Liquid`

EDT 05:55
CEST 11:55
KST 18:55

Forum Sidebar

Events/Features

Making an Online Broodwar Manager Game ASL22 General Discussion BW Drama: Terror's Debt Incident + C9 disbanding [Personal Project Share] Terran Defense v0.60 BW General Discussion

Tourneys

[Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL II: Brood War - $2500 - Dec 5-6 2v2v2v2 Tournament Escore Tournament - Season 3

Strategy

Any training maps people recommend? Fighting Spirit mining rates Simple Questions, Simple Answers Odyssey Mineral Stack Saturation

Blogs

Please support my new stand…

ASL S22 English Commentary…

namkraft

Poker (part 2)

Nebuchad

[map] Dreamscape -madsquare

Post a Reply

Madsquare

Germany157 Posts

January 09 2011 14:36 GMT

Here I present you the dreamscape.

+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer] +

+ Show Spoiler [Summary] +

+ Show Spoiler [Main-Main] +

+ Show Spoiler [Natural-Natural] +

Specifications:

2 Spawnlocations

10 mineral bases
-main has 8 patches
-natural has 8 patches
-expansions have 8 patches

00 gold bases

00 Xel'naga Towers

Size: 128x128 virtual size
-- with the high ground above fourth and third, the real size is 144x144.

Notes:

Natural and third can vary. For T and P the high ground expo is maybe the better choice.

The forest is unpathable by ground but pathable by air. The plants are the border. Imagine a line from every plant/tree to the next.

Feedback is always highly appreciated.

You can catch me on irc in #teamliquid @ quakenet.

greetings, madsquare.

other maps:
Exe9
BBQ
Amnesia
Ice Wastes
Beta Station
Sapphire
Emerald Plateau
The Edge

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

January 09 2011 15:28 GMT

I think the layout indeed is different or even unique, but i am not too fond of the big number of pathways and 'chokes'. well, there are no real chokes here, because the pathes are pretty wide, which indicates how big and open the map is.

so, why isn't this something good?

the big number of potential directions for attacks and the fact that these pathes are pretty big (=overall distances are long) makes it really difficult to defend. probably that is something you want to achieve? I think making things hard to defend is good, when the map is huge and rushing distance is long. then one might want to make it easier to be agressive against zerg fast double expand and put down several attacking pathes and directions to help the attacker`?

there are no clear positions where one would like to keep one's forces. this could be difficult in mid and late game. managing your movement is difficult, because the layout is not very clear and not easy to understand.

still, I like the map a lot for the different situation and the relative positions of the expansions.
therefor I would like to suggest to somehow ''bend' the layout a little bit and make it more compact probably... for example the far expansion next to the Nat could move a bit inwards. also this could be HY.
I quickly made a small skecth of what i mean:

i am interested how your map might play in general with all these hig ground areas in the back that ask for drops and that are difficult to scout/spot.

monitor

United States2409 Posts

January 09 2011 16:31 GMT

The expansion layout needs work... Where can each player be on 5bases? Either way you divide the map, the player is too close to an enemy expansion.

Another big problem is your playable size. 2 player maps really need to be around or a bit larger than 128x96 to make sure races are balanced. Right now, everything has gigantic distances here. I think you should probably ditch the map instead of remaking it.

Aesthetics are rather dull, seems like a lot of blue... could just be me though.

The back door into the natural is very easy to go into (short distance to it), yet it is very hard to wall off. Right now it is just too hard for a P to FE on this map. Considering there is also a back door into the main, and your third is relatively hard to take, something needs to be changed.

The high ground in the corners is really not going to be used much, if only for a little harass. You should really define your concept and capitalize on whatever it is.

Antares777

United States1971 Posts

January 09 2011 16:50 GMT

I like the location of the thirds, but overall, defending expansions on this map is difficult. I'd make the map more linear by moving the fifths in front of the thirds on the same ground as the middle. This would require the map to be stretched out vertically to give that expansion adequate room. Then, I'd remove everything to the left of the fourths, decreasing it's width.

This would make the fifth more difficult to take/defend, but make everything else easier to defend. I'll edit with a sketch of my idea in a few minutes.

EDIT: Sketch + Show Spoiler +

I forgot to pencil in where the fifths would be, but I would have them on the high grounds off of the center or in front of the thirds on low ground. The fifths could even be high yield expansions. Dark lines represent LoSBs, the lollipops represent XWTs, and circles represent DRs. The image obviously isn't prefectly symmetrical or proportionate (mainly the skinny path from the third to the middle wouldn't be that skinny), so the sizes that you see would probably be wider/smaller in the editor/game. You might even want DRs blocking the ramp from the high ground in the middle to the thirds. This is just what I would do, make it more like XC in the center.

[image loading]

Madsquare

Germany157 Posts

January 09 2011 18:12 GMT

I appreciate you are beeing direct Monitor. The best feedback doesnt contain any praise. However it is advisable to keep a friendly tone. The way you look into a mirror, the same way it will look at you.

On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
The expansion layout needs work... Where can each player be on 5bases? Either way you divide the map, the player is too close to an enemy expansion.

The first four bases are obvious I think. The 'fifths' are pretty much neutral. You can take them as your third, fourth or fifth.
Expanding in the opposite of your opponent is technique I hve been using in Emerald Plateau too and it makes for some really cool games. When you expand the rush distance is not drastically reduced, but as (regular) expanding continues both player find themselves in front the opponents natural. Players are left with an insane decision and the results are really nice to watch.

On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
Another big problem is your playable size. 2 player maps really need to be around or a bit larger than 128x96 to make sure races are balanced. Right now, everything has gigantic distances here.

The distances are below Shakuras, LT cross and Meta cross. As far as I know 142 game units is a good distance main to main. But I might prove wrong.

On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
I think you should probably ditch the map instead of remaking it.

I appreciate you leave some feedback for me, but I must ask you to stop insulting me.

On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
Aesthetics are rather dull, seems like a lot of blue... could just be me though.

True art lies within the viewers eye. I personally have spent about 14 hours on it and I like it pretty much

Wich is by the way the reason I called it 'Dreamsape'.

On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
The back door into the natural is very easy to go into (short distance to it), yet it is very hard to wall off. Right now it is just too hard for a P to FE on this map. Considering there is also a back door into the main, and your third is relatively hard to take, something needs to be changed.

Ah now we are talking about some of the very layout fundamentals

With the choice of the low or high ground natural there isnt always a backdoor. For zergs there probably is one, but its quite some distance to attack the backdoor and zerg can spot the path pretty easily with ovies.
You can FE to the low ground, pretty similar to XN and Meta. Nexus before gate is probably not the best choice though

The popular 2gate (robo) should suffice however.
Terran can 1rax expand to the high ground and wall it with 1 or 2 bunkers and be safe.

The third (be it low or high ground) is pretty close and pretty easy to hold actually due to both of them having one medium (10/11squares) and one small (8 squares) sized chokes. Are we talking about the same base? Because I cant understand your concern.

On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
The high ground in the corners is really not going to be used much, if only for a little harass.

As you say, harass and backstabs are the sole purpose. But why would that be bad? Afaik its common practise amongst mappers to make various pathes and cliffs just for that.

On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
You should really define your concept and capitalize on whatever it is.

Thats a great advise for all mappers!
I think I did well doing so on this map. The concept is a very dynamic map, that leaves you with a lot of choices and possibilities. You can not only choose paths to attack, but also the entire expansion pattern is variable. Your choices have an impact on the whole flow of the map and create a very special dynamic and feeling. The tension is incredible when you consider that both players make these decisions and influence each other with it.

I have put my heart and soul into creating this and keeping all the choices equally viable and to be honest Im really happy how it turned out

Of course my maps never reach a truly final version and will stay WIP as long as I live

cheers,
madsquare.

edit:

On January 10 2011 01:50 Antares777 wrote:
I like the location of the thirds, but overall, defending expansions on this map is difficult. I'd make the map more linear by moving the fifths in front of the thirds on the same ground as the middle. This would require the map to be stretched out vertically to give that expansion adequate room. Then, I'd remove everything to the left of the fourths, decreasing it's width.

Sketch + Show Spoiler +

That sketch looks certainly interesting but it would stray too much from the concept :/
Perhaps you can use some ideas of in your next map?

@ Samro225am
I think you understood the concept of the map very well. Yes the amount of positions, expansion pattern and movement options, and no real 'lead' in gameplay is the goal of this map.
I am with the opinion that this is a good way to go, but I might prove completly wrong in the future.
For now I believe in myself and wait for certain things to progress.
The Idea you posted is actually something I find interesting. Im likely doing something in that direction when I feel the current layout is outdated.

monitor

United States2409 Posts

January 09 2011 18:23 GMT

On January 10 2011 01:31 monitor wrote:
I think you should probably ditch the map instead of remaking it.

I appreciate you leave some feedback for me, but I must ask you to stop insulting me.

I wasn't insulting you... None of my comments are personal, they're to help out the maps.

When I said to ditch the map, I meant that to remake this map into a balanced and playable condition would require too much change and effort (in my opinion). Plus it might look like a different map. Sorry you took it personally!