|
BEL'SHIR WALKWAY 4.0 (UPDATED 1/23/2011)
90 degree view: + Show Spoiler +
*If map image doesn't resize, visit: http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd199/GameWorlds/bwv422.jpg
50 degree view: http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd199/GameWorlds/Bwv42.jpg
Map details:
-This map has high potential for macro, but does encourage turtling in various places, but favors Zerg expanding slightly over terran and protoss, however it still allows T and P to gain key points and advantages.
-Each main base has a second natural in the back blocked off by two sets of destructible rocks at each choke, allowing for double-entry and time to reinforce a choke point if playing as the defendant. This gives a player a choice to expand while knowing the risks involved.
-Rush Distance is approx 40 seconds game time from choke point to choke point (main to main).
-Each player has a Xel'Naga Watch Tower to watch his or her own gold expansion and the center of the battlefield, so both are at equal advantages of controlling the game. This still puts the gold expansion at high risk of being overrun from any side.
-The natural at each base has a back-way blocked by LOS, which allows for sneak attacks and offers a safER route for workers to reach the high ground expansion in the corners. This change was made to prevent heavy T and P turtle games.
1v1 map, 128x128
If you're interested you may add me on starcraft: IronMan #714
This replay is up to date, showing a epic TvP match between two masters: http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/replays.php?game=33&show=details&id=184380
Download here (NA only right now): http://www.sc2mapster.com/maps/ashir-dulan/files/5-bel-shir-walkway-final/
|
Didn't I just see this thread?
|
Remade it to fit the requirement for the topic name.
|
Ah ok. For future reference, you can just ask a mod to change the title, and edit the original post.
The map looks pretty good, no big problems in layout. People are going to complain that walling off the natural is hard, but thats not really an issue.
|
Looks really appealing, great work!
|
The general architecture reminds me a lot of xel-naga caverns, the difference being that your main and natural are a lot more closed off and the third expansion is really easy to take with the middle being a bit more wide open. I have somewhat mixed opinions on the third, the rocks seem like a gimmick to prevent it from being taken too easily but it should be easily takeable just the same.
At first glance it seems like a pretty strong terran map with the terran being able to really easily take their first 3 bases and siege tank contain the other player back on two or three bases. The back of the main is just begging for drops too. We'll have to see though, first impressions are often wrong.
|
|
|
i like the architecture, but
1. i don't know about rocks blocking off the third, perhaps leave it open like it is but add some terrain and move it a bit further away from the natural
2. the gold should be a bit further away from the main and third. expanding the water patch between the main, gold, and nat+3rd towards the center and/or moving the third a bit to the west/south, respectively east, north with some added terrain to add the distance would be good. this is because expansions seem way too easy to defend with mech by terran, and the gold seems close to unbreakable with a pf once terran gets there, due to close distances for reinforcements
3. too much unattackable air space, toss won't be able to make collossus on this ever, plus drops will be too easy to pull off, with the exception of nydus play, which you won't be able to put anywhere to be worth it as it is
4. don't like islands on maps. these are going to be impossible to break and are a bit too advantageous to take early because of all the open space. like with drops, this favors terran hard, toss neutral, zerg weakness. at least make them larger, wider
that;s what springs to mind at first glance, once you work out expansion location, open air space, and add doodads, it might look completely different, but till then hope this input helps. gl
|
Islands should have seven mineral patches to punish players for taking easy expansions.
|
144 by 144 sounds really big, when is it test ready?
|
I am working on the layout first before I even consider testing it. It's not worth making the map complete only to find it has a lot to be desired. I will constantly update this thread when more updates are added.
I could put more mineral patches where the islands are, but then the map would be way, way too big or 2 players. That's why it's difficult to figure out what else I could possibly do. I feel this is a general good size when considering a "large 1v1 map" but I don't want to over-do it.
I could just take the islands out however and add pathing to the water.
Or, my 3rd option is to take the islands and transform them into new mains for this to become a 2v2 (or 1v1) map, thus giving me reason to add more mineral patches as well. The only problem with this option is that team members would have a tough time giving aid to their partners.
|
United States10151 Posts
On January 13 2011 04:53 IronManSC wrote:
Each base has a very close natural
Don't they all. xD
The map looks nice and you have a quick 3rd to take. How all you need is nice texturing and doodads.
|
general guidelines: 1v1, 128x128 max. 1v1v1v1, 144x144 max
1v1v1v1 is 1v1 for 4 spawns, at least to me?
|
Seams like a good map :D would like to see it on Bnet at some point!!! 
|
This map is way too big for a 2-player map. That's why you have a lot of unused terrain. I think if you tighten the map up a bit more to 108x108, you'll be able to get all your stuff closer together, have less unused terrain and will have a better map eventually.
From that point, your texturing needs more work... alot more.
|
I think this map could be compressed quite a bit.
- move fourth a bit more to outside and gold a bit towards centre to compress map
- kill islands
- make third a little more difficult, but get rid of DRs
- outside area of two smalls ponts could be a bit more smaller and could use some LoSBs
i like it overall (XN Caverns?). maybe the next MotM will be: who makes the most interesting XNCaverns alternative?
|
IronManSC,
still no eye candy :tear:
Samro225am,
xelnaga is really a straightforward chess board = cool
|
On January 13 2011 23:10 baskerville wrote:
IronManSC,
still no eye candy :tear:
Samro225am,
xelnaga is really a straightforward chess board = cool
sure it's cool. my comment was meant like: this remembers me of xelnaga > motm could ask to have only Xelnaga like maps in one month and see who comes up with something that is similar yet different (a little bit ironic, but still, could be fun...)
btw: it's okay to concentrate on the layout. why put in eye candy when you are not confident to have a nice layout set up?
|
On January 13 2011 23:42 Samro225am wrote:
btw: it's okay to concentrate on the layout. why put in eye candy when you are not confident to have a nice layout set up?
Nailed it.
People need to read the topic about doodads, textures, and eye candy.... I said "no beauty effects" until things were good with the layout.
sigh
By the way, compressing this map and making it smaller would ruin the entire thing. I would have to re-do it all, and that'll take so long 
|
On January 14 2011 03:08 IronManSC wrote:By the way, compressing this map and making it smaller would ruin the entire thing. I would have to re-do it all, and that'll take so long
take your time to compress it. changing it migh ruin your initial layout, but not your idea. you want to have a good layout? then take your time to adjust things. not taking the time needed means your map is pretty much ruined from the start 
|
|
|
On January 14 2011 03:08 IronManSC wrote:By the way, compressing this map and making it smaller would ruin the entire thing. I would have to re-do it all, and that'll take so long
Good maps take a long time to be created. Cause it's only after playing multiple games on it when most flaws in the map will be revealed. I really think this map should be made smaller. People are asking for bigger maps because of Blizzard's tendency to create smaller maps. But most mappers today are making the maps too big, this will make games boring, zero out the chance for a player to be aggressive early in the game and will make battles less decisive. There's a golden path in between that we must walk, just as SC1 mappers once did in order to be succesful.
Anyway, there's no limit of time to creating a good map. I often feel satisfied with a lay-out and have it textured only to hate some parts of the map after.
|
I will update the first post of this thread when I see what I can do.
|
^^ well said EffectS. i think moving the main base over where the natural is and making the third base, (the one with the rocks,) the new natural. that will shorten the rush distance and give more options to the player when expanding rather than just going a linear path.
|
i'm really curious to see if they plan to say more than "this trend seems good"
...
just because they want cool maps and too much "guidelines" (per month or not) might impair creativity
+1 "beauty effects" = can't wait, will check back when you post "graphics update"
i agree that if the layout is unsatisfying = never any graphics will make up for it
i meant that i'd love it if mapmakers did update "thoughts" on what they will be doing
on that front "thinking of a LT type" or other
(showcasing detail graphics work in progress pictures would be awesome teasing)
|
Okay guys, Original post updated with the changed version of the map.
|
The islands are too close to the mains, it is too easy for a Terran to fast expand there, or even lift their original CC.
Other than that, the second version is a much better improvement from the first, and I look forward to seeing it textured! 
|
Thank you!
What just came to mind is I could connect those islands to the main, and block them with destructible rocks so they aren't so "easily taken." Similar to delta quadrant.
|
On January 14 2011 06:43 IronManSC wrote:
Thank you!
What just came to mind is I could connect those islands to the main, and block them with destructible rocks so they aren't so "easily taken." Similar to delta quadrant.
That is a good solution, but if you do that, the natural choke is going to have to be widened to make if more difficult to defend.
|
United States10151 Posts
The other version seems better now... the islands can get sieged by tanks. also, instead of the random xelnaga's put one in the middle and get rid of the other ones. but good work in "attempting" to improve. the gols are fine now, the 3rd is better too.
|
|
|
Excuse my bump, but map images and fixes are updated in the OP.
|
Defending gold + entrance to your natural from gold highground could be a bit too easy, Meaby switch the entrance to high ground to the other side, it would also make drops more powerful to it. Also I'm not really sure I agree with XN tower in the high ground.
|
@Mammel
Noted. Thanks for the feedback.
I am currently working on the textures right now. OMG it looks so beautiful so far xD
|
GRAPHICS UPDATED!
The map is officially finished! Any more comments or feedback is appreciated! Thanks to all those that contributed.
|
After several tests, version 2.0 is now released and the original post is updated with a before and after picture showing the recent changes.
It was a terran-favored map because of high ground and narrow chokes, so these changes were fixed to give zerg a more balanced advantage vs any race.
The map is updated to 2.0, any comments or feedback is greatly appreciated!
|
Ewww rocks in back exspansion : (
|
Just for spectator value, you should make it so that the cliff that overlooks the in base expansion touches the middle so that cliffwalkers can use it for harassment. That would be cool.
I like the XWT placement in 2.0, nice job.
|
How big is Shakuras? That map seems to be the sweet spot for me at least. Or Desert Oasis.
|
Looks a lot better than when it started! The three bases might be too easy to defend, but thats not my primary concern-
I think your main issue is space layout. It looks like Zerg would have a very hard time getting full surrounds anywhere except the outside natural, especially around the 3rds and center. Because of small spaces and the free backdoor expo, games are going to become turtle-friendly. I suggest reworking the center to allow more room, which could mean remaking the map again...
If so, I suggest moving the mains into the corners more. Keep the natural and backdoor nat the same, but position them to fit into map bounds (and removing wasted space). This will give you room to adequately open up the center.
Nice job overall though!
|
Version 3.0 is out!
Monitor I took your details and implemented them, and it paid off quite well. Thanks to everyone else who contributed thus far and for those who tested it! There has been some incredibly great macro games on this map, but 3.0 has yet to be tried!
More input and feedback is greatly appreciated!
|
Version 3.3 is updated. Small changes were made due to many test runs done by diamond and master players.
1) The cliffs by the rock naturals were widened to allow for more mobility on them.
2) A bug was fixed in each main base where the second geyser would not work. This has been fixed.
3) The high ground in the center was extended slightly to allow for more fortified positioning. In addition, the size of the center area was reduced slightly.
4) Pathing bugs fixed around the trees in various places.
5) Referee mode was taken out, due to it randomly jumping around from player to player in the lobby (and being unable to switch to spectator as well). Therefore all watchers and observers are spectators now.
***MAP AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD: SEE ORIGINAL POST***
|
I played 4 games and watched about 8 on this map and it appears very balanced for all races. The battles were very exciting, 90% of the time taking place just around the Natural. The watchtowers make for a tricky obstacle when expanding to the middle. I really hope this map gets some spotlight as its creator, IronMan is very committed to making it the best possible. Looking forward to more games on this map, and maybe I'll win one!
|
I've played about 20~ games on this map so far, and its been quite fun from the action POV. Lots of tiny battles and strategic play due to the maplayout. 1 thing I noticed is that both terran and zerg can get their gold base, which naturally blocks the back base allowing 4 easy expansions that can be both defended by either tanks or banelings. Once terran or zerg has enough tanks or banelings, then it becomes a downhill slope trying to break them. So other than the expansions being soo close to each other, this map has been great!
Also, I forgot to mention that its really enjoyable to look at as well
|
Thanks =)
A replay of a TvZ (diamond vs master) game has been added to the original post to give you all a feel of what the map is like!
|
Just wanted to give an update on the status of this map:
-Over 50 test runs played. Over 37 were Diamond and/or master matches.
-No constructive feedback was given.
The map still stands as is!
Hope others can try it out =)
|
Looks really good man, keep up the good work.
I'll have to have a couple of matches on this sometime this weekend with some friends. I'll be sure to check out that replay too!
Thumbs up
|
I love the way how you worked out the middle, the far away 4th expos, and the gold really much! I was thinking about making a map myself, with the concept of having gold near the middle, yet defendable and not neccesarily needing map control to be able to take it. And the entire design of the whole map I just love, it's gonna be hard for me to make a map with the same concepts but not to look too much like this one as this one really nails it in my opinion.
|
Thanks!
I have a question for you guys out there, and for those who've been playing my map and supporting it so far... Do you think the in-base naturals (with rocks) should have a ramp connecting from the wall to the mainland to allow for better strategic harassing that is not limited to drops only? As of right now, warp-ins, blink stalkers, and drops are the only thing that can abuse the wall at the in-base natural. Adding a ramp can allow for more options.
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd199/GameWorlds/belshirewalkway303.jpg
Here is why this actually might be a good idea:
If you remember on delta quadrant, there was a in-base 3rd natural blocked off by rocks with a wall to protect it. The problem with this is once people put AA around the base, the base is virtually impossible to take over unless you had some mad air units to burst through it all. Besides that, you didn't want to waste your time with it because it was so heavily defended.
If I add a ramp from the mainland to the wall on the in-base natural, this will give players a better chance to inflict some damage on a base that is safe from the beginning (it is a gauranteed personal money base that is only threatened by medivac drops and muta right now).
|
Just saw ur map the first time, I think the ramp to the inbase natural is a good idea. This map really screamed FEAR THE REAPER MAN.
On side note: I just guess ur on NA server?
|
lol<3
Yes I am on the NA server
|
|
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
You really need to adulate yourself?
|
On January 21 2011 08:10 dezi wrote:
You really need to adulate yourself?
No. A lot of players tend to look at the map overview and conclude it with very basic things about the layout or bases. Having high level players test it many times and then comment about it only gives better feedback to the community about what kind of map this is and what stands out the most about it rather than looking at it with a naked eye.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I just don't think such quotes are needed. They are fine for yourself if they give feedback on changes but people should judge on map on their own. I don't want to read how i should feel about the map.
|
Ok, you're right... Edited. Just thought it might be a little useful in terms of what the focus points were.
|
I can't really play too much, but I would say that the natural cliff feels a bit odd, artificially there to add drop potential. I would join that raised area across the gap to the main section of the map. That allows reapers and collossi to abuse the high ground as well as drop play and would feel a bit more like natural terrain IMO
|
|
|
|
|
Map is updated in the original post. Several changes were made!
|
I just want to say that i love how you did a double nat xpac on this map. On one side you can fast expand without having any rocks to kill, but it is more open to being surrounded, or flanked. On the other side, it's closed of with rocks, with a nice tight choke, but you need to destroy the rocks first, which could cost you time on getting your xpac up.
Creating decisions through map making - Bravo!
|
Any reason you put a full-on destructible back door on the mains as opposed to just a ramp up to a cliff overlooking it? Whenever I see backdoors leading into mains it makes me
|
On January 13 2011 19:18 EunByuL wrote:
This map is way too big for a 2-player map. That's why you have a lot of unused terrain. I think if you tighten the map up a bit more to 108x108, you'll be able to get all your stuff closer together, have less unused terrain and will have a better map eventually.
From that point, your texturing needs more work... alot more.
Open space != bad. Do we really want to be fighting in cramp hallways?
|
I don't like the backdoor to the inbase-natural, you can't defend it. The thing with destructable rocks is that they need to be defendable. Not like Blistering Sands where you have to run for 10 minutes (exaturation!) to be able to defend it from ranged attackers.
An other thing is the natural which can't be walled off, maybe this is just a personal preference I have but I always like chokes towards the natural that can be walled off. Perhaps make the main entrance to the natural a little smaller and place destructable rocks at the secondary entrace? (Meh, don't listen to me!)
|
I like it. The backdoor is far enough away from the front door so that you cant get double pressured unless they split their army. It has some of the good jungle basin and blistering sands elements with a structure thats a little more like caverns. Thumbs up, here.
|
i like this map, if you are debating balancing the easy 3rd with rocks, simply add a cliff like Delta Quadrant has at it's inside rock expansion.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
The backdoor is actually are very bad change.
|
Sorry guys, that picture was from a day or 2 ago. I worked on it yesterday and this morning. The OP is updated with the finalized version of the map (tweaks may still be under way), but here is a post I made about it on the bnet forums in the thread about this map.
This post from the SC2 Battle.net forum that I made in regards to the in-base natural and why it is positioned the way it is:
"Okay, here is the deal about the in-base natural expansion. There are ultimately two options to finalize it.
IF I LEAVE THE ROCKS AT THE RAMP AND NARROW CHOKE
The base is open. It denies a early 3-base expansion, but while it still gives you a 3rd base eventually, it still acknowledges the threats that can happen to it, and still gives you a temporary wall-off to be temporarily safer in the meantime.
The problem: Terran lift-off proxy can become popular in this scenario (such as Shakuras Plateau in the back expansions). I do not think this would happen every time though. Either way if this were to happen, there is still a threat to it.
IF I TAKE THE NARROW CHOKE ROCKS OUT
The base is open, and it allows for a 3rd expansion easy. It still gives Terran and Protoss a valuable choke point that can be easily defended as well, just no rocks there this time.
The problem: If this were to happen, the map becomes jungle basin and blistering sands, with only one set of rocks to get into your main. This is not something that the community wants.
I also can't put rocks blocking the minerals. That would make no sense and there would be too many rocks.
The only solution is to leave the rocks as they are. Shakuras Plateau is one of the top favorites by starcraft players, and even terran players could still proxy if they wanted to in the blocked off expansions. The way this map is right now is the best way to leave it. It all comes down to how the players want to play, and I can't deny a player's choice.
EDIT: *Here's why it is fine the way it is. A terran's primary early game proxy is banshee rushing. If he were to fly a starport in the natural and proxy banshees, we have to look at how zerg and protoss are already functioning by that time. Protoss observers are cheaper, so every protoss player is getting more of them at a much faster (and earlier) rate. Spotting starports shouldn't be an issue, and protoss would already have at least 1 or 2 by the time a banshee were to invade the protoss base, making banshees not as affective. Zerg on the other hand tends to send their first overlord over to that base to keep an eye on it. If placed properly, they'll spot that starport flying down there. Any terran proxy that involves lifting off and hiding their tech is going to have a risk involved of being caught.*"
Reference: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1869414754?page=11
|
This is one of the best custom maps for competitive play I've seen. Great work!
|
|
|
I like the map a lot ^^
IronMan, check your PM box plz
|
I am wondering how to publish it to EU servers? Can someone tell me how?
Also, version 4.2 will be the last release on saturday (jan 29th), so stay tuned for more fixes.
|
I don't know how to publish it on EU servers, sorry =(.
Good luck in the map contest though, I think it looks great =).
|
IMHO you should move the rocks blocking off the way to the third to block placement of the actural natural. Wouldn't really change much, except prevent terrans from getting an earlier third.
(sorry if this was disccused before)
OHSHIT u gave reasons for it.
Well I think that you should make the distance from the nat to the backdoor shorter. I think that it would allow for to much abuse in the early game.
|
On January 26 2011 07:28 IronManSC wrote:
I am wondering how to publish it to EU servers? Can someone tell me how?
2 ways: buy an EU account or get some you trust on EU to publish it for you.
|
I will get it up on EU in a short amount of time. Right now, the final version (4.2) is out. OP is updated, as well as the download for NA and replay!
EDIT: I cant seem to get EU to work.
|
No news about EU?
|
I can't figure it out brah
|
Just get someone to upload it for you?
|
yep. I could do it but won't without your permission obviously
|
How can I be able to let u? This is my first real map so I would need to know how to transfer it to you.
|
On February 04 2011 04:30 IronManSC wrote:
How can I be able to let u? This is my first real map so I would need to know how to transfer it to you.
You need to send them (email, fileshare, etc) the .sc2map file which they then open in the editor and publish the same way you did, only to the EU (or other) region.
Note, I've had issues when sending maps where the details in the "Map Info" section don't carry over properly, so make sure to include them in the email and have the other person write them in themselves if necessary.
|
Alright. I need a volunteer who can publish it to EU without screwing me over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd199/GameWorlds/bwv422.jpg)
