On October 12 2011 22:36 Barrin wrote: 30-45 in-game seconds is a good place to be at for natural choke <-> natural choke distance + Show Spoiler +
not 100% on rush distances tbh
Your numbers seem wrong.
I used your mesuring methods and I got these resoults: Bardiche with rocks still on 27 seconds Emerald jungle close spot 27 seconds Emerald jungle cross spot 30 second
And then the map everyone and their pet on this subforum complains is too big tal darim altar close position 33seconds tal darim altar cross position 43seconds
I'd be glad to expand this to include more relevant information for mapmakers. I know a lot of it isn't very useful when actually creating a map. More numbers would help.
I really hope the judges of the TL contest don't rely on the openness value provided by SC2 mapanalyzer. It doesn't take into consideration unpathable doodads but considers the pathing layer (the red map that tells if you can walk/drop/climb). The way mappers tweak the pathing can completely mess with the openness values sc2 mapanalyzer calculates.
For example on my map I have an open center with a few small unpathable doodads as obstacles. If I let sc2 mapanalyzer calculate the openness it gives 4.32 which is up the limits you gave for reference. But now if if use the layer brush to tell sc2map analyzer theses doodads are unpathable it calculates an openness of 3.66 which is barely in the lower limit (you said the limits were 3.58-4.22 and 3.8-4.0 is great). So I guess my map's openness should be somewhere in between.
Another example that messes with this figure is how mappers unpath cliffs. Mappers should use the pathing brush to make sure reapers can't climb up cliffs or get stuck up there, or that colossus can't get up either. But most mappers just put unpathable doodads. Yesterday Hero vs White-Ra in NASL s2 w5d1 on the map Crevasse, White-ra got a colossus stuck inside doodads in the middle of the battle and lost (that bug revealed the pathing layer wasn't painted on Crevasse). Sometimes Blizzard doesn't fix cliffs with the pathing layer either. If you don't paint the doodads out, sc2mapanalyzer thinks your unwalkable cliff is an open space. Some mappers paint the pathing layer extensively, some mappers don't. In the end sc2mapanalyzer will give a wide range of openness values.
I'm a bit angry now I discovered that and saw your openness reference values, because I sent my mapanalyzer picture for the TL contest with an openness of 4.32 which is way out of your references. I hope I don't get dismissed because sc2mapanalyzer doesn't properly calculates the openness.
On October 14 2011 01:37 chuky500 wrote: I really hope the judges of the TL contest don't rely on the openness value provided by SC2 mapanalyzer. It doesn't take into consideration unpathable doodads but considers the pathing layer (the red map that tells if you can walk/drop/climb). The way mappers tweak the pathing can completely mess with the openness values sc2 mapanalyzer calculates.
For example on my map I have an open center with a few small unpathable doodads as obstacles. If I let sc2 mapanalyzer calculate the openness it gives 4.32 which is up the limits you gave for reference. But now if if use the layer brush to tell sc2map analyzer theses doodads are unpathable it calculates an openness of 3.66 which is barely in the lower limit (you said the limits were 3.58-4.22 and 3.8-4.0 is great). So I guess my map's openness should be somewhere in between.
Another example that messes with this figure is how mappers unpath cliffs. Mappers should use the pathing brush to make sure reapers can't climb up cliffs or get stuck up there, or that colossus can't get up either. But most mappers just put unpathable doodads. Yesterday Hero vs White-Ra in NASL s2 w5d1 on the map Crevasse, White-ra got a colossus stuck inside doodads in the middle of the battle and lost (that bug revealed the pathing layer wasn't painted on Crevasse). Sometimes Blizzard doesn't fix cliffs with the pathing layer either. If you don't paint the doodads out, sc2mapanalyzer thinks your unwalkable cliff is an open space. Some mappers paint the pathing layer extensively, some mappers don't. In the end sc2mapanalyzer will give a wide range of openness values.
I'm a bit angry now I discovered that and saw your openness reference values, because I sent my mapanalyzer picture for the TL contest with an openness of 4.32 which is way out of your references. I hope I don't get dismissed because sc2mapanalyzer doesn't properly calculates the openness.
Not to worry, none of the judging is based on the openness of the analyzer.
I updated the OP a bit. Not that anybody needs to read it though, because almost all of the maps are following the guidelines.
Zerg players like to have wide open space. This is because their units are slower and have shorter range
You might want to correct this
For Chuky, if you still want to read this after all this time, just use the unpathable brush of the editor : the analyser will recognize it and you will avoid small chipsets of pathable space that stray blinkstalkers could get stuck in, or dropships could abuse.
I want to disagree about the main size. I think 25-30 is too small. For example from my own experience and from what I heard from several pros Entombed Valley has too small of a main to build stuff in, at it's 27 CCs. Custom tournament maps have 30+, for example Cloud Kingdom has 36, Tal'Darim has 39 (source). I think 30+ is way more reasonable.
On February 22 2012 22:41 Barrin wrote: btw I have indeed strayed to 30+
but I still think 25-30 is fine for small maps. You mentioned 3 of the heaviest macro maps (I personally consider entombed the heaviest macro map right now).
EPT
