out of everything for your map, no one will care if it has bad aesthetics. Your map will be buried like a lot of other ones. I suck at textures and aesthetics, so I'm not the person to talk to about these... Symmetry. This goes with gameplay a lot. Your map needs to be symmetrical, whether it is inverse, converse, or rotational, it needs symmetry. On four player maps, be careful using rotational symmetry, because it can give the player on one side of the map an advantage in where they spawn, like on Factory, by Archi. This would make a great inverse symmetrical two player map, but not a good four player map. Attack paths are extremely important. You need to have multiple attack paths, but not too many. A good example of excellent use of multiple attack paths would be the map Erebus by BoomStevo. This map allows multiple attack paths to all of the expansions beyond the natural, and allows great map flow from hi to low and vice versa. That is also important in making sure that Terran is not overpowered (Siege Tanks...) by being able to lockdown the enemy player at a certain spot by having a high ground advantage. To add onto this, the fastest way to get from main to main (or nat to nat) should also be the most dangerous path and other the least amount of expansions. Sometimes that expansion rule can be bent, like with maps that have the high yield expansions in the center of the map, which makes them very hard to control/defend. The first map that I thought of was prodiG's Enigma, but there are plenty of maps that do this. Expansions beyond the natural should be out of the way for both you and your enemy, unless they are islands or high yield bases. Islands should be placed in such a position that building a CC and flying it there from your main or natural would be a bad idea because it crosses over a lot of land and is far away. A lot of Konicki's maps, such as Lebasse Pass, Sungsu Crossing, and Sanshorn Mists have island expansions that are out of the way. Lebasse Pass would be the best example of this. Islands are not necessary, but if you are going to have them, do it right. You can place two islands, one for each player and have them rather far away, or place one island, like on Konicki's Orbital Divide, and on Scrap Station, equidistant from each base. Standard high yield expansions consist of 6 high yield mineral patches and two vespene geysers (not sure if the standard expansion has high yield gas, your choice I guess). High yield expansions are usually covered by destructible rocks, like on Blistering Sands and Kulas Ravine. This is so that players cannot fast expand to these locations and get away with it. High yield locations that are not covered with DRs should be extremely hard to defend, and should be noticeable by either a Xel'naga Watchtower or a frequently travelled position on the map. High yield locations should be near frequently travelled locations on the map, such as directly in between you and your enemy, and should be in vulnerable locations. They can be on frequently travelled locations, or just force players to move slightly out of their way, but again, this can be bent and modified depending on how the map flows. NEVER put a high yield expansion on an island, this favors Terran a lot because of MULE mechanics and their flying buildings. You don't really want to place DRs on islands unless you really have to; keeping out of early game reach is better than doing that. XWTs should be placed in frequently travelled locations or desirable locations. They should reveal attack paths. Whether or not it should reveal the main attack path or a side one again depends on the map. Emerald Plateau by Madsquare has XWTs that overlook an alternative path to your enemy, and reveal not so much about the middle. Blistering Sands has XWTs that reveal the entrance to the player's naturals, the middle path, and the side path, and are extremely important to hold on that map. Island XWT placement is generally a bad idea because it gives Terran easy access to them, and they already have Sensor Towers. Backdoor entrances are okay to have for naturals, and should have a DR. Backdoors are only okay for main bases if the time to travel from the natural choke to the backdoor is a good amount larger than the time it takes to travel from defending the natural choke to defending the backdoor. These backdoors must have a DR placed. Line of sight blockers should be placed in locations that they would be needed in. Most people would like creative placement of these for both aesthetic value and gameplay value. LoSBs can be placed near choke points, and by destructible rocks (example: Blistering Sands; Metalopolis, even though it doesn't have a backdoor it has LoSBs for a drop zone). Original ideas are both good and bad. As SnuggleZhenya said, Xel'naga Caverns is a good map and it is pretty straight forward; no original ideas. Scrap Station is terrible because it was too original, but maps like Match Point and Blue Storm (BW maps, I'll add links to remakes tomorrow) because they are 100% original and good because of it. I know they are not very good examples because they were made for BW, but they are examples nonetheless. Room behind minerals on all bases where players can build stuff, where air harassment can take place, and where early game harassment can take place. I recommend two to three blocks of buildable room. Maps should have equal potential in each stage of the game (dammit, I lost the game). Blistering Sands is notoriously known for one-base builds because it is very potent then, but not so much later on. Your map should be equally opportunistic for early game and late game. It's okay to make maps that are early game oriented and maps that are late game oriented, but a middle groud is usually the best. Choke points are important to have on a map, but don't overdo it. There needs to be open areas for flanking (mainly for Zerg) and chokes for defending certain areas. Your map needs orientation, which isn't hard to achieve. The map needs to be understandable and comprehendible. You don't really have to worry about this point as much because it is very easy to accomplish. Oh yeah, welcome to the community! I'll be looking forward to see your first map!  | ||
|
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. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
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 | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 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. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Zero.Tha.Hero
Canada155 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
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!!!!  | ||
| ||
|
|
FEL
RSL Revival
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
WardiTV European League
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
