EPT[M] (4) Marshlands - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Deekin[
Serbia1713 Posts
| ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
 ).I think it plays very well. I had problem getting into terran's main as ground army zerg, but no problem at all with the nat. Eventually I assaulted the ramp with ultras, but just dropping with overlords had been better. Anyways, my only concern is that the gameplay is perhaps too simple, to stand out, although the viduals stands out (and I'm no pro player or anything, just a another mapmaker, so don't listen to me)... | ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
On February 04 2011 01:04 Meltage wrote: Just wanted to say that I played this some with friends and I really like the setting (hade ingen aning om att granarna brinner när man nukar någons nat! ).I think it plays very well. I had problem getting into terran's main as ground army zerg, but no problem at all with the nat. Eventually I assaulted the ramp with ultras, but just dropping with overlords had been better. Anyways, my only concern is that the gameplay is perhaps too simple, to stand out, although the viduals stands out (and I'm no pro player or anything, just a another mapmaker, so don't listen to me)... Thanks for the praise! About the problems getting into the terran main with a Zerg ground army, it is quite hard already if they bunker up and so on, but did you try the natural backdoor? (might not have made a difference, depends on where your opponent placed his defensive lines). And to explain a bit about the layout, I had a more complex layout when I started with this map, but I scrapped some ideas because it just resulted in something either not aesthetically pleasing or it just became too many chokes and paths, which made it big and complex (big maps have some problems with balance, usually, will be interesting to see the new maps in GSTL as they are quite large). If I make the map too original, then it just won't be good as players will be confused by its strange layout or some other strange ideas. So what I did was to try and make a solid layout which allowed for long macro games independent of starting positions. If this makes the map simple, then I hope it doesn't detract from the entertainment value of the map. It does have some LoS blockers placed in some interesting positions, so I hope they have played some part in your enjoyment of this map  PS. Trees also burn when you manage to splash them with siege tanks, not only nukes, if I remember correctly. On February 02 2011 23:42 dezi wrote: Walling a double wide ramp on close position against zerg gonna be i nightmare. Don't forget the other races when suggesting a change. My sentiments exactly! | ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
It was the actual main I was talking about. But yeah, I supose the main ramp has to be small. I tried to get some nydus up within his main but had problem protecting those as he spotted them with no problem at all. Perhaps extending the main platform some into the area between the adjacent mains? That way, the air-only area could be invaded by anti-air ground AND it coudl be used for drops/nyduses. Update: I didn't give those LoS much thought or use, except for those around the watchtower. I liked the watchtover platforms. In another game, playing prot, I couldn't place a pylon by the watchtower, which I supose i fair, but I coudl place right at the bottom of the ramp, blocking bigger units to reach the watch tower. That's a feature rather than a flaw, I think. | ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
I investigated this problem, and now I think I have a solution: Make 1v1 mode default. I made the 2v2 mode have restrictions on ally placements, because I figured someone would probably want to play it in a 2v2. Apparently 2v2 has been made the default mode for 4 spawn maps a few patches ago. And they removed the feature to set the 1v1 mode as default play mode. So I've now removed all specific team rules, which means you can spawn sandwiched between to enemies in 2v2 play, but so be it. I don't want only-cross spawning on this map, it wasn't intended at all. PS. Also updated the Analyzer image with an image containing LoS blockers. EDIT: PPS: Added MotM #2 score to the OP! | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
| ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
On February 10 2011 05:35 Antares777 wrote: Congrats on MotM #2! On February 10 2011 04:06 dezi wrote: Gratz man, but it was clear that this map has to be in the top 5 Thanks! It took some time before I came up with the layout of the map, and a few tries too before it became something decent. So I think MotM #2 confirms this: I'm finally happy with my map! PS. I will probably not participate in MotM #3 with a map, as I have exams. If I come up with a good 3 player layout, then I'll go for number 4! | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
| ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
| ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
First I try to get a general idea when it comes to the map. Marshlands had a bit of planning and a single attempt at drawing the map on paper, which didn't result in a good layout, as I drew it as a chasm through the middle of the map with entrances to it and the side entrances blocked by rocks (not too dissimilar, but it is still a long way from the final Marshlands). Beneath the Ice (which also has 45 degree rotation, but with rotational symmetry) was not something I had many ideas for, I just started drawing cliffs in the editor and came up with something acceptable. When I start with a map I don't really care about the tileset, and I usually draw one of the mains with cliffs. I always start with the mains and naturals — for some reason I think it is easier to get a scale. Also, I never start texturing until I'm done with the cliffs, as if I have to resize the map, the textures will be offset a bit and mess everything up. I do however use the texture fill tool to colour the layers so it is easier to see which part of the map is on which cliff level. I may also start to mess with the contents of the tileset, like contained textures and cliffs and lighting while I draw the main. This is an ongoing process until I think I've got the textures I want. So, onto How I create the 45 degree symmetry: After I have made one "corner" (not the real corner of the map, a corner of the imagined 45 degree rotated rectangle of the map) of the map and if I'm happy with them (here is usually where you should think about starting to change stuff, because it will be more of a pain later on if you change your mind) I will start copy and paste. So I select the main, including everything which should be copied. In this step it is very common to select corners (see the image below), but don't worry, you will fix them later on. Then I paste, and now you have the rectangle for placing the stuff. If this was a common map without pi/4 rotation, you'd just do flip vertical or flip horizontal in the edit menu. But because of the pi/4 rotation we have to add a rotation to the whole thing. For copying bottom to left: flip vertical -> 90 CCW bottom to right: flip vertical -> 90 CW the rest goes through a similar scheme Then you paste it into your map and if it does not look good, revert and try and try again until you have the parts lined up perfectly (for me it takes maybe, 10-15 tries or something). I'd recommend using the grid tool and also the building placement grid (grid for pasting, and build grid to count distances and see so they line up). After you have made the first copy and paste, you now have to fix the overlapping area. I recommend pasting the original cliff over the area you copied it from, to make that part whole, and then focus on repairing the "damage" on the pasted variant. + Show Spoiler [Fist copy and paste] + Managed to find this image in my map analyzer directory ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e7Lxq.jpg) In this case I didn't have to do much copy and paste, later on, when I made modifications to the main I did have to copy so they overlappedNow you have to fill the area in between the copied parts of the map. This is something I do freehand with the help of the grid and building grid. Sometimes I realize that the distance is not correct (so cliffs doesn't mesh right), then I have to redo the copying, flip and rotation. Here I usually run the map analyzer, I run it quite often to check positional balance. + Show Spoiler [Lower left part of marshlands alpha] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JsgmK.jpg) So now we have made the lower left part of the map (if we're looking at marshlands). Now we have to copy and paste for a second time: Select the area containing both mains and do a 180 degrees rotation on the copied terrain (this works because of the reflection symmetry). Paste it and use the grid as a guide, you want to paste one of the corners along the diagonal running through the area you copied. (I usually also select with one corner in an intersection of the grid and the diagonal in this case, as it will be a lot easier to paste.). Note: You might have to resize the map area many times, don't worry, you will shrink it when you're done. Make a few attempts and see if you think it looks good, try with making a small gap and a large gap. This to see how it will affect your map and if you need more space. Now you start filling in the stuff in between, here you can do one side and then copy and paste with 180 rotation. + Show Spoiler [Marshlands Alpha] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M0xMX.jpg) Finally you have to go through everything and see that it is symmetrical, use the map analyzer (and you always need to add/have starting positions to make it parse the map properly). So now we're done with the layout, here is where I start texturing the stuff and play with different doodads, tilesets etc. That is what I can say about 45 degree rotation layouts in general. Someone else might have more insight into it as this was only my second map with 45 degree rotation. | ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
Changes: - Reduced playable map size to 160x160 The reasons for this change is that people felt that the minerals of the mains were hard to protect, even with turrets. So by reducing the playable area I remove some maneuvering room behind the mains, forcing drops to come from an angle instead of from right behind the mineral line. PS. Sorry for the wall of text above | ||
|
Meltage
Germany613 Posts
You shoudl post this in a new thread as a tutorial.. perhaps on sc2mapster.com ? THey have a forum for tutorials, but not a lot about terraining. Actually I'd like to see it discussed here on TL as well, to see if there are other methodes.Perhaps I should make an op myself, if I'm allowed to quote your entire guide? | ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
Narrowing of the natural ramp: As a test I tried to see what was required to make it easier to wall of in a fast expand way, or as a turtling terran (with eg. 3 barracks). All I needed to add were a few doodads which cover up a bit of the top of the ramp, making it small enough to wall with 3 3x3 buildings. The large ramp still allows the attacker to move up within sight range with a lot of units, but it is easier to prevent them from further moving into the natural. Example of a Forge-Fast-Expand wall, notice the trees to the right: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vhx7c.jpg) What do you think of this change? Is it something I should implement? Changes to the backdoor rocks Not sure what I should do here, first thing that occurred to me was to narrow the ramp itself, but that was quickly discarded as it would be almost impossible to move your army to protect your third (if you take the one between the rocks). Then I thought about narrowing the highground just after the rocks, but I realized it was still narrow, making it somewhat easy to block with force-fields, spine-crawlers or bunkers. So on this point I'm not sure what to do, the reason for this change would be to make the natural easier to defend, but I'm not sure it is really needed, or possible without ruining the possibility to expand to the 3rd between the rocks. Map Size I will probably not change the map size or rework the map into a smaller one. The rush distances are okay I think, like Metalopolis on mid-length positions if you exclude cross positions. Cross positions are a bit shorter than Scrap Station, but the natural-natural distance is a lot shorter. Playable map size has already been lowered to 160x160 because of previously mentioned air harass, I might decrease this further if it is necessary, but I don't think so currently. If you have any more suggestions, please post them here! PS. Thank you for voting in the MotM thread, I appreciate it! (and keep voting, preferably for Marshlands )PPS. Updated the OP with a link to a HIgh-Res Top-down view of the map, might be useful for some people. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
[edit] Here's a picture of an example walloff. You would actually have more options if there was better pylon space behind the 1st geyser / mineral patches. ![[image loading]](http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2342/marshlandswalloff.jpg) | ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
On February 26 2011 00:53 EatThePath wrote: I don't think 3 building walloff needs to be standard for the natural on all maps ever. The fact that the "good" ladder maps mostly have open naturals indicates that this is in fact a luxury. Marshlands is perfect for an open natural because the distances are medium-far. The back door is only really dangerous in tower-share positions, and even then they would have to take down their own rocks to make it a quick route. Moreover, we're talking about the natural, which shouldn't be a "free" base unless the map was designed that way. I think the openness isn't really that much, and it's a good fit for the map in general. Please don't change anything unless you want to. :D [edit] Here's a picture of an example walloff. You would actually have more options if there was better pylon space behind the 1st geyser / mineral patches. You make a good case. What changes would you want to make to allow a better pylon placement? | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
Rearrange the 4-squares-away mineral patch + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4530/marshwalladjust1.jpg) Indent the corner of the cliff + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/8233/marshwalladjust2.jpg) These are my personal gripes about the walling options, but I don't think they're objectively most important, and I'm not sure what is. However, I do feel strongly that walling options at the natural are one of the things that gives a map its character, and the mini-puzzle of figuring out how to wall is an important part of how play develops on a map. (This is really fun to watch as pros figure out the new maps in BW.) So I really think it's okay as is. | ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
After some thought, I got an idea; why not include an in-base natural? Here are some WIP images: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZOfUN.jpg) Overview The in-base natural is on middle-ground and has a double-wide ramp to it. The number of minerals are 6 and 1 high-yield gas, like on Crevasse. Do you think this is a step in the right direction? | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
| ||
